Philip Green, does anyone care what the truth is?

[Tryke3]

sidicks said:

Tryke3 said:

Isnt that what the mps looked into and not found much evidence for wrong doing, but still took the approach that somehow he is partly responsiblr for the pension deficit and probably for the bankruptcy of the business? You claim he done nothing wrong but it seems he has question to answer and the answer are basically see no evil hear no evil, while spending millions on yachts and avoiding taxes aggresively. You claim he is innocent, yet everyone else understood the deal he done, its been common practice for many years, take all the cash out the company, load it with debts and if it fails the goverment will pick up the pension bill, if it doesnt happy days. We understand even if we cant be bothered to actually look for evidence to present on a internet forum :thumbsup:

I've never claimed he is innocent. I've simply claimed that so far there is a lack of evidence that he is guilty of anything apart from poor management.

There cant be evidence, its completely legal

[sidicks]

Tryke3 said:

There cant be evidence, its completely legal

Do you think he's innocent?

[JNW1]

sidicks said:

Company pays rent on buildings they don't own is hardly a scandal or worthy of comment. Thousands of businesses do exactly that. Given the scale of BHS, it does not surprise me that the rent on the substantial number of properties they occupied (but did not own) would also be substantial.

Now if the rent paid was double or more than the market rent, then there is a story to be had. If experts think that it was in line with (at the upper end of) market rents then this isn't really relevant.

The company would be paying rent to someone!

Indeed so! I think the suggestion is "only" that the rents being paid were very much top-end given the premises and locations; nothing wrong with that per se, just tends to add to the feeling that BHS was being ever so slightly milked by the Green family companies....

[sidicks]

JNW1 said:

Indeed so! I think the suggestion is "only" that the rents being paid were very much top-end given the premises and locations; nothing wrong with that per se, just tends to add to the feeling that BHS was being ever so slightly milked by the Green family companies....

I think there's little doubt of that!

[JNW1]

sidicks said:

Tryke3 said:

Isnt that what the mps looked into and not found much evidence for wrong doing, but still took the approach that somehow he is partly responsiblr for the pension deficit and probably for the bankruptcy of the business? You claim he done nothing wrong but it seems he has question to answer and the answer are basically see no evil hear no evil, while spending millions on yachts and avoiding taxes aggresively. You claim he is innocent, yet everyone else understood the deal he done, its been common practice for many years, take all the cash out the company, load it with debts and if it fails the goverment will pick up the pension bill, if it doesnt happy days. We understand even if we cant be bothered to actually look for evidence to present on a internet forum :thumbsup:

I've never claimed he is innocent. I've simply claimed that so far there is a lack of evidence that he is guilty of anything apart from poor management.

I don't think there's evidence to support he's done anything illegal but poor management is arguably being a touch charitable as that could be construed as someone who was just out of his depth and making mistakes; however, Green was no novice and was actually meant to be the "King of Retail". Therefore, personally I think he knew far more of what was going on than he was prepared to admit to the Parliamentary Select Committee and I think he knew exactly what he was doing when he was taking money out of BHS. I also suspect he was well aware of the deteriorating position on the pension fund and did too little, too late (probably because he was already thinking of a way to divest the business).

So I'd say he was guilty of cynical management in the best interests of himself and his family and to the detriment of BHS and its employees; that's certainly poor management in my book but not sure if that's quite what you meant? Poor management could mean innocent mistakes and he's guilty of more than just that IMO!

[crankedup]

So, do we conclude anything, or do we wait! This thread has been a hard slog and I appluad those posters that have put forward well thought through posts.
Fat pigs at the trough seems to be a continuing story with its tenticles spread deeply into finance and Corporate business. From the co-op upwards, standards of morality in business no longer exist, thankfully I am retired from this stfest.

[basherX]

JNW1 said:

Indeed so! I think the suggestion is "only" that the rents being paid were very much top-end given the premises and locations; nothing wrong with that per se, just tends to add to the feeling that BHS was being ever so slightly milked by the Green family companies....

The rental structure was also a (perfectly legal) tax arb scheme.

[Tryke3]

sidicks said:

Tryke3 said:

There cant be evidence, its completely legal

Do you think he's innocent?

What has legality got to do with innocence ? Think you are being naive

[Jockman]

JNW1 said:

Poor management could mean innocent mistakes and he's guilty of more than just that IMO!

You're increasing the ante to include 'intent'.

Dangerous.

[Jockman]

Tryke3 said:

sidicks said:

Tryke3 said:

There cant be evidence, its completely legal

Do you think he's innocent?

What has legality got to do with innocence ? Think you are being naive

Think you are being played.

[Magog]

Time is a flat circle. Everything we've ever done or will do, we're gonna do over and over and over again...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/emperor...

[JNW1]

Jockman said:

JNW1 said:

Poor management could mean innocent mistakes and he's guilty of more than just that IMO!

You're increasing the ante to include 'intent'.

Dangerous.

I'm just saying this wasn't some kind of business novice who simply got unlucky because things went against him; there's no evidence to support he did anything illegal but he and his family's companies took a substantial amount of money out of BHS during his period of ownership and that wasn't an accident or a twist of fate.

[Trophy Husband]

I run an SME and had the opportunity of a healthy dividend being posted based upon our profits last financial year. Both my partner and I agreed that whilst it was available to us we would only draw the dividend to return to the business as Directors Loans. The reason for doing this? Safeguarding the future of our staff. If, at the end of this FY we remain in a healthy position then we may look at drawing more. If not, it remains. It strikes me that PG has drawn his dividend regardless of the impact on the business. That is pure greed.

[FredClogs]

Trophy Husband said:

I run an SME and had the opportunity of a healthy dividend being posted based upon our profits last financial year. Both my partner and I agreed that whilst it was available to us we would only draw the dividend to return to the business as Directors Loans. The reason for doing this? Safeguarding the future of our staff. If, at the end of this FY we remain in a healthy position then we may look at drawing more. If not, it remains. It strikes me that PG has drawn his dividend regardless of the impact on the business. That is pure greed.

Why would you do that and not just leave it in your company account? Assuming you're a higher rate tax payer you'd have to pay the tax on it and there's 5% dividend tax as of April, I wouldn't do that again if I were you. Phillip Green is getting better advice than you at least.

[Jockman]

FredClogs said:

Why would you do that and not just leave it in your company account? Assuming you're a higher rate tax payer you'd have to pay the tax on it and there's 5% dividend tax as of April, I wouldn't do that again if I were you. Phillip Green is getting better advice than you at least.

Fred, you just made that up.

[FredClogs]

Jockman said:

FredClogs said:

Why would you do that and not just leave it in your company account? Assuming you're a higher rate tax payer you'd have to pay the tax on it and there's 5% dividend tax as of April, I wouldn't do that again if I were you. Phillip Green is getting better advice than you at least.

Fred, you just made that up.

Just made what up?

[Trophy Husband]

FredClogs said:

Trophy Husband said:

I run an SME and had the opportunity of a healthy dividend being posted based upon our profits last financial year. Both my partner and I agreed that whilst it was available to us we would only draw the dividend to return to the business as Directors Loans. The reason for doing this? Safeguarding the future of our staff. If, at the end of this FY we remain in a healthy position then we may look at drawing more. If not, it remains. It strikes me that PG has drawn his dividend regardless of the impact on the business. That is pure greed.

Why would you do that and not just leave it in your company account? Assuming you're a higher rate tax payer you'd have to pay the tax on it and there's 5% dividend tax as of April, I wouldn't do that again if I were you. Phillip Green is getting better advice than you at least.

I trust my accountant. This is his advice. We care about our business and its continuing success.

[Jockman]

FredClogs said:

Jockman said:

FredClogs said:

Why would you do that and not just leave it in your company account? Assuming you're a higher rate tax payer you'd have to pay the tax on it and there's 5% dividend tax as of April, I wouldn't do that again if I were you. Phillip Green is getting better advice than you at least.

Fred, you just made that up.

Just made what up?

Why would it not make sense to pay it last year, presumably before the hike in Dividend tax rates?

What 5% Dividend tax rate?

[Jockman]

Trophy Husband said:

I trust my accountant. This is his advice. We care about our business and its continuing success.

Good advice, so long as it was structured correctly and was mindful of breaching different tax brackets.

[FredClogs]

Jockman said:

FredClogs said:

Jockman said:

FredClogs said:

Why would you do that and not just leave it in your company account? Assuming you're a higher rate tax payer you'd have to pay the tax on it and there's 5% dividend tax as of April, I wouldn't do that again if I were you. Phillip Green is getting better advice than you at least.

Fred, you just made that up.

Just made what up?

Why would it not make sense to pay it last year, presumably before the hike in Dividend tax rates?

What 5% Dividend tax rate?

The 5% came from me, it's my quick calc given the allowance and where I am with my dividends, the actual amounts as of 2016 are here...

https://www.gov.uk/tax-on-dividends/how-dividends-...

Still makes no sense to take a dividend at any level and then put it back into the company, does it? Maybe an accountant will be along shortly to correct me.