Philip Green, does anyone care what the truth is?

[r11co]

fblm said:

r11co said:

fblm said:

Is it good enough, appropriate or ethical for you to publicly 'diagnose' someone in front of their friends, whilst waving around your qualifications, for no other reason than to try and discredit them?

You clearly don't appreciate the difference between 'waving around' your qualifications and presenting them when asked to.

Hey ho.

Is there any difference when the only reason is to try and establish a perception of professional authority for doling out unsolicited diagnosis in public? I guess the ethics module was also elective.

Have you ever heard of Dysinhibition Syndrome? Always wanting to have the last word is a symptom.

[sidicks]

r11co said:

fblm said:

r11co said:

fblm said:

Is it good enough, appropriate or ethical for you to publicly 'diagnose' someone in front of their friends, whilst waving around your qualifications, for no other reason than to try and discredit them?

You clearly don't appreciate the difference between 'waving around' your qualifications and presenting them when asked to.

Hey ho.

Is there any difference when the only reason is to try and establish a perception of professional authority for doling out unsolicited diagnosis in public? I guess the ethics module was also elective.

Have you ever heard of Dysinhibition Syndrome? Always wanting to have the last word is a symptom.

Do you have that too?

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

My point is, and I really didn't expect to spell it out but if it helps you to understand.
The guy extracted millions of pounds in div's during the fat easy period.

You quoted my post, yet your comment was seemingly entirely unrelated to the issue being discussed, hence the confusion.

You are correct that he took dividends when the business was profitable. That seems unworthy of comment and unrelated to the pension deficit-dividend issue!

crankedup said:

His efforts to drive the brand forward post fat years were all unsuccessful, so much for high street king tag. With a number of other high street brands under his name It looks like he took his eye off the ball with BHS. He poured in millions of pounds, tax efficiency. maybe?

He invested hundreds of millions of pounds in the business and not only do you fail to acknowledge this in your comments about the money he took out of the business, you now seek to position this as some form of tax avoidance measure!

crankedup said:

A business as big as BHS would have had a multitude of escape avenues and yet. Funny smell, have to agree with Frank Field, it doesn't add up, just like the pension scheme.

So you are suggesting he deliberately ran the business down, thus minimising the amount he could sell it for? I'm not sure I understand the logic, perhaps you can explain?

The pension scheme position does add up - market movements...!!

Edited by sidicks on Wednesday 19th October 19:06

Most of your response is your usual stuff, nit picking. Green invested hundreds of millions, well that is what I said, millions of pounds. are you suggesting that he didn't enjoy tax concessions for this year after year investment?
So far as running down the business, I am sure this was not a deliberate action on his part, simply that he was caught out wanting on how to turn the thing around.
Of course I also look upon the BHS disaster from a moral standpoint as well as a dreadful management perspective.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

Eric Mc said:

sidicks said:

Established brand with low profit margin products, increasing costs and increased competition in the wake of Internet sales.

And a supposed business genius in charge. It seems being a business giant is useless in the face of the challenge of the internet.

Plenty of businesses have been unable to adapt to the technological changes we have seen. But, as I outlined earlier, Green was certainly running the business to maximise his returns on a short-term basis, not looking to the long-term.

Well that is patently obvious, something you excel at recognising. What is the point of your post, we all know the most obvious of the BHS debacle

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Most of your response is your usual stuff, nit picking.

Not at all, please re-read your post.

crankedup said:

sidicks said:

JNW1 said:

The link below might help to shed a bit of light on things!
http://uk.businessinsider.com/sir-philip-green-bhs...

That link appears to show that £307m was taken out of the firm between 2002 and 2004.
It also shows the pension scheme to be in surplus during that time, as I claimed originally.

What have I missed?

Erm, how about the intervening years 2005 - 2015
:

In other words, your comment, quoting my post, was irrelevant to the discussion that was being had (which was abut the dividends taken from the company and the pension deficit situation at that time).

crankedup said:

Green invested hundreds of millions, well that is what I said, millions of pounds. are you suggesting that he didn't enjoy tax concessions for this year after year investment?

Yes, if you make losses they can often be offset against profits elsewhere. However the tax relief is only a proportion of the loss incurred, so you've still worse off overall.

crankedup said:

So far as running down the business, I am sure this was not a deliberate action on his part, simply that he was caught out wanting on how to turn the thing around.
Of course I also look upon the BHS disaster from a moral standpoint as well as a dreadful management perspective.

So your conclusion is that Green invested a lot of money into the business and, for whatever reason, couldn't turn it around?

[r11co]

sidicks said:

r11co said:

Have you ever heard of Dysinhibition Syndrome? Always wanting to have the last word is a symptom.

Do you have that too?

I don't, but are you implying that it is you or fblm who does?

[sidicks]

r11co said:

sidicks said:

r11co said:

Have you ever heard of Dysinhibition Syndrome? Always wanting to have the last word is a symptom.

Do you have that too?

I don't, but are you implying that it is you or fblm who does?

I think you do.

[TVR1]

Adrian W said:

JNW1 said:

Sorry, what claim was that? What I said was that during Green's ownership the pension schemes went from surplus to deficit whilst at the same time he and his family took hundreds of millions out of the business - I think that's actually a matter of record and the link to the article I posted supports that?

What about the £800 Million Green says he put in over the period, which is nearly three times what he took out why are you choosing to ignore this?

But he didnt put that in. What he actually did was put up 'security' to the tune of £800 million. However, the security wasnt real money. It was a far less amount but levered.

You probably dont remember tge Phoenix venture holdings. How to acquire a multi million pound business by guarantee.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Venture_Ho...


https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/sep/11/m...

Edited by TVR1 on Thursday 20th October 00:52

It gets better........


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/in...

Edited by TVR1 on Thursday 20th October 00:57

[Adrian W]

TVR1 said:

Adrian W said:

JNW1 said:

Sorry, what claim was that? What I said was that during Green's ownership the pension schemes went from surplus to deficit whilst at the same time he and his family took hundreds of millions out of the business - I think that's actually a matter of record and the link to the article I posted supports that?

What about the £800 Million Green says he put in over the period, which is nearly three times what he took out why are you choosing to ignore this?

But he didnt put that in. What he actually did was put up 'security' to the tune of £800 million. However, the security wasnt real money. It was a far less amount but levered.

You probably dont remember tge Phoenix venture holdings. How to acquire a multi million pound business by guarantee.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Venture_Ho...

He says a it was cash http://www.standard.co.uk/business/sir-philip-gree... How come you know better

[TVR1]

Adrian W said:

TVR1 said:

Adrian W said:

JNW1 said:

Sorry, what claim was that? What I said was that during Green's ownership the pension schemes went from surplus to deficit whilst at the same time he and his family took hundreds of millions out of the business - I think that's actually a matter of record and the link to the article I posted supports that?

What about the £800 Million Green says he put in over the period, which is nearly three times what he took out why are you choosing to ignore this?

But he didnt put that in. What he actually did was put up 'security' to the tune of £800 million. However, the security wasnt real money. It was a far less amount but levered.

You probably dont remember tge Phoenix venture holdings. How to acquire a multi million pound business by guarantee.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_Venture_Ho...

He says a it was cash http://www.standard.co.uk/business/sir-philip-gree... How come you know better

No, he doesnt. He says Capital. thats not cash.


Cash was taken out.


Bless him though. He wasnt very well, so decided to move to Monaco for his health.

Edited by TVR1 on Thursday 20th October 01:03

[Adrian W]

I'm pretty sure that in this context he meant cash

[greygoose]

I am probably naive, jealous etc but what I see is a man with more money than he could ever spend hiding out in Monaco (yes I know it is legal) whilst the wreck he sold goes to the wall, he promised to set the pension fund on an even footing but has he actually done anything yet?

[durbster]

I keep thinking of this article in relation to Green, in which a very rich bloke realises things cannot continue as they are.

The Pitchforks Are Coming...
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the...

Nick Hanauer said:

If we don’t do something to fix the glaring inequities in this economy, the pitchforks are going to come for us. No society can sustain this kind of rising inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated like this and the pitchforks didn’t eventually come out.

Edited by durbster on Thursday 20th October 09:12

[FredClogs]

durbster said:

I keep thinking of this article in relation to Green, in which a very rich bloke realises things cannot continue as they are.

The Pitchforks Are Coming...
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the...

Nick Hanauer said:

If we don’t do something to fix the glaring inequities in this economy, the pitchforks are going to come for us. No society can sustain this kind of rising inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated like this and the pitchforks didn’t eventually come out.

Edited by durbster on Thursday 20th October 09:12

I remember reading that article when it was first written, of course the system will fail, all systems fail at some point, people will pass and the landscape will change, but what won't change is the glutinous nature of some individuals. The Egyptians had it right and many successful civilisations copied them, venerate ONE man, lift him above the others, make him an idol, a living God, dress him in gold and worship him and only him and then the rest if us can go about our life as equals...

Bagsie first go at Sun God.

[Adrian W]

durbster said:

I keep thinking of this article in relation to Green, in which a very rich bloke realises things cannot continue as they are.

The Pitchforks Are Coming...
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the...

Nick Hanauer said:

If we don’t do something to fix the glaring inequities in this economy, the pitchforks are going to come for us. No society can sustain this kind of rising inequality. In fact, there is no example in human history where wealth accumulated like this and the pitchforks didn’t eventually come out.

Edited by durbster on Thursday 20th October 09:12

It will start with Government employees pensions, as in we can't afford our own but have to pay for theirs. but has nothing to do with this thread.

[Burwood]

I did laugh at todays BBC article, in which an MP stated that it's not on, linking Greens knighthood (retention) and him writing a large cheque. He reckons thats 'honours for cash'. Hello

[Adrian W]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37709803

There must be a point where he sues,

It does seem a shame that the MP's don't put so much enthusiasm into the affairs Amazon, Starbucks etc. Green seems to be a very easy target.

[FN2TypeR]

Adrian W said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37709803

There must be a point where he sues,

It does seem a shame that the MP's don't put so much enthusiasm into the affairs Amazon, Starbucks etc. Green seems to be a very easy target.

That's what it's all about IMO - a few high profile targets to fill column inches and headlines and placate the public into thinking something is being done on a grand scale when it isn't.

[FredClogs]

Adrian W said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37709803

There must be a point where he sues,

It does seem a shame that the MP's don't put so much enthusiasm into the affairs Amazon, Starbucks etc. Green seems to be a very easy target.

If he sues he'll have to show in court, to a jury of 12 common folk, he's not everything Frank Field is accusing him of being, I don't think he likes his chances of that.

[avinalarf]

Burwood said:

I did laugh at todays BBC article, in which an MP stated that it's not on, linking Greens knighthood (retention) and him writing a large cheque. He reckons thats 'honours for cash'. Hello

Whether he loses his knighthood is of no real interest to me apart from schadenfreude.
Anyone following his career over the past 40 years will not be surprised that he is a wheeler dealer,arguably a clever chancer,whose "luck" run out,albeit he's made a fortune in the process.
He is far from alone in businessmen lacking moral judgement but that has never been a requisite of the job,however desirable.
What does concern me is that due diligence appears not to have been taken by those whose job it was to oversee the best interests of the pension scheme and of whom there has been a distinct lack of comment.
I understand that many well known and large companies also have massive black holes in their pension schemes.
There is of course the question of how much responsibility an owner or major shareholder owes to the company he controls,over his own personal interests.
This appears to be a classic case of asset stripping,therefore nothing new.
What is interesting is why Green did not sell BHS to a more suitable person before it became a basket case.
One might presume it was a combination of extreme greed and carelessness.