Carillion. Close to going bust.

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.
 
Last edited:
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.;)
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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 £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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

palindromicbob
Hillman Laser Range Finder TM-800
5 6 7
Replies
120
Views
42K
Alex1975
Alex1975
Top