British Steel on the brink of adminstration.
Discussion
poo at Paul's said:
gazza285 said:
6 months? S
horpe has turned out over 100,000 tonnes of steel a week,
Rail only? Surely that is total capacity? horpe has turned out over 100,000 tonnes of steel a week, That's a lot of railways.
I would think the rail elements would be much much less than that, closer to 10k to 20k tonnes a month? Otherwise, where is all this rail they are producing going....! !! ? If it is 100k tonnes, that is like selling an HS2 contract every 2 months!?? Seems unlikely to me.
horpe can not survive on just making rail, it might only produce 10k to 20k a month, but it also produces close to 200k of other steel, you need a market for that as well as the rail to make the plant viable.FiF said:
Well look what France did when Danone was under threat of takeover. Drafted legislation to protect vital industries on grounds of national security, Danone listed amongst them.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analys...
Of course takeovers are different to financial collapse but even so. Yoghurt maker a strategic asset, mmmmm Danone.
Danone also make cheese, and you can't be a cheese eating surrender monkey without cheese...https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analys...
Of course takeovers are different to financial collapse but even so. Yoghurt maker a strategic asset, mmmmm Danone.
The uk government have focussed on London for too long in their consideration of the “figures.”
From my point of view the answer is for the whole EU to raise tariffs on finished goods as a first step.
That will get Britain at least assembling things. We have lost a lot of ground.
From that point we could look at supply chain and consider the next stage.
It is unrealistic to expect to reverse 40+ years of manufacturing decline in one go.
I deal with China on a daily basis. We have more expertise here by a mile. They only beat us because the economics are different. We let them.
From my point of view the answer is for the whole EU to raise tariffs on finished goods as a first step.
That will get Britain at least assembling things. We have lost a lot of ground.
From that point we could look at supply chain and consider the next stage.
It is unrealistic to expect to reverse 40+ years of manufacturing decline in one go.
I deal with China on a daily basis. We have more expertise here by a mile. They only beat us because the economics are different. We let them.
Julian Thompson said:
The uk government have focussed on London for too long in their consideration of the “figures.”
From my point of view the answer is for the whole EU to raise tariffs on finished goods as a first step.
That will get Britain at least assembling things. We have lost a lot of ground.
From that point we could look at supply chain and consider the next stage.
It is unrealistic to expect to reverse 40+ years of manufacturing decline in one go.
I deal with China on a daily basis. We have more expertise here by a mile. They only beat us because the economics are different. We let them.
Why? Why on earth do we want to assemble things we can buy from abroad more cheaply? From my point of view the answer is for the whole EU to raise tariffs on finished goods as a first step.
That will get Britain at least assembling things. We have lost a lot of ground.
From that point we could look at supply chain and consider the next stage.
It is unrealistic to expect to reverse 40+ years of manufacturing decline in one go.
I deal with China on a daily basis. We have more expertise here by a mile. They only beat us because the economics are different. We let them.
Dr Jekyll said:
Julian Thompson said:
The uk government have focussed on London for too long in their consideration of the “figures.”
From my point of view the answer is for the whole EU to raise tariffs on finished goods as a first step.
That will get Britain at least assembling things. We have lost a lot of ground.
From that point we could look at supply chain and consider the next stage.
It is unrealistic to expect to reverse 40+ years of manufacturing decline in one go.
I deal with China on a daily basis. We have more expertise here by a mile. They only beat us because the economics are different. We let them.
Why? Why on earth do we want to assemble things we can buy from abroad more cheaply? From my point of view the answer is for the whole EU to raise tariffs on finished goods as a first step.
That will get Britain at least assembling things. We have lost a lot of ground.
From that point we could look at supply chain and consider the next stage.
It is unrealistic to expect to reverse 40+ years of manufacturing decline in one go.
I deal with China on a daily basis. We have more expertise here by a mile. They only beat us because the economics are different. We let them.
FiF said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Julian Thompson said:
The uk government have focussed on London for too long in their consideration of the “figures.”
From my point of view the answer is for the whole EU to raise tariffs on finished goods as a first step.
That will get Britain at least assembling things. We have lost a lot of ground.
From that point we could look at supply chain and consider the next stage.
It is unrealistic to expect to reverse 40+ years of manufacturing decline in one go.
I deal with China on a daily basis. We have more expertise here by a mile. They only beat us because the economics are different. We let them.
Why? Why on earth do we want to assemble things we can buy from abroad more cheaply? From my point of view the answer is for the whole EU to raise tariffs on finished goods as a first step.
That will get Britain at least assembling things. We have lost a lot of ground.
From that point we could look at supply chain and consider the next stage.
It is unrealistic to expect to reverse 40+ years of manufacturing decline in one go.
I deal with China on a daily basis. We have more expertise here by a mile. They only beat us because the economics are different. We let them.
Dr Jekyll said:
FiF said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Julian Thompson said:
The uk government have focussed on London for too long in their consideration of the “figures.”
From my point of view the answer is for the whole EU to raise tariffs on finished goods as a first step.
That will get Britain at least assembling things. We have lost a lot of ground.
From that point we could look at supply chain and consider the next stage.
It is unrealistic to expect to reverse 40+ years of manufacturing decline in one go.
I deal with China on a daily basis. We have more expertise here by a mile. They only beat us because the economics are different. We let them.
Why? Why on earth do we want to assemble things we can buy from abroad more cheaply? From my point of view the answer is for the whole EU to raise tariffs on finished goods as a first step.
That will get Britain at least assembling things. We have lost a lot of ground.
From that point we could look at supply chain and consider the next stage.
It is unrealistic to expect to reverse 40+ years of manufacturing decline in one go.
I deal with China on a daily basis. We have more expertise here by a mile. They only beat us because the economics are different. We let them.
FiF said:
Dr Jekyll said:
FiF said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Julian Thompson said:
The uk government have focussed on London for too long in their consideration of the “figures.”
From my point of view the answer is for the whole EU to raise tariffs on finished goods as a first step.
That will get Britain at least assembling things. We have lost a lot of ground.
From that point we could look at supply chain and consider the next stage.
It is unrealistic to expect to reverse 40+ years of manufacturing decline in one go.
I deal with China on a daily basis. We have more expertise here by a mile. They only beat us because the economics are different. We let them.
Why? Why on earth do we want to assemble things we can buy from abroad more cheaply? From my point of view the answer is for the whole EU to raise tariffs on finished goods as a first step.
That will get Britain at least assembling things. We have lost a lot of ground.
From that point we could look at supply chain and consider the next stage.
It is unrealistic to expect to reverse 40+ years of manufacturing decline in one go.
I deal with China on a daily basis. We have more expertise here by a mile. They only beat us because the economics are different. We let them.
Tell you what, let's keep our curtains drawn and the lights on during the day. Then we can employ more people in power generation instead of importing free light from the sun. After all, it's only cheaper because of the sun has an economic advantage from it's fusion reactor.
I've not read the whole of this thread, but I can see both sides of the argument about more taxpayers money. But I have to ask if it's right to bail out British Steel should we also buy out Honda in Swindon (3,500 jobs plus 13,000 or so in the supply chain) and Jamie Oliver's business (another 1,000 staff)?
Dr Jekyll said:
Why? Why on earth do we want to assemble things we can buy from abroad more cheaply?
Do you alway buy the cheapest version of anything available to you? What car do you drive, what supermarket do you use, what clothes do you wear. If you don't always buy the cheapest, then you must agree there are considerations other than price to take into account.If you do always buy the cheapest then fair play.Dr Jekyll said:
FiF said:
Dr Jekyll said:
FiF said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Julian Thompson said:
The uk government have focussed on London for too long in their consideration of the “figures.”
From my point of view the answer is for the whole EU to raise tariffs on finished goods as a first step.
That will get Britain at least assembling things. We have lost a lot of ground.
From that point we could look at supply chain and consider the next stage.
It is unrealistic to expect to reverse 40+ years of manufacturing decline in one go.
I deal with China on a daily basis. We have more expertise here by a mile. They only beat us because the economics are different. We let them.
Why? Why on earth do we want to assemble things we can buy from abroad more cheaply? From my point of view the answer is for the whole EU to raise tariffs on finished goods as a first step.
That will get Britain at least assembling things. We have lost a lot of ground.
From that point we could look at supply chain and consider the next stage.
It is unrealistic to expect to reverse 40+ years of manufacturing decline in one go.
I deal with China on a daily basis. We have more expertise here by a mile. They only beat us because the economics are different. We let them.
Tell you what, let's keep our curtains drawn and the lights on during the day. Then we can employ more people in power generation instead of importing free light from the sun. After all, it's only cheaper because of the sun has an economic advantage from it's fusion reactor.
sas62 said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Why? Why on earth do we want to assemble things we can buy from abroad more cheaply?
Do you alway buy the cheapest version of anything available to you? What car do you drive, what supermarket do you use, what clothes do you wear. If you don't always buy the cheapest, then you must agree there are considerations other than price to take into account.If you do always buy the cheapest then fair play.FiF said:
What a ridiculous straw man argument, either you accept that price is absolutely everything or there can be other factors that influence a decision. Yes sometimes it's difficult to decide where to draw the line, but a line has to be drawn somewhere, and it really is not simply on price, but you've not answered that. And you accuse others of avoiding the question!
Well, you’re both being daft in my view as you’re both attempting to argue that the other is in favour of the most extreme end of the argument for / against, and I don’t believe that’s the case for either of you. 
Buy cheap buy twice, as the old adage goes, but clearly price is a factor and a persuasive one, or we wouldn’t read so many threads on here of people who travel 100s of miles to buy a particular car...
All other things being equal, people will buy on price. If a British manufacturer sources everything locally and is more expensive as a result than a German manufacturer who imports certain key components, the British manufacturer will often lose out in a competitive market, barring other factors that might make people choose British (design, sentiment, whatever). I’d imagine you both agree on this...
DanL said:
Well, you’re both being daft in my view as you’re both attempting to argue that the other is in favour of the most extreme end of the argument for / against, and I don’t believe that’s the case for either of you.
Buy cheap buy twice, as the old adage goes, but clearly price is a factor and a persuasive one, or we wouldn’t read so many threads on here of people who travel 100s of miles to buy a particular car...
All other things being equal, people will buy on price. If a British manufacturer sources everything locally and is more expensive as a result than a German manufacturer who imports certain key components, the British manufacturer will often lose out in a competitive market, barring other factors that might make people choose British (design, sentiment, whatever). I’d imagine you both agree on this...
No, let's go back to the original question upon which I commented.Buy cheap buy twice, as the old adage goes, but clearly price is a factor and a persuasive one, or we wouldn’t read so many threads on here of people who travel 100s of miles to buy a particular car...
All other things being equal, people will buy on price. If a British manufacturer sources everything locally and is more expensive as a result than a German manufacturer who imports certain key components, the British manufacturer will often lose out in a competitive market, barring other factors that might make people choose British (design, sentiment, whatever). I’d imagine you both agree on this...
DrJekyll said:
Why? Why on earth do we want to assemble things we can buy from abroad more cheaply?
Seemed like a fairly extreme position to me.However he's now answered his own question setting out a different position, and I agree with his answer, price is but one factor, other issues such as quality, availability, then there are other intangibles such as support for a local economy, eg buying from a local shop as opposed to, say ebay from wherever, keeping the money / wealth in the local area, but overall it has to be a decision which best meets the purchaser's overall needs, taking all factors into account. So there now appears to be no extreme position on either side and yes probably agreement.
If the British product is inferior in ways that alter the balance of the decision then they don't deserve the business, equally the opposite is also true, however it cannot be denied that too many simply look at price and ignore other factors. I don't agree with the throwaway implication from some that UK made is inferior.
Dr Jekyll said:
Julian Thompson said:
The uk government have focussed on London for too long in their consideration of the “figures.”
From my point of view the answer is for the whole EU to raise tariffs on finished goods as a first step.
That will get Britain at least assembling things. We have lost a lot of ground.
From that point we could look at supply chain and consider the next stage.
It is unrealistic to expect to reverse 40+ years of manufacturing decline in one go.
I deal with China on a daily basis. We have more expertise here by a mile. They only beat us because the economics are different. We let them.
Why? Why on earth do we want to assemble things we can buy from abroad more cheaply? From my point of view the answer is for the whole EU to raise tariffs on finished goods as a first step.
That will get Britain at least assembling things. We have lost a lot of ground.
From that point we could look at supply chain and consider the next stage.
It is unrealistic to expect to reverse 40+ years of manufacturing decline in one go.
I deal with China on a daily basis. We have more expertise here by a mile. They only beat us because the economics are different. We let them.
In the news today. The ongoing struggles at Tata Steel, IJmuiden vs. Port Talbot.
https://www.telegraaf.nl/financieel/917825296/anal...
"Dutch Hoogovens must bleed for losses at British sister company - Year of truth for Tata Steel IJmuiden"
The European management of Tata Steel wants to make substantial cuts. Also in IJmuiden. This is remarkable, because in the last twelve years it was the British that burned £ 4 billion. IJmuiden made a profit of € 2 billion.
No people have a more complex relationship with its steel industry than the British. As pioneers of the industrial revolution with their large coal reserves, the British could become a world power in the early 19th century when railways, bridge construction and shipping began to rely massively on steel and iron.
After the war, the industry experienced ups and downs, nationalization and privatization, but according to historians often too little investment. In 1971, 323,000 Britons worked in the steel industry on the post-war peak. But the factories where the steel for the Royal Navy was rolled with which Hitler was defeated are almost all closed.
Venture capitalists
The blast furnace in Port Talbot, Wales lives on as part of Tata Steel UK. Many other units, which have been divested in recent years by the Indians, fight under the British Steel banner deep in injury time for their survival in the hands of small, foreign venture capitalists. There are about 30,000 jobs left.
The merger in 1999 between British Steel and the former Royal Hoogovens did not come from luxury either. Within that marriage - Corus was the name of the merger company - Hoogovens had to defend itself to the courts against attempts by the poor British to subordinate Dutch interests to the British. Thanks to the structural regime, with which the supervisory board kept control of the money earned in IJmuiden, it succeeded, even though the number of jobs in the Netherlands was more than halved, to more than 9,000. that marriage is an unfortunate choice ', (former) directors from IJmuiden regularly acknowledge.
Suffering Corus
In 2007, Tata Steel from India bought the croaking Corus for a good € 4 billion at the top of the market. In India that led to proud scenes, given the history with Great Britain. With the new headquarters in Mumbai, the contrast between the British and IJmuiden also faded into the background. The later Tata Steel CEO Cyrus Mistry made short work of the loss-making British parts by closing and selling parts and intervening in pensions. In 2016, however, Mistry internally overplayed his hand and was thrown out. His illustrious predecessor, the 76-year-old known as Anglophile, Ratan Tata - still distinguished in 2014 by Queen Elizabeth - climbed behind the wheel again.
Slimmed down
In IJmuiden, people are in the dark about the reason why the visor is once again, just like before 2007, focused on IJmuiden. Because once again there is a cutback plan, which means that 1,600 jobs are at risk in IJmuiden alone. Frits van Wieringen, chairman of both the Dutch and the European works council, believes that "the problems in Wales must first be solved". Because despite all the procedures, the heavily slimmed-down Tata Steel in the UK is still loss-making.
The fear in IJmuiden is that now that Mumbai has said that no more money goes from India to Great Britain, IJmuiden must bleed to free up money for investments in Port Talbot. The European management of Tata Steel denies that. CEO Henrik Adam says that the blast furnaces at Port Talbot and IJmuiden are complementary and says that two thirds of Tata's customers purchase products from both locations. Therefore, according to him, if requested, there can be no question of closing the location in Wales in order to spare IJmuiden. In addition, he stresses that "all parts of the company must perform better in order to make the investments necessary for a successful future."
https://www.telegraaf.nl/financieel/917825296/anal...
"Dutch Hoogovens must bleed for losses at British sister company - Year of truth for Tata Steel IJmuiden"
The European management of Tata Steel wants to make substantial cuts. Also in IJmuiden. This is remarkable, because in the last twelve years it was the British that burned £ 4 billion. IJmuiden made a profit of € 2 billion.
No people have a more complex relationship with its steel industry than the British. As pioneers of the industrial revolution with their large coal reserves, the British could become a world power in the early 19th century when railways, bridge construction and shipping began to rely massively on steel and iron.
After the war, the industry experienced ups and downs, nationalization and privatization, but according to historians often too little investment. In 1971, 323,000 Britons worked in the steel industry on the post-war peak. But the factories where the steel for the Royal Navy was rolled with which Hitler was defeated are almost all closed.
Venture capitalists
The blast furnace in Port Talbot, Wales lives on as part of Tata Steel UK. Many other units, which have been divested in recent years by the Indians, fight under the British Steel banner deep in injury time for their survival in the hands of small, foreign venture capitalists. There are about 30,000 jobs left.
The merger in 1999 between British Steel and the former Royal Hoogovens did not come from luxury either. Within that marriage - Corus was the name of the merger company - Hoogovens had to defend itself to the courts against attempts by the poor British to subordinate Dutch interests to the British. Thanks to the structural regime, with which the supervisory board kept control of the money earned in IJmuiden, it succeeded, even though the number of jobs in the Netherlands was more than halved, to more than 9,000. that marriage is an unfortunate choice ', (former) directors from IJmuiden regularly acknowledge.
Suffering Corus
In 2007, Tata Steel from India bought the croaking Corus for a good € 4 billion at the top of the market. In India that led to proud scenes, given the history with Great Britain. With the new headquarters in Mumbai, the contrast between the British and IJmuiden also faded into the background. The later Tata Steel CEO Cyrus Mistry made short work of the loss-making British parts by closing and selling parts and intervening in pensions. In 2016, however, Mistry internally overplayed his hand and was thrown out. His illustrious predecessor, the 76-year-old known as Anglophile, Ratan Tata - still distinguished in 2014 by Queen Elizabeth - climbed behind the wheel again.
Slimmed down
In IJmuiden, people are in the dark about the reason why the visor is once again, just like before 2007, focused on IJmuiden. Because once again there is a cutback plan, which means that 1,600 jobs are at risk in IJmuiden alone. Frits van Wieringen, chairman of both the Dutch and the European works council, believes that "the problems in Wales must first be solved". Because despite all the procedures, the heavily slimmed-down Tata Steel in the UK is still loss-making.
The fear in IJmuiden is that now that Mumbai has said that no more money goes from India to Great Britain, IJmuiden must bleed to free up money for investments in Port Talbot. The European management of Tata Steel denies that. CEO Henrik Adam says that the blast furnaces at Port Talbot and IJmuiden are complementary and says that two thirds of Tata's customers purchase products from both locations. Therefore, according to him, if requested, there can be no question of closing the location in Wales in order to spare IJmuiden. In addition, he stresses that "all parts of the company must perform better in order to make the investments necessary for a successful future."
As a consultant working for both the UK and Ijmuiden site I can confirm that article is a load of old bks. I'm on the IJmuiden site next week to review progress on a not insignificant investment project on behalf of Tata.
As far as I'm aware only essential investment is going into Port Talbot, a few years ago this was for the blast furnace overhaul, which although it costs a lot of money is critical to the site operating.
IMHO the dutch are pissed off with Tata because they took a pile of government cash and used it to build a plant in India and have been looking to jettison the site ever since.
The article also has an undercurrent of the main issue dealing with that site - the absolute resistance to change or self reflection. The changes been made are to help make the site profitable and they're more concerned about decisions for Ijmuiden not being made by dutch staff
ks. I'm on the IJmuiden site next week to review progress on a not insignificant investment project on behalf of Tata. As far as I'm aware only essential investment is going into Port Talbot, a few years ago this was for the blast furnace overhaul, which although it costs a lot of money is critical to the site operating.
IMHO the dutch are pissed off with Tata because they took a pile of government cash and used it to build a plant in India and have been looking to jettison the site ever since.
The article also has an undercurrent of the main issue dealing with that site - the absolute resistance to change or self reflection. The changes been made are to help make the site profitable and they're more concerned about decisions for Ijmuiden not being made by dutch staff
Edited by KarlMac on Tuesday 7th January 12:56
Dr Jekyll said:
sas62 said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Why? Why on earth do we want to assemble things we can buy from abroad more cheaply?
Do you alway buy the cheapest version of anything available to you? What car do you drive, what supermarket do you use, what clothes do you wear. If you don't always buy the cheapest, then you must agree there are considerations other than price to take into account.If you do always buy the cheapest then fair play.Re China, the company i work for builds a percentage of it's products in China, those products are sold only to Chinese customers as Europeans / American customers won't accept them.
Also, chatter on site at the moment is that the Jingye sale will go through following Brexit. Both the French and Germans are making noises about breaking state aid rules (as some of the investment will be funded by government loans) so it seems easier just to wait three weeks and do it in Feb.
This is gossip from the middle tiers, not been verified by anyone high up but seems to make some sense.
This is gossip from the middle tiers, not been verified by anyone high up but seems to make some sense.
KarlMac said:
Also, chatter on site at the moment is that the Jingye sale will go through following Brexit. Both the French and Germans are making noises about breaking state aid rules (as some of the investment will be funded by government loans) so it seems easier just to wait three weeks and do it in Feb.
This is gossip from the middle tiers, not been verified by anyone high up but seems to make some sense.
whats the benefit in Jinye owning the sites rather than British governmentThis is gossip from the middle tiers, not been verified by anyone high up but seems to make some sense.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/dec/15/b...
who takes the profit (or loss)
saaby93 said:
whats the benefit in Jinye owning the sites rather than British government
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/dec/15/b...
who takes the profit (or loss)
Not sure. Puts the government in an awkward spot with Port Talbot/Tata - i.e. it gives Tata the option of pulling the plug on PT and hoping the government pick up the tab. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/dec/15/b...
who takes the profit (or loss)
It's profitable but cash hungry. It's also at the whim of commodity markets.
More importantly (and the bit that's catching out a lot of bidders) is future liabilities, both for pensions and environmental concerns. I'd guess the fear is if that the government take it on now they'll have trouble getting private industry to take on the liabilities when they try to sell it.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff