Sir Philip Green vs Select committee
Discussion
sidicks said:
greygoose said:
Indeed I can't imagine Green would want to appear in a courtroom to answer a barrister about how he would differ from Maxwell and explain his dealings.
I imagine that would be pretty simple:- Maxwell stole from the pension fund.
- Green took dividends from the business and subsequently the pension scheme became underfunded (but not necessarily as a direct cause of the dividends).
Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 26th July 10:08
sidicks said:
hornetrider said:
Indeed.
Is it not 'a thing' to be extracting divis when the company can't afford it? It is at my lowly one-man-band level, anyway.
When the dividends were paid, the company could afford them!Is it not 'a thing' to be extracting divis when the company can't afford it? It is at my lowly one-man-band level, anyway.
No worries.
hornetrider said:
Oh, that's fine then. You can suck all the money out of a vast business so it has no cash reserves to survive any downturn in trade, putting thousands out of jobs and their pensions at risk.
No worries.
Sounds like you don't understand how businesses or DB pension schemes work, in which case probably best NOT to comment on a thread about business and pensions schemes...!No worries.
sidicks said:
hornetrider said:
Oh, that's fine then. You can suck all the money out of a vast business so it has no cash reserves to survive any downturn in trade, putting thousands out of jobs and their pensions at risk.
No worries.
Sounds like you don't understand how businesses or DB pension schemes work, in which case probably best NOT to comment on a thread about business and pensions schemes...!No worries.
RYH64E said:
The underlying problem is that traditional, defined benefit, employer funded pension schemes are completely unaffordable in the current era. It was ok when people retired at 65 and died at 70, with decent investment returns on invested funds, but that's not the case now. I don't know what the answer is, but expecting employers to contribute ever greater amounts into a pension black hole isn't it.
You don't need to tell me that!RYH64E said:
sidicks said:
hornetrider said:
Oh, that's fine then. You can suck all the money out of a vast business so it has no cash reserves to survive any downturn in trade, putting thousands out of jobs and their pensions at risk.
No worries.
Sounds like you don't understand how businesses or DB pension schemes work, in which case probably best NOT to comment on a thread about business and pensions schemes...!No worries.
sidicks said:
hornetrider said:
Oh, that's fine then. You can suck all the money out of a vast business so it has no cash reserves to survive any downturn in trade, putting thousands out of jobs and their pensions at risk.
No worries.
Sounds like you don't understand how businesses or DB pension schemes work, in which case probably best NOT to comment on a thread about business and pensions schemes...!No worries.
Quick question for my simple mind. How would BHS be doing today if 430 million in divis hadn't been extracted?
hornetrider said:
Classy response. I don't, obviously.
Quick question for my simple mind. How would BHS be doing today if 430 million in divis hadn't been extracted?
a) All of that could have been put into the pension fund and it might STILL be underfunded.Quick question for my simple mind. How would BHS be doing today if 430 million in divis hadn't been extracted?
b) It's Phil Green's company. And as such, it's his to do what he likes with. Not the taxpayers.*
- yes there's a moral responsibility to 11,000 now-unemployed workers but not a legal one.......
sidicks said:
I imagine that would be pretty simple:
- Maxwell stole from the pension fund.
- Green took dividends from the business and subsequently the pension scheme became underfunded (but not necessarily as a direct cause of the dividends).
This is why Frank Field has gone overboard...- Maxwell stole from the pension fund.
- Green took dividends from the business and subsequently the pension scheme became underfunded (but not necessarily as a direct cause of the dividends).
Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 26th July 10:08
turbobloke said:
crankedup said:
rohrl said:
The report says that Philip Green is "The unacceptable face of capitalism" and I'd agree. He and his family have ripped the guts out of their businesses for their own personal enrichment leaving the employees without a pension and/or without a job.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36879241
At long last perhaps these greedy self serving parasites may just be recognised for the damage that their actions cause to Society, employees and good business folk . Same goes for the greedy bankers. Talk of a board seat for worker representation is long long overdue, the sooner it is introduced the better.http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36879241
In Green's case I already posted that Theresa May needs to live up to the statement she made on becoming PM.
The Co-Op mismanagement saga doesn't fit the bill but it was / is memorable.
2013
Co-op Group Chair quits over Paul Flowers drugs claims
2014
Co-op Group accepts resignation of Chief Executive Sutherland
2015
Co-op Bank says it will make no profit until 2017
2016
Shock Co-op boss exit after milk price row
A quick scan of Boardroom pay increases against a backdrop of failure also indicates the malaise of Corporate greed, Tesco for example. Another example Barclays Bank. BHS is just the latest fail against over payment in the Boardroom. All of these Companies have been mis-managed by deluded arrogant self serving greedy individuals and the cost of this is just emerging, although Barclays is doing its best to recover whilst Tesco has a mountain to climb and a whole load of unwanted business and assets to unload.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
I don't know who handles Philip Green's PR but he needs to sack them. He gives tens of millions to charity every year but that hasn't got a mention in recent months.
That's not to say it should get him off the hook for any wrongdoing at BHS, but you'd think his PR people would at least be trying to mitigate the reputation damage.
Admirable as that may be I reckon his former employees and retired employees may suggest that keeping the pension pot topped up would have been equally admirable. Sucking millions from the business when that business was on a downward trajectory looks bad.That's not to say it should get him off the hook for any wrongdoing at BHS, but you'd think his PR people would at least be trying to mitigate the reputation damage.
hornetrider said:
Quick question for my simple mind. How would BHS be doing today if 430 million in divis hadn't been extracted?
So are you suggesting that companies should not pay dividends in case or until some future event which might mean that extra funds are needed for the pension scheme?Given the fact that the majority of DB schemes are currently in deficit, many of whom will previously have paid out dividends to shareholders, do you apply the same criticism to all those companies too?
As explained above these schemes simply aren't affordable anymore - funds that were broadly matched at one point can be exposed to adverse market moves and hence move into significant deficit. The only credible way for most companies in that situation is to aim to close the deficit over an agreed future period - too short a period and the contributions are too high and simply cannot be funded by the sponsor. The longer the period for rectification, to greater risk to the members if the business struggles or goes under.
However, I believe there are restrictions on the extent to which a business can pay dividends while the scheme is in deficit.
sidicks said:
hornetrider said:
Quick question for my simple mind. How would BHS be doing today if 430 million in divis hadn't been extracted?
So are you suggesting that companies should not pay dividends in case or until some future event which might mean that extra funds are needed for the pension scheme?The Don of Croy said:
crankedup said:
...At long last perhaps these greedy self serving parasites may just be recognised for the damage that their actions cause to Society, employees and good business folk ...
Perhaps you would prefer it if P. Green just shut up shop?Thereby unemploying all those at TopShop, Miss Selfridge, Burton, Dorothy Perkins, TopMan, Wallis, etc etc?
Presumably those brands continue to do something right, therefore providing some jobs and a few taxes for the UK economy. But let's chase the mountebank out of town, pitchforks in hand...
That's not to say he's beyond rebuke, nor that he might be a skilled manipulator and shrewd deal maker, but so far no-one has pinpointed any law breaking. Immoral and unethical perhaps, but not actually illegal (so far).
As for green shutting shop on his other businesses, plenty of good people would be willing to take them on and may give a boost of confidence to those employed in these other businesses.
hornetrider said:
I didn't say no divis. I don't know the background to this one. I'd like to know over what period of time they were taken out and what percentage of the cash reserves they were at the time. And whether the act of taking them out put the future of the company at risk.
And yet you were previously claiming that this case was basically the same as Robert Maxwell!sidicks said:
hornetrider said:
Oh, that's fine then. You can suck all the money out of a vast business so it has no cash reserves to survive any downturn in trade, putting thousands out of jobs and their pensions at risk.
No worries.
Sounds like you don't understand how businesses or DB pension schemes work, in which case probably best NOT to comment on a thread about business and pensions schemes...!No worries.
sidicks said:
hornetrider said:
I didn't say no divis. I don't know the background to this one. I'd like to know over what period of time they were taken out and what percentage of the cash reserves they were at the time. And whether the act of taking them out put the future of the company at risk.
And yet you were previously claiming that this case was basically the same as Robert Maxwell!crankedup said:
In this example it seems to me that the rules need changing, after all the Company has been run into the ground whilst the extraction of millions was going on for years.
How was the business performing when the dividends were taken?Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 26th July 11:48
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff