Cyclone   10 #37 Posted April 25, 2016 some of it came from bhs, either way 1.2 billion is a lot of money, taking 10% less say would make no appreciable difference to anyone's life and if that 10% had been pumped into BHS then maybe it would have survived.  So you're saying that the owner should have left profit in the business, so that the profit could later be frittered away when the business was no longer making a profit, and that this would somehow be a solution to the business consistently making a loss in the future (which is now, and the business is consistently making a loss)... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
andyofborg   11 #38 Posted April 25, 2016 So you're saying that the owner should have left profit in the business, so that the profit could later be frittered away when the business was no longer making a profit, and that this would somehow be a solution to the business consistently making a loss in the future (which is now, and the business is consistently making a loss)...  had that money been invested in the business then maybe it wouldn't have stopped making a profit Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
999tigger   10 #39 Posted April 25, 2016 some of it came from bhs, either way 1.2 billion is a lot of money, taking 10% less say would make no appreciable difference to anyone's life and if that 10% had been pumped into BHS then maybe it would have survived.  How much of it came from BHS and how much from other businesses like TOP SHOP?  He's a businessman, he wouldnt have turned down moneymaking opportunities. Its got a massive hole in its pension pot of over £500m and is £1.3 billion in debt. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Berberis   10 #40 Posted April 25, 2016 Apparently they can go back to Philip Green for a sizable contribution to the pension deficit he ran up. I hope they do. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
andyofborg   11 #41 Posted April 25, 2016 How much of it came from BHS and how much from other businesses like TOP SHOP?  dunno  He's a businessman, he wouldnt have turned down moneymaking opportunities. Its got a massive hole in its pension pot of over £500m and is £1.3 billion in debt.  he's a parasite who has used his wife and monaco's tax laws to evade paying taxes in the uk while at the same time destroying the livelihoods of 11,000 people and 20,000 pensioners. the consequences of which will be picked up by taxpayers like me. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Gamston   10 #42 Posted April 25, 2016 Typical SF sort of logic. You shoul be used to it by now.  It's common sense logic.  Green sells BHS for £1 to a group with little retail experience or track record in rescuing struggling companies. A year later BHS goes into administration with a £571m deficit in the pension fund. It's ironic that eleven thousand BHS staff are likely to lose their jobs with uncertainty about their pensions, while Green can enjoy his retirement on his brand new yacht, which is why it has been mentioned in the media.  Anyone with an ounce of common sense can smell a rat, but if common sense was made out of gunpowder, you wouldn't have enough to blow your hat off.  Didn't Robert Maxwell own a yacht ? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #43 Posted April 25, 2016 had that money been invested in the business then maybe it wouldn't have stopped making a profit  You can't demand or expect that from an owner, there is no obligation to leave money in a business. The entire point of a business existing is to generate money for the owners, they have to make strategic decisions about whether to reinvest profit into the business, but that would be purely on the expectation of making more money in the future. It's not a charity, it's an investment he made in order to increase his money. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
andyofborg   11 #44 Posted April 25, 2016 Didn't Robert Maxwell own a yacht ?  at least he did the decent thing Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #45 Posted April 25, 2016 dunno   he's a parasite who has used his wife and monaco's tax laws to evade paying taxes in the uk while at the same time destroying the livelihoods of 11,000 people and 20,000 pensioners. the consequences of which will be picked up by taxpayers like me.  Evade UK tax, by NOT LIVING HERE... Yeah, like the majority of the rest of the population of the world! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
andyofborg   11 #46 Posted April 25, 2016 The entire point of a business existing is to generate money for the owners,  is it?  then you would no doubt agree with the removal of all workers rights, abolition of the minimum and national living wage and the removal of any sort of requirement for a business owner to provide a safe working environment and removal of any consequence if they dont.  ---------- Post added 25-04-2016 at 15:39 ----------  Evade UK tax, by NOT LIVING HERE... Yeah, like the majority of the rest of the population of the world!  the majority of the rest of the world dont own things in the uk Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Cyclone   10 #47 Posted April 25, 2016 2000 - Philip Green bought BHS from Storehouse Plc in May 2000 for £200 million.  2005 - Sir Philip’s wife Tina Green, who resides in Monaco, receives a £1.2bn dividend.  2015 - Sir Philip sells BHS for £1 to Retail Acquisitions  Big gap between that dividend and the sale for £1... So if it was all a master plan to extract value from the business and cause it to fail (after investing large amounts of time and money into it) then it was definitely playing the long game wasn't it!  Oh, and the 8 million loan is put into perspective by the fact that it needed 60 to 100 million immediately to keep running...  ---------- Post added 25-04-2016 at 15:42 ----------  is it? Yes.  then you would no doubt agree with the removal of all workers rights, abolition of the minimum and national living wage and the removal of any sort of requirement for a business owner to provide a safe working environment and removal of any consequence if they dont. No, because from the other side it's vitally important that businesses are forced to act with something like a social conscience. The fact is that the law is required to do that, because individuals do not invest in order to see themselves lose money trying to 'do the right thing' when that 'right thing' means continuing to lose money.  the majority of the rest of the world dont own things in the uk Many many people do. And you know what, they all pay money where they are resident. Not that surprising really, how else do you imagine it could work? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
andyofborg   11 #48 Posted April 25, 2016 Big gap between that dividend and the sale for £1... So if it was all a master plan to extract value from the business and cause it to fail (after investing large amounts of time and money into it) then it was definitely playing the long game wasn't it!  i've never said that the plan was to cause the business to fail  No, because from the other side it's vitally important that businesses are forced to act with something like a social conscience.  but that limits the ability of the business to generate money for it's owners which is what you claim is the only purpose of a business.  as far as tax realating to profits goes then it should be paid in the country where said profit is earned. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
