Carrilion in trouble
Discussion
crankedup said:
cherryowen said:
By coincidence, a couple of weeks ago my assistant QS popped into my office saying that Carillion have sent us an enquiry and asking if he should price it or if it was going to be dealt with by me.
I said that personally I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole due to i) Carillion's 90 day payment terms for its supply chain and ii) industry reports of their current dire financial issues.
Clearly most of the posters in here have zero knowledge of this massive Company, surprising.I said that personally I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole due to i) Carillion's 90 day payment terms for its supply chain and ii) industry reports of their current dire financial issues.
If shareholders decide not to stump up this will possibly implode the Company causing a major restructuring. With so many major projects in harness this may well result in chaos
The thing is, none of what you are saying is news. They've been in trouble, issuing profit warnings, seeing shares slump for months.
Why post about it now?
cherryowen said:
i) Carillion's 90 day payment terms for its supply chain
I think you'll find they went to 120 days a while back.They also have a habit of asking for extra work to be done urgently, not doing the paperwork until the work is done then paying tuppence ha'penny for the work as a price wasn't agreed.
I look forward to them going bust just so I can laugh at those who acted so high & mighty. The very few good ones will find work elsewhere.
Rovinghawk said:
cherryowen said:
i) Carillion's 90 day payment terms for its supply chain
I think you'll find they went to 120 days a while back.They also have a habit of asking for extra work to be done urgently, not doing the paperwork until the work is done then paying tuppence ha'penny for the work as a price wasn't agreed.
I look forward to them going bust just so I can laugh at those who acted so high & mighty. The very few good ones will find work elsewhere.
Also, WRT your second point. I certainly wouldn't carry out any variations unless either the price or at least a pricing mechanism was agreed beforehand (unless it's for a trusted contractor we regularly work with).
cherryowen said:
Bloody hell, I didn't know that! I bet that was 120 days to the "due date for payment" as well, rather than the "final date for payment".
Also, WRT your second point. I certainly wouldn't carry out any variations unless either the price or at least a pricing mechanism was agreed beforehand (unless it's for a trusted contractor we regularly work with).
Spoken like a true QS Also, WRT your second point. I certainly wouldn't carry out any variations unless either the price or at least a pricing mechanism was agreed beforehand (unless it's for a trusted contractor we regularly work with).
I got TUPE'd into the shower a few years back.
Got made redundant after a few years though - surprise, surprise.
They massively overpaid for the contract and hemorrhaged cash
.
Cut contractors rates to the bone. All the good ones did a bunk.
Suppliers weren't keen on extended payments terms so stopped supplying.
Client massively unhappy.
Got made redundant after a few years though - surprise, surprise.
They massively overpaid for the contract and hemorrhaged cash
.
Cut contractors rates to the bone. All the good ones did a bunk.
Suppliers weren't keen on extended payments terms so stopped supplying.
Client massively unhappy.
This has been rumbling for well over a year; hardly news.
Too diversified with no real centre of excellence, too leveraged and lacking any coherent vision for the business. The break-up of the business has been near-inevitable for a number of years.
The PFi/PPP and FM businesses have value and will be picked up, as might the energy divisions but the main contracting business is probably toast.
Too diversified with no real centre of excellence, too leveraged and lacking any coherent vision for the business. The break-up of the business has been near-inevitable for a number of years.
The PFi/PPP and FM businesses have value and will be picked up, as might the energy divisions but the main contracting business is probably toast.
vonuber said:
A lot of the contractors we work with are surprisingly useless, and tend to underbid then claw it back through claims.
That's very often a function of public sector tender requirements and the price / quality ratio chosen, rather than genuine uselessness on the part of the contractor. E.g. where tendering under NEC, say 80/20 price / quality, it can make sense / be necessary to tender a very competitive contract sum, go in heavy on the model compensation event forming a comparatively small amount of the tender assessment total price and then exploit that post contract.I was in a meeting with them a while back- it was glaringly obvious that prior to the meeting they hadn't bothered to look at the details for what we were discussing. It was embarrassing to watch them blunder along, not having the slightest idea what they were talking about & being upset when they got repeatedly corrected.
Goaty Bill 2 said:
cherryowen said:
Bloody hell, I didn't know that! I bet that was 120 days to the "due date for payment" as well, rather than the "final date for payment".
Also, WRT your second point. I certainly wouldn't carry out any variations unless either the price or at least a pricing mechanism was agreed beforehand (unless it's for a trusted contractor we regularly work with).
Spoken like a true QS Also, WRT your second point. I certainly wouldn't carry out any variations unless either the price or at least a pricing mechanism was agreed beforehand (unless it's for a trusted contractor we regularly work with).
Back in 2006, I joined Carillion after they made an offer I couldn't refuse.
On day 1, it was clear that I was lied to at interview stage as to what my role was. I f
ked them off after 6 months. 
REALIST123 said:
crankedup said:
cherryowen said:
By coincidence, a couple of weeks ago my assistant QS popped into my office saying that Carillion have sent us an enquiry and asking if he should price it or if it was going to be dealt with by me.
I said that personally I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole due to i) Carillion's 90 day payment terms for its supply chain and ii) industry reports of their current dire financial issues.
Clearly most of the posters in here have zero knowledge of this massive Company, surprising.I said that personally I wouldn't touch it with a barge pole due to i) Carillion's 90 day payment terms for its supply chain and ii) industry reports of their current dire financial issues.
If shareholders decide not to stump up this will possibly implode the Company causing a major restructuring. With so many major projects in harness this may well result in chaos
The thing is, none of what you are saying is news. They've been in trouble, issuing profit warnings, seeing shares slump for months.
Why post about it now?
ClaphamGT3 said:
This has been rumbling for well over a year; hardly news.
Too diversified with no real centre of excellence, too leveraged and lacking any coherent vision for the business. The break-up of the business has been near-inevitable for a number of years.
The PFi/PPP and FM businesses have value and will be picked up, as might the energy divisions but the main contracting business is probably toast.
what a wonderfully eloquent way of saying they are useless Too diversified with no real centre of excellence, too leveraged and lacking any coherent vision for the business. The break-up of the business has been near-inevitable for a number of years.
The PFi/PPP and FM businesses have value and will be picked up, as might the energy divisions but the main contracting business is probably toast.
s 
iphonedyou said:
That's very often a function of public sector tender requirements and the price / quality ratio chosen, rather than genuine uselessness on the part of the contractor. E.g. where tendering under NEC, say 80/20 price / quality, it can make sense / be necessary to tender a very competitive contract sum, go in heavy on the model compensation event forming a comparatively small amount of the tender assessment total price and then exploit that post contract.
That's just risk offset and an NEC client factors that in outside of the contract sum 
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff