paulb Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 i can see this as a positive move. but I'm concerned that they are using none shetland salmon.I won't moan that they seem to be able to pour tonnes of cash into this sector but not into crofting/meat production because im sure the jobs are needed. has this firm or one of its previous versions cost us anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuckleJoannie Posted July 20, 2009 Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 Whalsay Fish were once one of the most successful fish processors in Shetland, winning the Queen's Award for Export. However they hit a bad patch after the founder, John Tait, retired. He eventually bought the company back after this debacle. I have not been aware of them having any SIC financial assiatance since. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted July 20, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2009 thanks for the info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheepshagger Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 how long have you lived here PB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAStewart Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Bailouts... "You wouldn't buy our product so we're going to take your money anyway!" No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njugle Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Bailouts "If we don't spend some money to keep this historically successful business going long enough to restructure we are going to have to pay for the unemployed in perpetuity or watch them depart the isle permanently." Track record.Social and commercial planning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAStewart Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Failing businesses shouldn't be rewarded. If there is a gap in the market, someone will fill it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njugle Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 A faltering business may not be a failing business. Funding is not based on 'hope'. If there is a gap in the market created by perceived failure, it is unlikely to be filled. Especially on a remote island community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAStewart Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 If there is a demand, there shouldn't be much of a problem. If there isn't a demand, hence why the business is stumbling drunk, then why should there be a business at all? No need to prop up, with tax payers money, a business that doesn't have a demand to match the money they need. If there is a gap in the market created by perceived failure, it is unlikely to be filled.If Ford failed, you can guarantee that would totally grab the opportunity, they wouldn't run away from it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuckleJoannie Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 I hope the money is used to enable the company to establish a viable future. Too often the SIC has bailed out companies only to discover the basic business is not viable and they would have been better to have kept the money instead of prolonging the company's death throes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njugle Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Ford aren't based in Whalsay. As you say, if there is a demand, and this funding provides working capital, there shouldn't be a problem. Their accounts would have displayed any trend, their business plan would have provided any solution. If their plan was rubbish, and their downward trend insurmountable, only a muppet would give them this amount of money for a temporary fix. I'm of the belief that it probably wasn't a muppet that handed it over. Time will tell. Hard nose business principles become complicated in the face of long term social and financial costs in a rural situation. Look what happened to the smokehouse, success to failure in one seemingly optimistic, but probably tactical, buyout. Who foots the bill for the closure at the end of the day? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted July 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 its worth the risk for the jobs. but you do have to ask why they are willing to loan cash to failing firms no commercial bank would. with the slaughterhouse loan and this one i hope they are employing some form of security. if its going to fail then its pointless throwing the money at them if there is a more than 50% chance of it surviving then give it a go. if they are not using local fish then are they going to be able to compete against the other fish firms. im just thinking of all the transport costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAStewart Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 What about the next time it goes under? Will it get more of your* money? *Not mine, I don't pay tax. Yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted July 21, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 it not tax money. its just as much yours as everyone else's. but if it does keep the jobs on the island its worth it. there is enough pressure to depopulate the outer islands. now i hope that they are not stupid enough to throw it away but nowt would surprise me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohanofNess Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 If there is a demand, there shouldn't be much of a problem. If there isn't a demand, hence why the business is stumbling drunk, then why should there be a business at all? No need to prop up, with tax payers money, a business that doesn't have a demand to match the money they need. I know two builders who went under recently who both had good long standing businesses both of which had good reputations and hired 30 guys between them. Demand or lack of it wasn't the issue, people not paying them was the issue and creditors demanding payment when cashflow had dried up. If they had been based in Shetland they might have been helped out by the S.I.C but I imagine the howling of people screaming about bail outs and unviable stumbling drunks would put a stop to it, not every business that goes under is managed by people who don't know what they are doing some are victims of the wider economy and sleekit bams who decided not to pay for the services they receive. Maybe some of you should think about your attitudes to helping out businesses because not everyone who asks for help is guilty of mismanagement, negligence or stupidity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.