# Carillion. Close to going bust.



## Tashyboy (Jan 13, 2018)

Just read that the second largest construction company in the UK is very close to going bust. It has debts of Â£900 million with banks reluctant to lend them more. The contracts it holds and people it employs are unbelievable.
However once more there is a pension black hole of Â£600 million. Why is it continuously allowed to happen that Joe public and the employees will end up missing out.


----------



## Stuart_C (Jan 13, 2018)

It's amazing how this shower continually get public funded contracts. I know of 2 sub contractors who have been sent under because of how ruthless they are. There's 100's more.

I heard yesterday that a number of trades have walked off the new Royal Liverpool Hospital job due to non payment to contractors for many months. This is already 6 months behind schedule and is at least another 6 months away from being finished.

A few years ago they changed there payment terms from 90 to 120days overnight. Horrible company to work for.

The biggest issue is theyre involved with so much government work that the government can't let them go under, so us the tax payer end up footing the bill. 

They consistently ,over promise, under deliver, over estimate and under cut.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jan 13, 2018)

120 days payment terms. That should be illegal, genuinely, not a throwaway comment. The knock on effect on other firms is immense. Awful. I wish the general workers well but the bosses who implement a policy like that can go swing.

Back to Tashy's point. I've no idea why firms are allowed to raid the pension pot. How can it end well? That should be untouchable.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Jan 13, 2018)

Lord Tyrion said:



			120 days payment terms. That should be illegal, genuinely, not a throwaway comment. The knock on effect on other firms is immense. Awful. I wish the general workers well but the bosses who implement a policy like that can go swing.

Back to Tashy's point. I've no idea why firms are allowed to raid the pension pot. How can it end well? That should be untouchable.
		
Click to expand...


Point of order, just because there is a deficit in the pension fund , doesnâ€™t mean that the company has been dibbing into it.
Barclays Bank, for instance,has a big deficit, down to their investments not growing as much as planned owing to very low interest rates for 10 years.

I do hope the normal workers are properly protected, the pensions protection people need to grow some backbone


----------



## SteveJay (Jan 13, 2018)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Point of order, just because there is a deficit in the pension fund , doesnâ€™t mean that the company has been dibbing into it.
		
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree Phil. A lot of excellent firms have pension deficits due to low interest rates. The test is whether they are actively taking steps to address that. I don't think it would be easy, or even possible to "raid the pension pot".


----------



## bluewolf (Jan 13, 2018)

I might be completely wrong, but I thought that companies used to be able to take out excesses in the pension fund but are not liable for replacing those funds when the pot then goes into deficit??


----------



## Doon frae Troon (Jan 13, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			I might be completely wrong, but I thought that companies used to be able to take out excesses in the pension fund but are not liable for replacing those funds when the pot then goes into deficit??
		
Click to expand...

Local Authorities were encouraged to take payment 'holidays' by the 1980's Tory Government.


----------



## DCB (Jan 13, 2018)

A Company that over extended because it wanted it fingers in too many pies. It seemed to forget where it's core business came from and tried to get a slice of the action wherever that action was. Next few days are going to be very interesting.


----------



## NWJocko (Jan 13, 2018)

Doon frae Troon said:



			Local Authorities were encouraged to take payment 'holidays' by the 1980's Tory Government.
		
Click to expand...

This is true but, for balance, private companies were encouraged to do the same under the New Labour gov't in the late 90's due to the growth of funds purely down to market performance.  Post the early 2000's downturn the company I worked for at the time made it clear they hadn't paid in during the "good times" and we then had to up our contributions to fill the gap.


----------



## bluewolf (Jan 13, 2018)

NWJocko said:



			This is true but, for balance, private companies were encouraged to do the same under the New Labour gov't in the late 90's due to the growth of funds purely down to market performance.  Post the early 2000's downturn the company I worked for at the time made it clear they hadn't paid in during the "good times" and we then had to up our contributions to fill the gap.
		
Click to expand...

I worked for a company who's owner took out Â£60m when the fund was in surplus. Shortly after this the market Downturned resulting in a sizeable deficit. It's still in deficit now and is causing serious issues.


----------



## NWJocko (Jan 13, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			I worked for a company who's owner took out Â£60m when the fund was in surplus. Shortly after this the market Downturned resulting in a sizeable deficit. It's still in deficit now and is causing serious issues.
		
Click to expand...

Yep, the good old New Labour economic forecasts of continuous growth have worked wonders there....... 

I'm in the same boat, it's scandalous it was ever allowed to happen tbh.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Jan 13, 2018)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Point of order, just because there is a deficit in the pension fund , doesnâ€™t mean that the company has been dibbing into it.
Barclays Bank, for instance,has a big deficit, down to their investments not growing as much as planned owing to very low interest rates for 10 years.

I do hope the normal workers are properly protected, the pensions protection people need to grow some backbone
		
Click to expand...

IMO companies shouldnâ€™t be allowed to pay dividends if thereâ€™s a deficit in their pension fund.


----------



## Jacko_G (Jan 13, 2018)

FairwayDodger said:



			IMO companies shouldnâ€™t be allowed to pay dividends if thereâ€™s a deficit in their pension fund.
		
Click to expand...

I like that!


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 13, 2018)

PhilTheFragger said:



			Point of order, just because there is a deficit in the pension fund , doesnâ€™t mean that the company has been dibbing into it.
Barclays Bank, for instance,has a big deficit, down to their investments not growing as much as planned owing to very low interest rates for 10 years.

I do hope the normal workers are properly protected, the pensions protection people need to grow some backbone
		
Click to expand...

Trouble is phil is that you don't have to dib into it, a lot of companies don't pay into it full stop. My company went bust so said pension went into the PPF fund. The government let the same company start up again three days later under a differant name, knowing full well that it to would go into liquidation two years later not having paid a penny into my pension pot, yet I had to. Guess what. The bloody directors had there pensions paid. 
Tata steel, they went tits up. The government changed the rules by allowing the employees to have there pensions go into the PPF fund whilst the company was still running to allow the company to carry on. It is worth Billions ðŸ˜³ Worldwide.
Grips my poo when I hear the government preaching that you should have pensions yet it cannot regulate the industry, yet at the same time has its hands in my miners pension pot every week


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 13, 2018)

FairwayDodger said:



			IMO companies shouldnâ€™t be allowed to pay dividends if thereâ€™s a deficit in their pension fund.
		
Click to expand...

This,ðŸ‘ when the mining industry went bust it owed Â£600 million plus. When I collared Cheif exec John Lloyd in a meet the lads open meeting in the canteen. I pointed out our pension black hole was Â£120 million. The company was worth Â£900 million. He said we are looking at it. Five years later the company went bust. Yet during that time they paid dividends.


----------



## fundy (Jan 13, 2018)

FairwayDodger said:



			IMO companies shouldnâ€™t be allowed to pay dividends if thereâ€™s a deficit in their pension fund.
		
Click to expand...

could well end up causing more damage to a lot of firms if you make it less attractive to external shareholders, could even put a lot out of business pretty much overnight if you saw an exodus of external shareholders

edit: the right approach would be having to pay a certain percentage of pre divi profits into any pension fund in deficit before paying divis i think


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 13, 2018)

fundy said:



			could well end up causing more damage to a lot of firms if you make it less attractive to external shareholders, could even put a lot out of business pretty much overnight if you saw an exodus of external shareholders

edit: the right approach would be having to pay a certain percentage of pre divi profits into any pension fund in deficit before paying divis i think
		
Click to expand...


well I for one am sure that paying something rather than nothingis a better idea.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Jan 13, 2018)

fundy said:



			could well end up causing more damage to a lot of firms if you make it less attractive to external shareholders, could even put a lot out of business pretty much overnight if you saw an exodus of external shareholders

edit: the right approach would be having to pay a certain percentage of pre divi profits into any pension fund in deficit before paying divis i think
		
Click to expand...

That would be the risk. Would need phased in, perhaps, but would then be a real incentive to keep the pension scheme healthy.


----------



## Andy (Jan 14, 2018)

After being told by them that it was safe to crush asbestos, I seriously wondered about them. Supposedly they even had a letter from the Head which we were never shown lol

They honestly couldn't run a bath.


----------



## Stuart_C (Jan 14, 2018)

fundy said:



			could well end up causing more damage to a lot of firms if you make it less attractive to external shareholders, could even put a lot out of business pretty much overnight if you saw an exodus of external shareholders

edit: the right approach would be having to pay a certain percentage of pre divi profits into any pension fund in deficit before paying divis i think
		
Click to expand...


Thatâ€™s the issue, itâ€™s not just the 50k employees, itâ€™s the hundreds of subbies and their employees  theyâ€™ve already got screwed down to  the last haâ€™penny on 120 days payment terms that will suffer the most.

Yet all of the shareholders and execs have had their feed from the trough already. 

Another epic swindle.


----------



## fundy (Jan 14, 2018)

Stuart_C said:



			Thatâ€™s the issue, itâ€™s not just the 50k employees, itâ€™s the hundreds of subbies and their employees  theyâ€™ve already got screwed down to  the last haâ€™penny on 120 days payment terms that will suffer the most.

Yet all of the shareholders and execs have had their feed from the trough already. 

Another epic swindle.
		
Click to expand...

its utterly abhorrent that a business could get itself to this state considering how much it has had in its favour over years, as you say feel sorry for the little guys at the end of the chain who ultimately will be the ones screwed over (along with the taxpayer who will end up doing some bailing out)


----------



## Stuart_C (Jan 14, 2018)

fundy said:



			its utterly abhorrent that a business could get itself to this state considering how much it has had in its favour over years, as you say feel sorry for the little guys at the end of the chain who ultimately will be the ones screwed over (along with the taxpayer who will end up doing some bailing out)
		
Click to expand...

Using bullying tactics and greed is how theyâ€™ve got to where they are today. All of those responsible who have had a feed from the trough need to be brought to book.

Carillion will have to be bailed out by the government, although itâ€™s amazing how and when this money tree turns up to save the Tories backsides ( remember the deal with the DUP) yet itâ€™s invisible to provide sufficient front line services.


----------



## Stuart_C (Jan 15, 2018)

They've gone under. 

This will have a massive impact on the UK construction industry, it's not just the 50k carillion employees.


----------



## Val (Jan 15, 2018)

Sad day for the trade, this is also on the back of a Scottish sawmiller going bust last week too, a family business going for over 70 years with over 90 jobs lost in central Scotland


----------



## Digger (Jan 15, 2018)

Stuart_C said:



			They've gone under. 

This will have a massive impact on the UK construction industry, it's not just the 50k carillion employees.
		
Click to expand...

Its the subbies I feel for,some of who have probably done 4 or 5 months work without any money. It's tough to come back from that.


----------



## chrisd (Jan 15, 2018)

Awful for subbies and suppliers. I worked all my days in the construction industry and never understood how 120 day payment terms would be worth working for?


----------



## bluewolf (Jan 15, 2018)

chrisd said:



			Awful for subbies and suppliers. I worked all my days in the construction industry and never understood how 120 day payment terms would be worth working for?
		
Click to expand...

When you've got no other option you just try and make it work. Carillion controlled that much work that they could strangle the sunbird into submission.


----------



## rudebhoy (Jan 15, 2018)

The workers will get fleeced while the bosses walk away with a fortune.


----------



## User2021 (Jan 15, 2018)

rudebhoy said:



			The workers will get fleeced while the bosses walk away with a fortune.
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately so - its always the small man that suffers not the fat cats


----------



## chrisd (Jan 15, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			When you've got no other option you just try and make it work. Carillion controlled that much work that they could strangle the sunbird into submission.
		
Click to expand...

I know, but the Government has been pushing for faster payments and even bringing in legislation to penalise late payment and then don't insist on their main contractor in the building sector paying promptly.


----------



## Biggleswade Blue (Jan 15, 2018)

Stuart_C said:



			Thatâ€™s the issue, itâ€™s not just the 50k employees, itâ€™s the hundreds of subbies and their employees  theyâ€™ve already got screwed down to  the last haâ€™penny on 120 days payment terms that will suffer the most.

Yet all of the shareholders and execs have had their feed from the trough already. 

Another epic swindle.
		
Click to expand...

And the companies that lost work to Carillion, perhaps on price.  There are loads of direct and indirect consequences.  Pretty grim for everyone, awful for the employees and as you say, its dreadful for the sub-contractors too in this kind of thing.  Also slightly surprising to see in a culture where public contracts require so much pre-qualification information to be submitted which is part of a due diligence process on behalf of the end client.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jan 15, 2018)

chrisd said:



			I know, but the Government has been pushing for faster payments and even bringing in legislation to penalise late payment and then don't insist on their main contractor in the building sector paying promptly.
		
Click to expand...

The govt are all hot air on this subject. For public contracts it should be part of the contract that all payments, throughout the process and right down the line, are made to a govt agreed timescale. Ideally that would be 30 days but 45 at worst. The fact that they don't shows how little they really understand or care about this issue.


----------



## bluewolf (Jan 15, 2018)

Lord Tyrion said:



			The govt are all hot air on this subject. For public contracts it should be part of the contract that all payments, throughout the process and right down the line, are made to a govt agreed timescale. Ideally that would be 30 days but 45 at worst. The fact that they don't shows how little they really understand or care about this issue.
		
Click to expand...

The Government DO understand and care about the issue. The problem is that they understand and care more about the top bosses than they do about the workers. Just sit back and wait for the Journo's to dig up the backhanders and donations.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 15, 2018)

It won't go down well with some - and it is by far not the one and only issue for Carillion, possibly not even the main one - I do not know - but Brexit and the associated uncertainty has been very damaging to Carillion.  This is not my opinion - I have a friend very close to the heart of Carillion and was told this directly.

And just for background on the main UK aspect of it

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...vote-for-orders-fall-government-eu-referendum

Now you might not think that UK government should be pushing so much work Carillion's way that they become dependent upon it - but that is how it has become.  

Questions to be asked of the government in respect of awarding major contracts to companies who are seriously struggling and CEO resigning; multiple profits warnings (Ah - was Chris Grayling at all involved - ah yes - HS2 and other rail contracts...well I never - what a surprise)


----------



## Val (Jan 15, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			It won't go down well with some - and it is by far not the one and only issue for Carillion, possibly not even the main one - I do not know - but Brexit and the associated uncertainty has been very damaging to Carillion.  This is not my opinion - I have a friend very close to the heart of Carillion and was told this directly.

And just for background on the main UK aspect of it

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...vote-for-orders-fall-government-eu-referendum

Now you might not think that UK government should be pushing so much work Carillion's way that they become dependent upon it - but that is how it has become.  

Questions to be asked of the government in respect of awarding major contracts to companies who are seriously struggling and CEO resigning; multiple profits warnings (Ah - was Chris Grayling at all involved - ah yes - HS2 and other rail contracts...well I never - what a surprise)
		
Click to expand...

Allowing debts to spiral to circa Â£1b is not a brexit issue, its a mismanagement issue. They've had financial issues for years, even pre-brexit.


----------



## MegaSteve (Jan 15, 2018)

Val said:



			Allowing debts to spiral to circa Â£1b is not a brexit issue, its a mismanagement issue. They've had financial issues for years, even pre-brexit.
		
Click to expand...

Exactly this...

No doubt the boys at the top will sail off into the sunset, on their superyachts, knighthoods fully intact...


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jan 15, 2018)

MegaSteve said:



			Exactly this...

No doubt the boys at the top will sail off into the sunset, on their superyachts, knighthoods fully intact...
		
Click to expand...

At least it will give Philip Green someone to talk to now.


----------



## bluewolf (Jan 15, 2018)

Ironically enough, the boss of Carillion is an advisor to Theresa May on corporate responsibility. The bosses have also already taken steps to protect the Â£4m of bosses bonuses before putting the business into liquidation.


----------



## Val (Jan 15, 2018)

I've just read an article that many hedge fund companies have made 10's of millions by short selling on them since 2015. One of these companies (Blackrock) has had George Osbourne as a consultant for the last year....................mental.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 15, 2018)

MegaSteve said:



			Exactly this...

No doubt the boys at the top will sail off into the sunset, on their superyachts, knighthoods fully intact...
		
Click to expand...

I don't think that that need be the case...the boys at the top should be worried


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 15, 2018)

Val said:



			Allowing debts to spiral to circa Â£1b is not a brexit issue, its a mismanagement issue. They've had financial issues for years, even pre-brexit.
		
Click to expand...

I agree - that is why I posted what I posted - but Brexit and associated uncertainty have certainly been very damaging in exacerbating the situation.

Meanwhile Grayling!


----------



## MegaSteve (Jan 15, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			I don't think that that need be the case...the boys at the top should be worried
		
Click to expand...

To quote the guy on the radio just now...

A nasty day in front of a commons select committee...

Bet they're quaking in their deck shoes...

Even allowing for a dirty look from Frank Field which so unsettled Phil Green...


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 15, 2018)

Val said:



			I've just read an article that many hedge fund companies have made 10's of millions by short selling on them since 2015. One of these companies (Blackrock) has had George Osbourne as a consultant for the last year....................mental.
		
Click to expand...

Remember that, unless the 'profits' are purely 'paper' ones (ie there hasn't actually been a sale yet! - the ) then those 10s of millions of profits have come from other folk gambling that the short seller is/was (pretty much) wrong!

Here's an article that may help in understanding how it works! https://www.investopedia.com/university/shortselling/shortselling2.asp

In this (Carrilon) case, the short seller is likely to have made a *real profit* from the reduction(s) in the share price minus the cost of borrowing the shares from the original owner and of the trade. The original owner(s) has/have made a *paper loss* of difference in value between current and purchase price (probably real  in this case, as the shares are now worthless) and the other party (parties) in the short trade has/have made a *real loss overall* of the difference between the current value and the value of the short deal (plus cost of the trade)! 

And while the above uses/implies single owner, short seller and short purchaser, it's highly likely that owner and (short) purchasers will likely mitigate their losses by making 'equivalent' deals to 'balance' their positions!

Basically, it's a zero-sum (actually worse!) environment - with only the trading platform making a guaranteed profit! There is risk by all other parties involved in the deal(s)!

Note! I'm no 'expert' in Financial Instruments, though I have worked with a few (ideveloping/maintaining IT systems involved) and the above is my understanding of the way 'shorting' works!


----------



## DaveR (Jan 15, 2018)

Foxholer said:



			Remember that, unless the 'profits' are purely 'paper' ones (ie there hasn't actually been a sale yet! - the ) then those 10s of millions of profits have come from other folk gambling that the short seller is/was (pretty much) wrong!

Here's an article that may help in understanding how it works! https://www.investopedia.com/university/shortselling/shortselling2.asp

In this (Carrilon) case, the short seller is likely to have made a *real profit* from the reduction(s) in the share price minus the cost of borrowing the shares from the original owner and of the trade. The original owner(s) has/have made a *paper loss* of difference in value between current and purchase price (probably real  in this case, as the shares are now worthless) and the other party (parties) in the short trade has/have made a *real loss overall* of the difference between the current value and the value of the short deal (plus cost of the trade)! 

And while the above uses/implies single owner, short seller and short purchaser, it's highly likely that owner and (short) purchasers will likely mitigate their losses by making 'equivalent' deals to 'balance' their positions!

Basically, it's a zero-sum (actually worse!) environment - with only the trading platform making a guaranteed profit! There is risk by all other parties involved in the deal(s)!
		
Click to expand...

Why do you finish every sentence with an exclamation mark?


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 15, 2018)

DaveR said:



			Why do you finish every sentence with an exclamation mark?
		
Click to expand...

One of the reasons is that I know where it is on my rather well worn keyboard!

Are you going to ask Megasteve why he ends all (most) of his with more than 1 period*?* Btw. I don't actually care that he does*!*


----------



## DaveR (Jan 15, 2018)

Foxholer said:



			One of the reasons is that I know where it is on my rather well worn keyboard!

Are you going to ask Megasteve why he ends all (most) of his with more than 1 period*?* Btw. I don't actually care that he does*!*

Click to expand...

No, I just find it irritating. Might need to put you on ignore.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 15, 2018)

DaveR said:



			No, I just find it irritating. Might need to put you on ignore.
		
Click to expand...




DaveR said:



			....Think I've learned pretty quickly who is worth listening to and who to ignore.
		
Click to expand...


Feel free to do so!!!!!!!  

Btw. You could certainly smarten your own act up! There are grammatical errors in both of the above posts and many of your previous ones! But....


----------



## rudebhoy (Jan 15, 2018)

bluewolf said:



			Ironically enough, the boss of Carillion is an advisor to Theresa May on corporate responsibility. *The bosses have also already taken steps to protect the Â£4m of bosses bonuses before putting the business into liquidation*.
		
Click to expand...

If that's true, it's criminal (well, I know that it won't be by the letter of the law, but it should be). 

Morally repugnant is probably a better term.


----------



## bluewolf (Jan 15, 2018)

rudebhoy said:



			If that's true, it's criminal (well, I know that it won't be by the letter of the law, but it should be). 

Morally repugnant is probably a better term.
		
Click to expand...

The senior bosses changed the written rules regarding bonuses last year. They have now made it impossible to claim back any bonus payments if the firm is put into liquidation. It's almost as though they knew what was going to happen &#129300;&#128548;


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 15, 2018)




----------



## Hobbit (Jan 15, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			It won't go down well with some - and it is by far not the one and only issue for Carillion, possibly not even the main one - I do not know - but Brexit and the associated uncertainty has been very damaging to Carillion.  This is not my opinion - I have a friend very close to the heart of Carillion and was told this directly.

And just for background on the main UK aspect of it

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...vote-for-orders-fall-government-eu-referendum

Now you might not think that UK government should be pushing so much work Carillion's way that they become dependent upon it - but that is how it has become.  

Questions to be asked of the government in respect of awarding major contracts to companies who are seriously struggling and CEO resigning; multiple profits warnings (Ah - was Chris Grayling at all involved - ah yes - HS2 and other rail contracts...well I never - what a surprise)
		
Click to expand...

Strangely enough 95% of the business one of the divisions in the company I work for, only a week to go, is govt funded. That spend is from a host of buyers throughout the UK. Not only is it not going under, its 13% up on last year... profit margin is up too. 

Should we blame Brexit for that growth too?

Iâ€™ve worked with Carillion for donkeyâ€™s years on capital projects. Iâ€™m surprised theyâ€™ve lasted as long as they have. Projects overrunning all down to exceptionally poor mgt and work practices, right the way down to trades levels. 

Not it in the least bit disappointed theyâ€™ve gone to the wall.


----------



## Val (Jan 15, 2018)

Foxholer said:



			Remember that, unless the 'profits' are purely 'paper' ones (ie there hasn't actually been a sale yet! - the ) then those 10s of millions of profits have come from other folk gambling that the short seller is/was (pretty much) wrong!

Here's an article that may help in understanding how it works! https://www.investopedia.com/university/shortselling/shortselling2.asp

In this (Carrilon) case, the short seller is likely to have made a *real profit* from the reduction(s) in the share price minus the cost of borrowing the shares from the original owner and of the trade. The original owner(s) has/have made a *paper loss* of difference in value between current and purchase price (probably real  in this case, as the shares are now worthless) and the other party (parties) in the short trade has/have made a *real loss overall* of the difference between the current value and the value of the short deal (plus cost of the trade)! 

And while the above uses/implies single owner, short seller and short purchaser, it's highly likely that owner and (short) purchasers will likely mitigate their losses by making 'equivalent' deals to 'balance' their positions!

Basically, it's a zero-sum (actually worse!) environment - with only the trading platform making a guaranteed profit! There is risk by all other parties involved in the deal(s)!

Note! I'm no 'expert' in Financial Instruments, though I have worked with a few (ideveloping/maintaining IT systems involved) and the above is my understanding of the way 'shorting' works!
		
Click to expand...

I get how it all works however let me ask this, if they "mitigate their losses by making 'equivalent' deals to 'balance' their positions" then how do the companies who's sole aim is to make money shorting, make money?

Most of these hedge fund companies made real profit from shorting Carillion when the share price dropped following the profit warning last summer


----------



## Orikoru (Jan 15, 2018)

I did my work experience with Carillion, some 15 years ago, as my dad was working for them at the time - when they were building the GCHQ building in Cheltenham.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 15, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			Strangely enough 95% of the business one of the divisions in the company I work for, only a week to go, is govt funded. That spend is from a host of buyers throughout the UK. Not only is it not going under, its 13% up on last year... profit margin is up too. 

Should we blame Brexit for that growth too?

Iâ€™ve worked with Carillion for donkeyâ€™s years on capital projects. Iâ€™m surprised theyâ€™ve lasted as long as they have. Projects overrunning all down to exceptionally poor mgt and work practices, right the way down to trades levels. 

Not it in the least bit disappointed theyâ€™ve gone to the wall.
		
Click to expand...

On Brexit I am only relating what I have been told by my Carillion 'insider' - and he has been telling me this since the vote.  Of course he could well have simply been looking at the impact Brexit uncertainty would have on UK Gov funding of projects...but you'd have thought he'd have been delighted with the vote given the Â£350m a week that the government would have to spend on infrastructure projects (if it so chose to do) - but no - he thought it was an insane decision.  I couldn't comment.


----------



## Dando (Jan 15, 2018)

Liverpoolphil said:



View attachment 24170

Click to expand...

i used to insure that firm and the number of complaints we had about them were astronomical. We had more complaints about them than all our other clients combined.


----------



## Beezerk (Jan 15, 2018)

Orikoru said:



			I did my work experience with Carillion, some 15 years ago, as my dad was working for them at the time - when they were building the GCHQ building in Cheltenham.
		
Click to expand...

I worked on that building as well, about 25 years ago though  had some awesome views from the top of the towers.


----------



## Stuart_C (Jan 15, 2018)

It's only going to get worse http://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/balfour-takes-40m-hit-on-carillion-collapse


----------



## Reemul (Jan 16, 2018)

Stuart_C said:



			It's only going to get worse http://www.theconstructionindex.co.uk/news/view/balfour-takes-40m-hit-on-carillion-collapse

Click to expand...

Surely the companies in on the contract knew the state of Carillion and there was a chance this was going to happen. Greed overcoming everything again.


----------



## Stuart_C (Jan 16, 2018)

Reemul said:



			Surely the companies in on the contract knew the state of Carillion and there was a chance this was going to happen. Greed overcoming everything again.
		
Click to expand...

The problem is when your "in bed"  with these companies and there giving you Â£50m worth of work it must be very hard to say no. Also they drip feed monies from previous contracts so they have you by the short and curlies. 

The Carilion boss is a Tory party donor aswell. 

I know a lad who is owed "Tens of thousands of pounds" for work he's done for carilion and he's still expected to be on site every morning at 8am "to see how things are". These subbies are the ones it'll hurt the most.


----------



## drdel (Jan 16, 2018)

I'm interested by the fact the BBC among others in the media are critical of the fat-cat bosses who were paid around Â£500K+ pa.

Interesting in that the BBC quite happily pays the likes of John Humphries (~Â£650K PA) and other medium level 'finger-pointing' presenters well in excess of these so-called "....fat cats..." just for sitting in front of a microphone with little or no responsibility for anyone !!!


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 16, 2018)

drdel said:



			I'm interested by the fact the BBC among others in the media are critical of the fat-cat bosses who were paid around Â£500K+ pa.

Interesting in that the BBC quite happily pays the likes of John Humphries (~Â£650K PA) and other medium level 'finger-pointing' presenters well in excess of these so-called "....fat cats..." just for sitting in front of a microphone with little or no responsibility for anyone !!!
		
Click to expand...

Are the BBC critical or reporting the criticisms of others.  Besides - comparing salaries of front-line Radio/TV presenters/personalities with board members of a private company is surely comparing apples with oranges.  Whataboot Premier League footballers on Â£50k-Â£100k a week?  What responsibility do *they* have for anyone other than themselves.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jan 16, 2018)

The point is they are calling them Fat Cats. Call them bosses but by adding Fat Cat to it they are making it a derogatory term. As has been mentioned that is hypocritical when they employ many people on greater salaries. Should Chris Evans now be introduced on his R2 show as Chris Evans Fat Cat? They should report the facts, not give it an angle.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 16, 2018)

word has it that restructuring and refinancing plans were agreed and in place for March - just need short term government support to keep the company afloat.  For whatever reasons - and they will almost certainly be purely Tory political calculations (probably following the furore around Virgin and Stagecoach) - the government has decided against providing that short term support - and so Carillion collapses putting the jobs and lives of tens of thousands into a tailspin.  The government could have prevented this.


----------



## drdel (Jan 16, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			word has it that restructuring and refinancing plans were agreed and in place for March - just need short term government support to keep the company afloat.  For whatever reasons - and they will almost certainly be purely Tory political calculations (probably following the furore around Virgin and Stagecoach) - the government has decided against providing that short term support - and so Carillion collapses putting the jobs and lives of tens of thousands into a tailspin.  The government could have prevented this.
		
Click to expand...

You can find Tories and Government incompetence at every turn ! I'm sure there's even a way to spin this and blame Theresa May - despite the numerous contracts awarded by Labour/Blair et al.

I think you'll find their undercutting of sensible bids (and lack of revenue/growth with new contracts) has led to over-exposure and hence to their downfall from an inability to fund the cashflow.


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 16, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			word has it that restructuring and refinancing plans were agreed and in place for March - just need short term government support to keep the company afloat.  For whatever reasons - and they will almost certainly be purely Tory political calculations (probably following the furore around Virgin and Stagecoach) - the government has decided against providing that short term support - and so Carillion collapses putting the jobs and lives of tens of thousands into a tailspin.  The government could have prevented this.
		
Click to expand...

When it comes to governments, especially Tory. there is a lot they could of done to save industry's and jobs, mining, steel, railways, post offices, water company's, BT, NHS through back door privatisation etc etc. Is anyone actually gonna try and convince me things are better now they are all privatised.

I don't like to finish a post on a downer so on a positive, our emergency services are doing a fantastic job, but are still having a bit more funding cut, according to the Government.


----------



## patricks148 (Jan 16, 2018)

Tashyboy said:



			When it comes to governments, especially Tory. there is a lot they could of done to save industry's and jobs, mining, steel, railways, post offices, water company's, BT, NHS through back door privatisation etc etc. Is anyone actually gonna try and convince me things are better now they are all privatised.

I don't like to finish a post on a downer so on a positive, our emergency services are doing a fantastic job, but are still having a bit more funding cut, according to the Government.
		
Click to expand...

True Tashy boy. always makes me laugh when Tories have a dig at Labour for bailing out the banks. like they woudln't have done the same... the only industry they would as well:rofl:


----------



## patricks148 (Jan 16, 2018)

Lord Tyrion said:



			The point is they are calling them Fat Cats. Call them bosses but by adding Fat Cat to it they are making it a derogatory term. As has been mentioned that is hypocritical when they employ many people on greater salaries. Should Chris Evans now be introduced on his R2 show as *Chris Evans Fat Cat*? They should report the facts, not give it an angle.
		
Click to expand...

I like this idea actually


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 16, 2018)

Lord Tyrion said:



			The point is they are calling them Fat Cats. Call them bosses but by adding Fat Cat to it they are making it a derogatory term. As has been mentioned that is hypocritical when they employ many people on greater salaries. Should Chris Evans now be introduced on his R2 show as Chris Evans Fat Cat? They should report the facts, not give it an angle.
		
Click to expand...

I agree - the BBC should not be describing the bosses of Carillion as _Fat Cats_ unless quoting a 3rd party.  

But I don't buy the accusation of hypocrisy - even if the BBC did actually believe the description - which it shouldn't as it should be impartial and not using such subjective and derogatory terms.  I do not believe that you can compare such as BBC 'stars' who have no wider duty of care to others, with bosses of companies who enrich themselves and their shareholders whilst their employees struggle along. 

The bosses of a plc have a duty of care to it's employees and pensioners - but of course the board of a plc has as it's primary objective to maximise shareholder return.  That is where we run into serious conflict of interest - when the number 1 priority of a PLC is not to it's employees or the customers it has to service, but to it's shareholders.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Jan 16, 2018)

drdel said:



			You can find Tories and Government incompetence at every turn ! I'm sure there's even a way to spin this and blame Theresa May - despite the numerous contracts awarded by Labour/Blair et al.

I think you'll find their undercutting of sensible bids (and lack of revenue/growth with new contracts) has led to over-exposure and hence to their downfall from an inability to fund the cashflow.
		
Click to expand...

With the way government is cutting budgets there is probably no sensible and manageable risk bid that a company can make for most government business these days.  Quite apart from that I am telling you that the government could have intervened with short term financial support and Carillion would not be where it is today.   Everything else was agreed and in place.

And of course we can play whatabootery about Labour and the past - Carillion is TODAY - and the government could quite easily have saved it.  Clearly the Carillion bossses have less financial clout than Richard Branson and Brian Souter.


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jan 16, 2018)

What if they are simply a badly run company who were losing money too regularly? I've yet to hear a good word about them in any form. Should the gov't use public money to keep an incompetent company going? You would only do that, as they do, with a gov't dept / nationalised industry and Carillion are not that.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Jan 16, 2018)

I dont really see any difference between Carillion and the public purse guzzling nationalised industries as they were. 
At the end of the day, its always the taxpayer that carries the can. Ultimately hard hitting union grandees are no different to overpaid and incompitent bosses. 
It's those who lose their jobs I feel sorry for.


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 16, 2018)

Lord Tyrion said:



			What if they are simply a badly run company who were losing money too regularly? I've yet to hear a good word about them in any form. Should the gov't use public money to keep an incompetent company going? You would only do that, as they do, with a gov't dept / nationalised industry and Carillion are not that.
		
Click to expand...

Plus, what precedent does it set when it starts bailing out failing private companies. I for one would of been pretty bogged off if they had, they never helped me. They never referred my pit to the EU  in which they could of helped so why start now. The only financial package that carillon worker will now get is through the PPF 
( pension) fund which everyone is paying towards.
Dont think for one minute that its all doom and gloom, some vultures will already be hovering over some of the now defunct contracts/jobs.


----------



## SteveJay (Jan 16, 2018)

Tashyboy said:



			Dont think for one minute that its all doom and gloom, some vultures will already be hovering over some of the now defunct contracts/jobs.
		
Click to expand...

A lot of their contracts are within PFI or similar type deals where there are agreed procedures to replace the service provider in the event of a default like this. Those discussions that are now ongoing about who will provide the services - school dinners, facilities management etc. - will put some strain on the rest of the industry and I have heard that some competitors are likely to recruit Carillion staff to enable them to step in.
Know thats only small comfort to employees in that part of the business - less rosy for those in the construction side.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 6, 2018)

16/01/18 I wrote:  

_word has it that restructuring and refinancing plans were agreed and in place for March - just need short term government support to keep the company afloat. For whatever reasons - and they will almost certainly be purely Tory political calculations (probably following the furore around Virgin and Stagecoach) - the government has decided against providing that short term support - and so Carillion collapses putting the jobs and lives of tens of thousands into a tailspin. The government could have prevented this._

got this reply



drdel said:



			You can find Tories and Government incompetence at every turn ! I'm sure there's even a way to spin this and blame Theresa May - despite the numerous contracts awarded by Labour/Blair et al.

I think you'll find their undercutting of sensible bids (and lack of revenue/growth with new contracts) has led to over-exposure and hence to their downfall from an inability to fund the cashflow.
		
Click to expand...

And so today we hear what Carillion Directors Khan and Cochrane are saying about uncertainty caused by Brexit and the 2017 GE and what the government could have done to help the stricken company,


----------



## Val (Feb 6, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			And so today we hear what Carillion Directors Khan and Cochrane are saying about uncertainty caused by Brexit and the 2017 GE and what the government could have done to help the stricken company,
		
Click to expand...

In laymans terms then, swerve, deflect and blame the government. No surprise really.


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 6, 2018)

Val said:



			In laymans terms then, swerve, deflect and blame the government. No surprise really.
		
Click to expand...

But didn't you know expert business men, company directors can't run businesses...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 6, 2018)

Val said:



			In laymans terms then, swerve, deflect and blame the government. No surprise really.
		
Click to expand...

Khan does not seem to have an axe to grind for the company and little or no responsibility for the mess Carillion got themselves into - indeed I believe he unearthed the financial 'black hole' - Cochrane was also fairly late onto the Carillion Board (July 2015).  

The reports I have heard do not suggest they are trying to deflect responsibility for the mess - but as my source said - there was a restructuring and refinancing plan developed that was felt would work - but they needed a relatively small 'bridging loan' from the government.  My source tells me that what has happened now will actually cost the taxpayer a lot more than had the government just provided the loan.

And so the simple question is - why did the government not provide the loan?  Collapse of Carillion; job losses; impact on suppliers; huge pension fund issues etc - all might have been avoided or could have been resolvable if the loan requested had been made.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 6, 2018)

Hobbit said:



			But didn't you know expert business men, company directors can't run businesses...
		
Click to expand...

Other than all the clever ones on this forum


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 6, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Other than all the clever ones on this forum 

Click to expand...

Not spotted a clever one, ever...


----------



## MegaSteve (Feb 6, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Other than all the clever ones on this forum 

Click to expand...

Hmmm... You don't need to be 'clever' to know incomings of 10 with outgoings of 11 only ends one way...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 6, 2018)

MegaSteve said:



			Hmmm... You don't need to be 'clever' to know incomings of 10 with outgoings of 11 only ends one way...
		
Click to expand...

unless you can borrow 1 for a short while until you get your outgoings down to 10

Bottom line is that Carillion is going to cost us the taxpayer a lot more now that they have gone to the wall - than if the government had provided the bridging loan.  That Stagecoach and Virgin got their bailouts and Carillion didn't was I am told simply because Branson and Souter have much higher public profile and profile within government than the bosses of Carillion.  

The fallout from Grayling baling our Branson and Souter was such that politically the government didn't want to do the same for Carillion - and given the low profile in the eyes of the public of the Carillion bosses the government felt that they could just walk away from Carillion.

Except they can't walk away from the fallout of Carillion going bust.   And it will cost as the taxpayer a lot of money.  Unnecessarily.


----------



## Val (Feb 6, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			Khan does not seem to have an axe to grind for the company and little or no responsibility for the mess Carillion got themselves into - indeed I believe he unearthed the financial 'black hole' - Cochrane was also fairly late onto the Carillion Board (July 2015).  

The reports I have heard do not suggest they are trying to deflect responsibility for the mess - but as my source said - there was a restructuring and refinancing plan developed that was felt would work - but they needed a relatively small 'bridging loan' from the government.  My source tells me that what has happened now will actually cost the taxpayer a lot more than had the government just provided the loan.

And so the simple question is - why did the government not provide the loan?  Collapse of Carillion; job losses; impact on suppliers; huge pension fund issues etc - all might have been avoided or could have been resolvable if the loan requested had been made.
		
Click to expand...

Maybe your source can provide a reason why a "bridging loan" as it was put would cost the taxpayer anything? Surely a loan is a loan and not a gift? Maybe the government thought throwing good money at a company who are bleeding from every available orifice was a bad idea and it was right to let them die.

As MegaSteve puts it, you don't have to be clever to know that 10 in and 11 out will end badly. 

Maybe the only fault the government have is having trust in them to fulfill their contracts?


----------



## MegaSteve (Feb 6, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			unless you can borrow 1 for a short while until you get your outgoings down to 10
		
Click to expand...

From what I've seen, heard and read Carillion had plenty of previous opportunities to right the ship but never took them... 

The company my lad works for had long stopped doing business with them...


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 6, 2018)

Val said:



			Maybe your source can provide a reason why a "bridging loan" as it was put would cost the taxpayer anything? Surely a loan is a loan and not a gift? Maybe the government thought throwing good money at a company who are bleeding from every available orifice was a bad idea and it was right to let them die.

As MegaSteve puts it, you don't have to be clever to know that 10 in and 11 out will end badly. 

Maybe the only fault the government have is having trust in them to fulfill their contracts?
		
Click to expand...

It would cost the taxpayer in the eyes of the public - we are not good at differentiating - and the government did not want to be seen to be baling out Carillion as it would be equated with what they did for Stagecoach and Virgin Trains.  

Whatever the mismanagement of the contracts or the problems that Brexit and associated uncertainty did for bank funding - the government could have prevented Carillion going under - and as it didn't the actual real cost to the taxpayer; suppliers and workers will be much greater than the cost of any short term loan.


----------



## Val (Feb 6, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			It would cost the taxpayer in the eyes of the public - we are not good at differentiating - and the government did not want to be seen to be baling out Carillion as it would be equated with what they did for Stagecoach and Virgin Trains.  

Whatever the mismanagement of the contracts or the problems that Brexit and associated uncertainty did for bank funding - the government could have prevented Carillion going under - and as it didn't the actual real cost to the taxpayer; suppliers and workers will be much greater than the cost of any short term loan.
		
Click to expand...

Of course they could have but let me ask you this question, would you personally bail out your local milk man who you trust to deliver milk to you daily despite him spending more than he earns, doesn't deliver on time and spills more milk than he delivers?


----------



## Liverbirdie (Feb 6, 2018)

Val said:



			Of course they could have but let me ask you this question, would you personally bail out your local milk man who you trust to deliver milk to you daily despite him spending more than he earns, doesn't deliver on time and spills more milk than he delivers?
		
Click to expand...

It depends on if you ask B.A. Baracus or Murph in the A team.


----------



## SwingsitlikeHogan (Feb 6, 2018)

Val said:



			Of course they could have but let me ask you this question, would you personally bail out your local milk man who you trust to deliver milk to you daily despite him spending more than he earns, doesn't deliver on time and spills more milk than he delivers?
		
Click to expand...

they could have - and would have saved the taxpayers quite probably 100s of millions - would it be worth it then?

Note that one of Carillion's problems would have been the absurdly tight contracts the government has been letting these recent years.  Absolutely no wriggle or head room or room for error on a companies behalf.  My company has recently taken on a major new government contract - we were the incumbent - the others tendering as much as walked away as they knew it couldn't be done for the budget - and much too high a risk.  My company has been left holding the baby.  Almost a No Win situation.  Walk away and the service goes t*ts up and bad bad publicity for us in bucket loads - or continue delivering the service under a very difficult and tight new contract with the distinct possibility of us losing loads of dosh before we make any.


----------



## Hobbit (Feb 6, 2018)

SwingsitlikeHogan said:



			they could have - and would have saved the taxpayers quite probably 100s of millions - would it be worth it then?

Note that one of Carillion's problems would have been the absurdly tight contracts the government has been letting these recent years.  Absolutely no wriggle or head room or room for error on a companies behalf.  My company has recently taken on a major new government contract - we were the incumbent - the others tendering as much as walked away as they knew it couldn't be done for the budget - and much too high a risk.  My company has been left holding the baby.  Almost a No Win situation.  Walk away and the service goes t*ts up and bad bad publicity for us in bucket loads - or continue delivering the service under a very difficult and tight new contract with the distinct possibility of us losing loads of dosh before we make any.
		
Click to expand...

The cheap way to provide support is to have the government act as guarantors for a loan, rather than have the Treasury have to find the money. Add in a place on the Board, or overall control falling under a troubleshooter. I'm sure something could have been done rather than just let them go to the wall.


----------



## Bunkermagnet (Feb 6, 2018)

I'm no lover of this Government, but on the news it came out that Carillion hadn't been paid for work somewhere East and Canada for 18 months to the tune of Â£200 mill. That surely is incompitence by Carillion and nothing to do with the Government. 
They played the game thinking they were too big to fail, knowing everyone else will be picking up the tab as the directors and senior personel will be safe with their gold lined pensions and life.


----------



## Val (Feb 6, 2018)

SiLH, Iâ€™m curious to know what the Â£100â€™s millions of cost to the taxpayer is for, genuinely?


----------



## Stuart_C (Jun 11, 2019)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-48554318

The news confirmed that has been widely spoken about locally in the construction trade. Millions of pounds worth of work rectifying sub standard work  caused by an inept multi million pound company.

More importantly, has left Liverpool with a main  hospital delapidated and not fit for purpose.


----------

