Philip Green, does anyone care what the truth is?
Discussion
Adrian W said:
Just watched the ITV interview, he claims he followed the advisors advice, yet no one has asked for the actual figures, from what he was saying it seems that no one actually cares what the truth is, it's just a public lynching.
I think PG is a shrewd and quite ruthless operator who is experienced at playing the system and turning any situation to his advantaage.But his real crimes are that firstly he is self-made, secondly he is very, very wealthy and lastly he has got his ducks in a row with regard to tax.
You see, in this country no one likes to see anyone do well and especially become rich. The populus doesn't like it and the government doesn't like it. But what really pounds the plums of the government is that he has the audacity to not pay as much tax as they think he should. In their minds everyone should only work to pay as much tax as possible.
As a consequence of the above, PG will find little sympathy from most people in the UK. He should be smart enough to know that he isn't going to be able to operate as he does long-term and yet remain the people's darling (he'd be putting James Dyson out a job anyway), yet he does still seem quite attached to his knighthood.
Eric Mc said:
If you were a member of the BHS Pension Fund you might have a different view.
Sidicks will be along in a minute to patronise you about how you are wrong about that.However, what it really amounts to is when you have more than you will ever need and you have left some crumbs on the table - leave them there for those who will benefit from them. Don't feel the need to scoop them up as well.
r11co said:
However, what it really amounts to is when you have more than you will ever need and you have left some crumbs on the table - leave them there for those who will benefit from them. Don't feel the need to scoop them up as well.
I've seen this so many times. Successful people who are utterly, emotionally blind. They cannot leave anything on the table, they have no concept of using up favours, and it does amount to a severe psychological blindspot because, in effect, it is very often a loss of the bigger picture and of how some battles are not worth winning.There are plenty of examples; I'm sure, in retrospect both Tony Blair and Fred Goodwin would trade a few quid to be able to walk safely down the street.
Eric Mc said:
If you were a member of the BHS Pension Fund you might have a different view.
If you shaft you're staff - you are obviously an astute and clever business man.
I take it you didn't see the interview Eric, If you shaft you're staff - you are obviously an astute and clever business man.
How do you think he shafted them?
Buy taking the professional advice or by taking a £300m dividend and investing £800m
Have you read thes accounts?
r11co said:
Sidicks will be along in a minute to patronise you about how you are wrong about that.
I'll be along to explain Eric's misunderstanding about what is after all my area of expertise.Sorry you don't understand the difference, but decided to be confrontational for no apparent reason...
r11co said:
However, what it really amounts to is when you have more than you will ever need and you have left some crumbs on the table - leave them there for those who will benefit from them. Don't feel the need to scoop them up as well.
The issue with the pension scheme is the same with many schemes:- The promises are too expensive and hence most schemes have closed to new members and future accrual. Of course the promises still should be met, assuming the company is still able to do do.
The issues have been exacerbated by recent government policy / market activity which has moved gilt rates (and real rates) to historic lows, massively increasing the value of liabilities.
- DB schemes have been in a difficult position - do they hedge at historic low rates (mitigating future falls in rates) but locking-in a deficit or do they remain unhedged, hoping for rate rises to reduce the deficit and allow them to reduce their deficits?
As with many DB schemes, the Trustees / Sponsor agreed the latter approach, with additional sponsor contributions being paid to help close the deficit - phased over 20 years due to the cash flow problems / profitability issue within BHS (It simply couldn't afford to pay more upfront).
As we are aware, rates fell further and hence the deficit increased significantly, as it has done for many schemes,
In selling the business, Green relinquished any responsibility for the pension scheme, that became the responsibility of the new owner, who should have taken this into account.
Of course, in the early days he probably took too much out of the business in dividends rather than reinvest and maintain stores etc, but this didn't affect the pension scheme at that time as it was still reasonably well funded.
Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 19th October 09:36
Eric Mc said:
If you were a member of the BHS Pension Fund you might have a different view.
If you shaft you're staff - you are obviously an astute and clever business man.
If you shaft you're staff - you are obviously an astute and clever business man.
Gordon Brown was very astute and clever when he shafted all of the UK pension funds a few years ago?.... What a great man and chancellor.
Eric Mc said:
It's only a suggestion. People like Green are very clever at skirting around laws and regulations. It doesn't mean that they haven't behaved properly though.
I never said he had behaved properly. You explicitly called him a crook, which means you believe his has acted criminally, I'm simply asking for your evidence of that.Eric Mc said:
Did Maxwell actually break any laws when he plundered the Mirror Group's pension?
Really?Really what?
I asked a question about Maxwell - I didn't make a statement.
If you want to be 100% criminally accurate about using the word "crook" - then you are correct. But there are plenty of "crooks" out there who MAY or MAY NOT have broken a law or a set of laws.
I sometimes wonder if PH is festooned with people who can only see the absolute letter of the law when examining how people conduct their affairs and deliberately fail to see the bigger picture.
I asked a question about Maxwell - I didn't make a statement.
If you want to be 100% criminally accurate about using the word "crook" - then you are correct. But there are plenty of "crooks" out there who MAY or MAY NOT have broken a law or a set of laws.
I sometimes wonder if PH is festooned with people who can only see the absolute letter of the law when examining how people conduct their affairs and deliberately fail to see the bigger picture.
Edited by Eric Mc on Wednesday 19th October 09:44
sidicks said:
If you don't understand that stealing money from a pension scheme is wrong, I suggest that you are in the wrong thread. What sort of accountant are you / were you?
We are obviously talking cross purposes here. That's EXACTLY what I said,.But, was it CRIMINAL? Did he break any laws at that time?
superlightr said:
Eric Mc said:
If you were a member of the BHS Pension Fund you might have a different view.
If you shaft you're staff - you are obviously an astute and clever business man.
If you shaft you're staff - you are obviously an astute and clever business man.
Gordon Brown was very astute and clever when he shafted all of the UK pension funds a few years ago?.... What a great man and chancellor.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff