Morgan's "maladministration"

[Styles]

http://tinyurl.com/3xysw2

 

Seems he got off very lightly. Dont know how he can say he didnt know his brother was involved with SSG when most people you meet on the street could have told him that!

 

Its all a bit fishy! :rol:

[Evil Inky]

[ Dont know how he can say he didnt know his brother was involved with SSG when most people you meet on the street could have told him that!

Given he appears to be lying about his knowledge of his brother's business interests, I wonder what else he is lying about ?

[HonestJohnDoe]

Isn't this a bit Reiterish? Will any of the new crop of councillors have the guts to do anything?

[islandhopper]

...Its all a bit fishy! :rol:

Fish starts stinking from the head ...

Common Dutch/German phrase ...

[tlady]

...Its all a bit fishy! :rol:

Fish starts stinking from the head ...

Common Dutch/German phrase ...

 

Thats assuming theres something in there in the first place

 

How much is Morgan Goodlad being paid for not doing his job properly!

[peeriebryan]

'I was not aware, nor was I made aware by any others (sic) parties involved in these initial discussions, of any fact or suggestion of my brother's involvement in this company'

Maybe it was an honest mistake, and Morgan was indeed one of the few folk in Shetland who didn't know his brother was top man at SGS

 

Maybe, "in being the council's chief executive [which] also put him in charge of the development trust" (Shetland News) he didn't think it necessary to know anything, or ask about, SGS and their business structure before the ££££££s were handed out

 

Then again....

[Fjool]

If it was an honest mistake, then he's grossly incompetent instead of being a liar. Either of which render him unsuitable.

[Styles]

I hear he may not be around much longer anyway. Best for the rats to leave the Smiryl Line, sorry I ment sinking ship to its fate.

[Guest Anonymous]

It really is quite uncanny how much contrroversial news regarding councillors is coming to light now that the elections are over.

Yes handin ower aa yun money to a company wha you didna even ken wha da chairman is !!? OH!! "boy , boy ! is dis dee brridder Goodlad ! so dis is whit du's dayin noo adays , christ it must ta been last week i passed d in da car , i thought du wis still wirkin on da essy cart " !!!!

I think he and all involved should stand down and get tammy gerrick , jimmy cole and boon fae cunningsburgh in for the top jobs.

And d should tak on yun David cator as an advisor,. wha's aye hobblin aroond stunned we his breeks pished ,the man has 20 years experience of being pished in third world countries so he may be able to give some interesting advice?

[humptygrumpty]

I find it incredible that he expects us to belive a blatant lie that he didnt know his brother was involved in the company..... Almost anyone in Shetland could have told you that !!!!!

[Caeser]

Just after SSG collapsed, the price of salmon rose significantly. I assume the company would have made significant profits, and everyone would be very happy.

 

Loans would have been repaid, jobs secured etc,etc

 

Was the collapse not just bad luck and poor timing?

[Ghostrider]

^^^ It would have had to have been one hell of a price rise which was maintained for an extended period to firstly cover the reported £13.5 Million company debt, before any profits could have been collected.

 

Bad luck and bad timing undoubtedly contributed to the size of the loss, but allowing the company to accrue such a state of indebtedness, and continuing to back to back it while it did, very much calls in to question the competence of those involved with the process at any and all levels.

[crofter]

^^^ It would have had to have been one hell of a price rise which was maintained for an extended period to firstly cover the reported £13.5 Million company debt, before any profits could have been collected.

 

 

The price doubled. Believe Hjaltland recently reported profits of 11 million from a similar tonnage to SSG.

[Ghostrider]

^^^ Perhaps, but in excess of 3 years have passed since SSG went belly up, a price rise of any amount wasn't guaranteed. It could as equally be said that many others didn't share SSG's fate due to good luck and good timing of that price increase, as it could be said SSG were unlucky and suffered from bad timing. Business is always a gamble, a calculated risk, whether the realistically expectable future earning potential of SSG's operation was worth gambling a £13.5 Million debt, more than half of it money belonging to each and every Shetland resident was a gamble too far, or not, is, down to personal opinion I suspect. Me, I think it was foolhardy and irresponsible of all concerned.

 

It is also worthy of note that even with a 100% price increase, SSG, had they survived, would have had to service that £13.5 Million debt till it was settled, at how many percent per annum?? Were they ever really in a position to trade their way out of such a liability within a reasonable amount of time, given that that £13.5 Million was very likely to increase before it decreased, through compounding. Even with the higher subsequent prices, would they have been out of the woods yet? What would have been the likely final cost of the £13.5 Million debt due to accrued interest before it was finally cleared?

[Caeser]

There is a large difference between profits and debt. A company can have huge debts but still be profitable. All debts on a live company will attract interest paid monthly and not compounded.

 

This is what keeps investors like SDT and / or banks in business.

 

From my limited understanding of the SSG position, the massive loss was mainly created when the banks receiver sold on the half grown fish to the 'lucky' farmers who were farming them on behalf of SSG for a pittance, as they did not have the bottle or nerve to grow them to harvest.

 

The profits of the stock were then later realised, not by the receiver but by the 'lucky' farmers.

 

I suspect this is what pisses of most people.

 

Several people / businesses made significant profits which should have been SSG's. and their creditors.

 

No actual fault of the 'lucky' ones, it is just a quirk of receivership. I guess most people in their shoes would have done the same?

 

It happens every day with failed businesses, it was just a great pity it happend with SDT funds.

 

I do suspect however, that if the financers had held their nerve, the business would be a success story, the 'lucky' farmers would not have had a bonanza, and would still be trading today.