taxman 12 #13 Posted January 8, 2020 If he really want's to pee suppliers off he could start a cup cake company in Sheffield Ahh cup cakes..the thing that never was, but pretended to be the best thing since sliced eel sushi. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
El Cid 212 #14 Posted January 8, 2020 2 hours ago, melthebell said: im not a businessman BUT.........i believe each business is seperate? they have their own "books" so if the chain goes down, its that income strain that goes down, his other incomes are different? and cant be used to bail out the chain? The Sun, most of the media, likes to devide and rule, the facts dont matter. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Chez2 10 #15 Posted January 8, 2020 6 hours ago, iansheff said: Marvellous how Jamie Oliver reportedly worth £100m will avoid paying most of the £83m debt after his restaurant chain failed and he closed 22 of his restaurants. That leaves taxpayers and small businesses he owes money to, to foot part of the bill. He keeps his money while taxpayers and the businesses pay for his debts, then again this country seems to look after the rich so should expect it. In November he launched a new restaurant brand, 2 new restaurants in Bali and Bangkok, he has 70 restaurants outside the UK through franchise agreements. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10692864/jamie-oliver-avoid-paying-83m-debts-restaurants/ Thats how limited companies work ie limited liability. Perhaps you are thinking of sole traders? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Guest #16 Posted January 9, 2020 11 hours ago, Chez2 said: Thats how limited companies work ie limited liability. Perhaps you are thinking of sole traders? Look, this is Sheffield Forum where people don't like to get bogged down in actual facts Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
bendix 10 #17 Posted January 9, 2020 (edited) 17 hours ago, Chaddamp said: + no but Dld you check your spelling? and then realise if he lives beyond 428 week who'll still be paying I'm still struggling to understand how his £7000 a week pension equates to £3m a year, as you claimed. How did you calculate that? If the number of weeks in a year hasn't changed while I've noticed, perhaps you've discovered some new rules reshaping mathematics. If so, that's pure genius and we ought to know more about it. Edited January 9, 2020 by bendix Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Chaddamp 0 #18 Posted January 9, 2020 My miscalculation ,but in my answer I did point out that if he lives beyond 428 weeks we'll still be paying him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
andyofborg 11 #19 Posted January 10, 2020 On 08/01/2020 at 16:41, pattricia said: I feel sorry for the suppliers who he owes money to, as they will all be self employed and will lose out big time ! what makes you think they are all self-employed? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
andyofborg 11 #20 Posted January 10, 2020 On 08/01/2020 at 13:28, iansheff said: Marvellous how Jamie Oliver reportedly worth £100m will avoid paying most of the £83m debt after his restaurant chain failed and he closed 22 of his restaurants. That leaves taxpayers and small businesses he owes money to, to foot part of the bill. He keeps his money while taxpayers and the businesses pay for his debts, then again this country seems to look after the rich so should expect it. In November he launched a new restaurant brand, 2 new restaurants in Bali and Bangkok, he has 70 restaurants outside the UK through franchise agreements. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10692864/jamie-oliver-avoid-paying-83m-debts-restaurants/ the alternative would be that all shareholders were liable their for companies debts. if you have any sort of share based investments and one of those companies failed then it means the administrators would be coming to you for a contribution. the various limited liability corporate structures provide some mitigation to the risks of starting and running a business, without them very few people would take the risk of starting or investing in a new business and we would all be poorer as a result. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
Chez2 10 #21 Posted January 11, 2020 On 10/01/2020 at 09:28, andyofborg said: the alternative would be that all shareholders were liable their for companies debts. if you have any sort of share based investments and one of those companies failed then it means the administrators would be coming to you for a contribution. the various limited liability corporate structures provide some mitigation to the risks of starting and running a business, without them very few people would take the risk of starting or investing in a new business and we would all be poorer as a result. That isn't strictly correct the way you have written it. Self employed refers to being a sole trader. If someone owns and runs a Limited company they are not classed as self employed as they are an employee of their own company. They may well be the only shareholder of that company. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
El Cid 212 #22 Posted January 11, 2020 On 10/01/2020 at 09:28, andyofborg said: the various limited liability corporate structures provide some mitigation to the risks of starting and running a business, without them very few people would take the risk of starting or investing in a new business and we would all be poorer as a result. I dont know anything about limited companies, but it does seem to me that they are set up in a way to avoid responsibility ie the train companies that just walk away from their commitments. Or is that just the Government being soft? When the train companies were suffering from strike action, the Government were bailing them out. Now that the public have had enough of late trains, the train companies are shouldering the blame for the Government. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
andyofborg 11 #23 Posted January 11, 2020 3 hours ago, El Cid said: I dont know anything about limited companies, but it does seem to me that they are set up in a way to avoid responsibility ie the train companies that just walk away from their commitments. Or is that just the Government being soft? When the train companies were suffering from strike action, the Government were bailing them out. Now that the public have had enough of late trains, the train companies are shouldering the blame for the Government. i think we all know that the way rail privatisation was done in the 80s has resilted in a somewhat problematic situation and much of the blame falls on the government of the day and subsequent ones for failing to fix the mess. the govenrment could hold the failing companies to their contractual obligations but that wouldn't achieve anything except perhaps more chaos as they fell into administration/liquidation. the only realistic choices the governemnt faces is a bailout of some sort, adjust the contract or remove the franchise. I always found it very strange that the government is quite happy to let a foreign state owned entity run trains but not a uk state owned company. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
andyofborg 11 #24 Posted January 11, 2020 7 hours ago, Chez2 said: That isn't strictly correct the way you have written it. Self employed refers to being a sole trader. If someone owns and runs a Limited company they are not classed as self employed as they are an employee of their own company. They may well be the only shareholder of that company. not entirely sure i understand the point you are making, since i never mentioned self employed or sole trader in the comment you are replying to. A sole trader is, of course, personally liable for any debts his/her business runs up. while there are abuses of the limited liability entities, the benefits in encouraging people to start and invest in businesses outweighs the consequences of the abuse. by and large, directors and employees, are immune from being pursued for corporate debts though there are limits on that immunity should there have been misconduct or a personal gurantee has been effected. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...