Carrilion in trouble

[tleefox]

The thing I find most surprising about the Carillion situation, is that people are surprised. It would be interesting for someone to do an analysis, say of the top 10 main contractors in the UK to see how many of them are in a similar financial position to where Carillion were a couple of years ago.

Construction exists on tiny margins, high turnover so it only takes a couple of "problem" jobs before it all starts to come crashing down. Couple that with a shocking level of "skills" in the industry at all levels including managerial (as others have alluded to - how the eff do you get cracks through the concrete frame structure of a new job) and you have the perfect storm.

[popeyewhite]

Rovinghawk said:

popeyewhite said:

Take all money back from shareholders, directors etc that was paid out whilst the company was in the red as technically it wasn't the company's money to payout in the first place as it owed it all out anyway.

Technically you could say the same about wages- you see the difficulty with your suggestion?

Sure but forget the wages I've no problem with someone getting paid for work they've done, but to reward shareholders - what was it? £450 million? - while the company owed that money to others is just disgraceful. I've got shares myself and wouldn't expect any payouts if my investment owed money. As another poster on a similar thread pointed out, these greedy grasping unprofessional second rate business people are opening the door to people like Corbyn and depressingly - and for the very first time - I can understand why some turn to his policies.

[frankenstein12]

Usget said:

frankenstein12 said:

Since I work in this arena a little clarification maybe....

So as an example I saw a tweet from a doctor earlier toay about the fact it was costing £75 for a lighbulb to be changed which to common sense and common layman seems insane however its a matter of viability.

For a silly simplistic example you could hire someone at say £75 a day all year round to change light bulbs however they may only have to change a light bulb once a week so you are paying them £75 every other day for nothing.

If you could pay a contracting company £75 every few days for changing the light bulb instead which will clearly be cheaper.

It of course changes if it turns out the person hired full time just to change lightbulbs has to change 2 light bulbs every day of the year because then its clearly cheaper to have him full time as you are only paying him £75 a day where you would be paying the contractor £150 a day.

Whilst this makes sense, up to a point, it falls into the standard project management trap of trying to rationalise everything into a discrete role. The fallacy is that the £75 a day lightbulb permie couldn't possibly do anything else with the time he spends not changing bulbs.

Note i said its a silly simplistic example. Clearly there are a great many factors but to make it simple for lay person to understand I leave that bit out.

[poo at Paul's]

frankenstein12 said:

BAM225 said:

Burwood said:

I recall a thread a year or so ago about the military and the money they spend. Someone on here worked for a supplier to the MOD. They quoted stupid pricing such as £15 for a £3 packet of panadol

Another one is lightbulbs at £20a unit which were £1.25 for the supplier to buy.

Since I work in this arena a little clarification maybe....

So as an example I saw a tweet from a doctor earlier toay about the fact it was costing £75 for a lighbulb to be changed which to common sense and common layman seems insane however its a matter of viability.

For a silly simplistic example you could hire someone at say £75 a day all year round to change light bulbs however they may only have to change a light bulb once a week so you are paying them £75 every other day for nothing.

If you could pay a contracting company £75 every few days for changing the light bulb instead which will clearly be cheaper.

It of course changes if it turns out the person hired full time just to change lightbulbs has to change 2 light bulbs every day of the year because then its clearly cheaper to have him full time as you are only paying him £75 a day where you would be paying the contractor £150 a day.

Or maybe you hire him all year and get him to do other stuff than just change light bulbs, eg, clean the stters.

Crazy idea, but it may just work.

The division of labour and roles in the PS has lead to "not my job mate" mentality for years, that has resulted in it being outsourced on this nonsensical level.

[crankedup]

tleefox said:

The thing I find most surprising about the Carillion situation, is that people are surprised. It would be interesting for someone to do an analysis, say of the top 10 main contractors in the UK to see how many of them are in a similar financial position to where Carillion were a couple of years ago.

Construction exists on tiny margins, high turnover so it only takes a couple of "problem" jobs before it all starts to come crashing down. Couple that with a shocking level of "skills" in the industry at all levels including managerial (as others have alluded to - how the eff do you get cracks through the concrete frame structure of a new job) and you have the perfect storm.

In the carillion case the share price was tumbling for some time, over one year, be interesting to discover how much money the major investors have lost on this one.

[Europa1]

popeyewhite said:

Rovinghawk said:

popeyewhite said:

Take all money back from shareholders, directors etc that was paid out whilst the company was in the red as technically it wasn't the company's money to payout in the first place as it owed it all out anyway.

Technically you could say the same about wages- you see the difficulty with your suggestion?

Sure but forget the wages I've no problem with someone getting paid for work they've done, but to reward shareholders - what was it? £450 million? - while the company owed that money to others is just disgraceful. I've got shares myself and wouldn't expect any payouts if my investment owed money. As another poster on a similar thread pointed out, these greedy grasping unprofessional second rate business people are opening the door to people like Corbyn and depressingly - and for the very first time - I can understand why some turn to his policies.

I take it you've done a detailed analysis of their distributable reserves position over the last few years?

[crankedup]

poo at Paul's said:

frankenstein12 said:

BAM225 said:

Burwood said:

I recall a thread a year or so ago about the military and the money they spend. Someone on here worked for a supplier to the MOD. They quoted stupid pricing such as £15 for a £3 packet of panadol

Another one is lightbulbs at £20a unit which were £1.25 for the supplier to buy.

Since I work in this arena a little clarification maybe....

So as an example I saw a tweet from a doctor earlier toay about the fact it was costing £75 for a lighbulb to be changed which to common sense and common layman seems insane however its a matter of viability.

For a silly simplistic example you could hire someone at say £75 a day all year round to change light bulbs however they may only have to change a light bulb once a week so you are paying them £75 every other day for nothing.

If you could pay a contracting company £75 every few days for changing the light bulb instead which will clearly be cheaper.

It of course changes if it turns out the person hired full time just to change lightbulbs has to change 2 light bulbs every day of the year because then its clearly cheaper to have him full time as you are only paying him £75 a day where you would be paying the contractor £150 a day.

Or maybe you hire him all year and get him to do other stuff than just change light bulbs, eg, clean the stters.

Crazy idea, but it may just work.

The division of labour and roles in the PS has lead to "not my job mate" mentality for years, that has resulted in it being outsourced on this nonsensical level.

This is precisely what happened to our lad, for a stop gap job he worked as an electrical engineer on a service contract run by carillion in a hospital. His line manager asked him to clear a blocked bog, lad protested that after years of study he was not prepared to carry out that task. If you don’t like it you know what to do then came the reply, fine our lad walked off the job never to return.
At some point some professional achievements deserve a little bit of respect. If the problem had been approached in a different manner things may have had a different outcome.
As it is our lad now holds a fantastic job and has never been happier or more fulfilled in his professional life.

[Alpinestars]

popeyewhite said:

Rovinghawk said:

popeyewhite said:

Take all money back from shareholders, directors etc that was paid out whilst the company was in the red as technically it wasn't the company's money to payout in the first place as it owed it all out anyway.

Technically you could say the same about wages- you see the difficulty with your suggestion?

Sure but forget the wages I've no problem with someone getting paid for work they've done, but to reward shareholders - what was it? £450 million? - while the company owed that money to others is just disgraceful. I've got shares myself and wouldn't expect any payouts if my investment owed money. As another poster on a similar thread pointed out, these greedy grasping unprofessional second rate business people are opening the door to people like Corbyn and depressingly - and for the very first time - I can understand why some turn to his policies.

There are already corporate laws which prevent payments of dividends in some circumstances. They don't include being indebted.

There are insolvency laws which also allow investigation of the legality or otherwise of certain dividend payments. The OR will no doubt consider these.

Also bear in mind, this was a FTSE company, with shareholders like you and me. Not a director owned company.

[Sa Calobra]

That's incompetence. You don't give out/distribute money when times are lean/big debts.

You suspend dividends.

[anonymous-user]

frankenstein12 said:

Since I work in this arena a little clarification maybe....

So as an example I saw a tweet from a doctor earlier toay about the fact it was costing £75 for a lighbulb to be changed which to common sense and common layman seems insane however its a matter of viability.

For a silly simplistic example you could hire someone at say £75 a day all year round to change light bulbs however they may only have to change a light bulb once a week so you are paying them £75 every other day for nothing.

If you could pay a contracting company £75 every few days for changing the light bulb instead which will clearly be cheaper.

It of course changes if it turns out the person hired full time just to change lightbulbs has to change 2 light bulbs every day of the year because then its clearly cheaper to have him full time as you are only paying him £75 a day where you would be paying the contractor £150 a day.

For reference I am a building services engineer in contracting so know full well what you're saying.

[Brave Fart]

popeyewhite said:

Sure but forget the wages I've no problem with someone getting paid for work they've done, but to reward shareholders - what was it? £450 million? - while the company owed that money to others is just disgraceful. I've got shares myself and wouldn't expect any payouts if my investment owed money. As another poster on a similar thread pointed out, these greedy grasping unprofessional second rate business people are opening the door to people like Corbyn and depressingly - and for the very first time - I can understand why some turn to his policies.

What, so any company that has, say, an overdraft cannot pay a dividend? Popeyewhite I don't mean to be rude but you obviously don't know much about company law!
And who are these "second rate business people"? The shareholders? Carillion's customers including the government?

[voyds9]

poo at Paul's said:

Or maybe you hire him all year and get him to do other stuff than just change light bulbs, eg, clean the stters.

Crazy idea, but it may just work.

The division of labour and roles in the PS has lead to "not my job mate" mentality for years, that has resulted in it being outsourced on this nonsensical level.

Yes as soon as we've sent him on a weeks course to learn how to use a mop, another weeks course on the various safety courses, then a final week for a COHSH assessment of the chemicals used.
Then rinse and repeat for using a paint brush, climbing a ladder, use of pesticides, use of gardening implants etc for all the other handyman jobs.
Certification to be repeated on an annual basis.

[Fastpedeller]

Usget said:

frankenstein12 said:

Since I work in this arena a little clarification maybe....

So as an example I saw a tweet from a doctor earlier toay about the fact it was costing £75 for a lighbulb to be changed which to common sense and common layman seems insane however its a matter of viability.

For a silly simplistic example you could hire someone at say £75 a day all year round to change light bulbs however they may only have to change a light bulb once a week so you are paying them £75 every other day for nothing.

If you could pay a contracting company £75 every few days for changing the light bulb instead which will clearly be cheaper.

It of course changes if it turns out the person hired full time just to change lightbulbs has to change 2 light bulbs every day of the year because then its clearly cheaper to have him full time as you are only paying him £75 a day where you would be paying the contractor £150 a day.

Whilst this makes sense, up to a point, it falls into the standard project management trap of trying to rationalise everything into a discrete role. The fallacy is that the £75 a day lightbulb permie couldn't possibly do anything else with the time he spends not changing bulbs.

Can't the Doctor (or the practice manager, or someone else who works there) change a light bulb? If not I'm unsure as to whether I'd trust them with my medical notes. Crikey, it doesn't take a 'special skill' or if it does they should have had a different sort of light fitting in the first place.

[popeyewhite]

Brave Fart said:

What, so any company that has, say, an overdraft cannot pay a dividend? Popeyewhite I don't mean to be rude but you obviously don't know much about company law!

That's okay you're not being rude It's obvious I know zilch about company law. I have a grasp of ethics though and whatever some law dreamt up to enable fraudsters to continue trading states, fraud is still just that. Wasn't Carilion effectively a Ponzi? Oh and £450 million is SOME overdraft!

Brave Fart said:

And who are these "second rate business people"? The shareholders? Carillion's customers including the government?

The charlatans who run Carilion and allowed it to become so indebted it went bust

[IroningMan]

voyds9 said:

Yes as soon as we've sent him on a weeks course to learn how to use a mop, another weeks course on the various safety courses, then a final week for a COHSH assessment of the chemicals used.
Then rinse and repeat for using a paint brush, climbing a ladder, use of pesticides, use of gardening implants etc for all the other handyman jobs.
Certification to be repeated on an annual basis.

Training people in the skills they need to do their jobs is generally a good thing. Senior managers at Carillion might even have benefitted from more of it.

[Alpinestars]

Sa Calobra said:

That's incompetence. You don't give out/distribute money when times are lean/big debts.

You suspend dividends.

It could well be incompetence in forecasting or something leftfield happening. There's nothing stopping a company paying dividends just because it might not be a good idea. This is something that the lenders should have had a covenant on.

[98elise]

frankenstein12 said:

Usget said:

frankenstein12 said:

Since I work in this arena a little clarification maybe....

So as an example I saw a tweet from a doctor earlier toay about the fact it was costing £75 for a lighbulb to be changed which to common sense and common layman seems insane however its a matter of viability.

For a silly simplistic example you could hire someone at say £75 a day all year round to change light bulbs however they may only have to change a light bulb once a week so you are paying them £75 every other day for nothing.

If you could pay a contracting company £75 every few days for changing the light bulb instead which will clearly be cheaper.

It of course changes if it turns out the person hired full time just to change lightbulbs has to change 2 light bulbs every day of the year because then its clearly cheaper to have him full time as you are only paying him £75 a day where you would be paying the contractor £150 a day.

Whilst this makes sense, up to a point, it falls into the standard project management trap of trying to rationalise everything into a discrete role. The fallacy is that the £75 a day lightbulb permie couldn't possibly do anything else with the time he spends not changing bulbs.

Note i said its a silly simplistic example. Clearly there are a great many factors but to make it simple for lay person to understand I leave that bit out.

I've also worked in this arena, and had the same conversation many times.

I normally ask the person if that can buy the lamps for £2 in B&Q are they going to go and pick them up for free? Are they also going to bring their own steps etc and lug them from the car park. Are they going to do the risk assessment?

If their boss is happy for them to be doing free lamp changing can they do the other 4 or 5 that need to be done before the end of the day (across a couple of local sites).

Obviously they will be providing their car and fuel for free to transport stuff between sites.

Then there is the insurances they will need to hold.

Going back to the original doctors example, its no different to asking why it's costs so much to run a GP practice, when prescription pads are so cheap?

Edited by 98elise on Wednesday 17th January 18:41

[Countdown]

Fastpedeller said:

Usget said:

frankenstein12 said:

Since I work in this arena a little clarification maybe....

So as an example I saw a tweet from a doctor earlier toay about the fact it was costing £75 for a lighbulb to be changed which to common sense and common layman seems insane however its a matter of viability.

For a silly simplistic example you could hire someone at say £75 a day all year round to change light bulbs however they may only have to change a light bulb once a week so you are paying them £75 every other day for nothing.

If you could pay a contracting company £75 every few days for changing the light bulb instead which will clearly be cheaper.

It of course changes if it turns out the person hired full time just to change lightbulbs has to change 2 light bulbs every day of the year because then its clearly cheaper to have him full time as you are only paying him £75 a day where you would be paying the contractor £150 a day.

Whilst this makes sense, up to a point, it falls into the standard project management trap of trying to rationalise everything into a discrete role. The fallacy is that the £75 a day lightbulb permie couldn't possibly do anything else with the time he spends not changing bulbs.

Can't the Doctor (or the practice manager, or someone else who works there) change a light bulb? If not I'm unsure as to whether I'd trust them with my medical notes. Crikey, it doesn't take a 'special skill' or if it does they should have had a different sort of light fitting in the first place.

The outsourced FM contract will prevent in-House staff from doing ANY work and the FM company will decide that 99% of stuff that is needed is “outside the contract” and therefore chargeable. For example staff wont be allowed to change bulbs for H&S reasons, or put up shelfs/noticeboards because “it damages the fabric of the building”. The GP practice or Local AUthority or other Public Sector org will have been persuaded to outsource on the grounds that “the FM company will take care of EVERYTHING”. No more having to find an electrician or lift engineer or alarm repairman at 2:00am, they’ll take care of it.

It’s only when the contract goes live that you find out why the price was so low. Because everything is EXTRA and because they never actually bother doing the stuff that is written in black and white in the contract and because they submit numerous fraudulent invoices. In fact you have to employ so many people to monitor them that you may as well have kept the service in-house in the first place.

[aeropilot]

Countdown said:

In fact you have to employ so many people to monitor them that you may as well have kept the service in-house in the first place.

The problem is, accountants rule, and they are always willing to spend £5 to justify and prove a saving of 50p.

[Smiler.]

Will Interserve be following Carillion down the rabbit hole?

Share price is taking a hammering & profit warning last year.