Njugle Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 ^Indeed. What about the next time it goes under? Will it get more of your* money? Pure rhetoric. If there was a question to be asked along these lines it would be "If they spend all the bailout money and have no other revenue stream should they be propped up again?", to which the answer would almost certainly be no. If the situation has arisen whereby the funding has been injected out of a whimsical decision process such as "I like Whalsay" or "My Auntie used to work there" then it is doomed, but one would envisage that they have tabled plans to remodel the business to avoid the unsustainable and intermittent raw product transport and associated costs, which latterly crippled them. 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. 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. The situation you portray sounds like fraud, which is a crime, and therefore the people who did not pay them for work should be prosecuted. Assuming the non-payers don't have the money or continue to not pay, the local authority should offer the victimised company a non-interest loan to help the business, then once everything is back to normal, the business can begin to repay the loan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb Posted July 21, 2009 Author 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. The situation you portray sounds like fraud, which is a crime, and therefore the people who did not pay them for work should be prosecuted.maybe they should move up here then. we could always do with a few more good builders. the cost of transport is always going to be an issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohanofNess Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 The situation you portray sounds like fraud, which is a crime, and therefore the people who did not pay them for work should be prosecuted. Assuming the non-payers don't have the money or continue to not pay, the local authority should offer the victimised company a non-interest loan to help the business, then once everything is back to normal, the business can begin to repay the loan. There is no fraud people just couldn't or didn't pay in time and the creditors of the two builders took legal action to retrieve what they were owed which ultimately sank them. The local authorities down here aren't cash rich and they can't help every small to medium employer to stay afloat which is a shame as out of the 30 guys who were out of work we took on 5 but I believe more than half are still out of work. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAStewart Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 There is no fraud people just couldn't or didn't pay in time and the creditors of the two builders took legal action to retrieve what they were owed which ultimately sank them. Shouldn't the builders have signed agreements or contracts to guarantee the dates of when they should be getting paid? If a legal contract is breached, then legal action could have helped them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JustMe Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 I see JAS does not work in the building trade. Even in the good times customers are often slow to pay the main contractor, the main contractor is slow to pay sub contractors and the sub contractors are slow to pay the builders merchants. The sub contractor I worked for regularly took 90 days to pay suppliers and sometimes as long as 120 days. Not because the company was unsound or because the boss drove a posh car (although he did) but because it was taking that long for the payments to filter down to us. Even in Shetland I have heard of customers who take months to pay a jobbing builder for a bit of work. And yes legal action is possible in both cases but really is the very last resort as although you may collect what is due (and even that is not certain) you may well find that main contractors and indeed the public do not offer more work to someone who has used the courts to get paid. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAStewart Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Sounds like the system needs a rethink then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleepychef Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Jas doesn't even live in the real world yet, no taxes to pay! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MuckleJoannie Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 The SIC has never financially supported builders, apart from giving them work. Financial assistance in the form of loans is only available to producers, such as fishing boats and fish farms, or manufacturers, such as fish factories and abbatoirs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAStewart Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Jas doesn't even live in the real world yet, no taxes to pay! Yep, cause when you pay tax you officially live in the real world. Forget all that living I've already done and travel throughout 4 continents and over 20 countries. Actually, when I was 16 and started working at Safeway, I paid tax for a few months that I didn't actually get back for whatever reason! Can I live in the real world now please? C'mon, stop lowering yourself to make personal insults. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sjeunson Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Jas doesn't even live in the real world yet, no taxes to pay! Ah those were the days! Yup it's a shame how many good businesses go under because of poor cashflow not caused by their own doing. Happens in most sectors unfortunately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleepychef Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 wow 20 countries did that in europe when i was 17, traveling on mummy's and daddy's money round the world for a year or so ain't living in the real world either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAStewart Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 wow 20 countries did that in europe when i was 17, traveling on mummy's and daddy's money round the world for a year or so ain't living in the real world either.I haven't 'travelled' on "mummy and daddy's" money around the world since I started earning my own at about 13-14. My folks aren't wealthy, I envy my friends who got funded to go around the world. And 17 in Europe? that's easy. Stop assuming thing Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khitajrah Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 ...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. Or dodgy business partners. Saying that, there are a few Shetland businesses that still owe me money from when I was trading. No amount of nagging would coax money out of those fingers to pay their invoices. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Njugle Posted July 21, 2009 Report Share Posted July 21, 2009 Perhaps it would be better to inform someone you would consider to be "not in the real world" rather than point a finger at them. It is good to share. 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.