Branson Pickle ?
Discussion
Mentioned on the Airlines thread but thought its worth its own, I havent personally done much reading on this beyond the soundbites so am interested to see what the views are and the reality of it.
Is the Virgin situation as simple as Richard Branson with four billion quid sat on his private Island etc etc, having sued (and won) the NHS (not a great move PR wise then, certainly not now) and wanting a bail out from the Taxpayer/government, plus still pursuing space flight projects at the same time ?
Its all a bit Facebook meme/populist but not heard any cohesive counter position that suggests why its not an accurate representation and Branson is just a another greedy t
t like the rest, is that unfair ?
RB always used to have a sort of cool and slightly counterculture ish image, self made man, slight hippy thing and we perhaps thought he may be a bit more benevolent, especially knocking seventy but at the moment his public image is knackered and that goodwill is evaporating it seems.
Is the Virgin situation as simple as Richard Branson with four billion quid sat on his private Island etc etc, having sued (and won) the NHS (not a great move PR wise then, certainly not now) and wanting a bail out from the Taxpayer/government, plus still pursuing space flight projects at the same time ?
Its all a bit Facebook meme/populist but not heard any cohesive counter position that suggests why its not an accurate representation and Branson is just a another greedy t
t like the rest, is that unfair ?RB always used to have a sort of cool and slightly counterculture ish image, self made man, slight hippy thing and we perhaps thought he may be a bit more benevolent, especially knocking seventy but at the moment his public image is knackered and that goodwill is evaporating it seems.
Eric Mc said:
I thought this was going to be a thread about a shortage of pickles.
Me too. Less concerned now I know its about the great Virgin.
FWIW - Yes, he's a greedy t
t. But you don't become a billionaire without being so, and in 12 months time people will be happy to fly on his aircraft and all they'll care about is the price. Isn't he also suing the Department for Transport over not being given then East Coast Mainline franchise again? miniman said:
Delta, the owner of the other half of Virgin Atlantic, made a profit of $6bn last year alone. Even if you assume Branson owns the whole of Virgin Group, which he doesn't, why should he pony up his own cash if the other shareholders in VA aren't doing the same?
Yeah, can see that aspect, 49 percent ownership isnt it ? Edit 51 - just read on Sky news he has sent out a ltter to all his employyes saying it may go under unless it gets help.Of a privately owned company, I think he (and Delta) should "pony up" before the government should give him money taken from us taxpayers and other employers.
Edited by J4CKO on Monday 20th April 13:42
miniman said:
Delta, the owner of the other half of Virgin Atlantic, made a profit of $6bn last year alone. Even if you assume Branson owns the whole of Virgin Group, which he doesn't, why should he pony up his own cash if the other shareholders in VA aren't doing the same?
Because he has carefully crafted an image of 'man of the people' over many decades and its central to the Virgin brand?If people think he is t
t, the valuation of the brand may drop.ReallyReallyGood said:
Why did he sue the nhs?
The general gist seems to be that virgin care bid for a large contract and didn’t win it, they had the right to ask why they didn’t win it and nhs decided they would not tell virgin care why . This led to damages of some £300kIn virgin cares Defense it has been said (by them) they make no profit.
miniman said:
Delta, the owner of the other half of Virgin Atlantic, made a profit of $6bn last year alone. Even if you assume Branson owns the whole of Virgin Group, which he doesn't, why should he pony up his own cash if the other shareholders in VA aren't doing the same?
Lead by example?Delta may have made good profits, but almost all that cash went back to shareholders.
One of the greatest fk ups of the last 10 years is that low interest rates and an obsession with shareholder returns mean all businesses are short on cash yet big on debt, and there is simply no provision for anything unexpected in the books.
The people who have done well out of this? Those who were rich and had assets already.
The last 15 years have seen inequality increase massively as QE and low interest rates (as well as more recent Trump tax giveaways) have hugely benefited those who were already rich, and yet again tax payers of all incomes are on the hook to pick up the bill. Obviously those who have good accountants can probably avoid the upcoming tax rises.
I have no doubt that bailing these businesses out is the best thing to do for the economy as a whole, but the costs for doing so should fall back mainly on those who were responsible and failed to prepare for anything unexpected, rather than spreading that cost over all individuals and businesses. It simply cannot be right that businesses can return $1.5bn a year to shareholders, have CEO's on huge salaries and bonus structures linked to share prices, and yet need government support when something unexpected happens. There is no link any more between the reward of owning shares, and the risk that comes with it. Taxpayers are taking the risk, while shareholders reap the rewards. All businesses should have to draw down credit lines and shareholder funds before expecting help from the taxpayer. Then, if the government decides to step in, it should be in return for equity so that when the business recovers the government shares that benefit and the investment pays for itself. We simply cannot go on transferring corporate debt and risk to government books at no cost.
One of the greatest f
k ups of the last 10 years is that low interest rates and an obsession with shareholder returns mean all businesses are short on cash yet big on debt, and there is simply no provision for anything unexpected in the books. The people who have done well out of this? Those who were rich and had assets already.
The last 15 years have seen inequality increase massively as QE and low interest rates (as well as more recent Trump tax giveaways) have hugely benefited those who were already rich, and yet again tax payers of all incomes are on the hook to pick up the bill. Obviously those who have good accountants can probably avoid the upcoming tax rises.
I have no doubt that bailing these businesses out is the best thing to do for the economy as a whole, but the costs for doing so should fall back mainly on those who were responsible and failed to prepare for anything unexpected, rather than spreading that cost over all individuals and businesses. It simply cannot be right that businesses can return $1.5bn a year to shareholders, have CEO's on huge salaries and bonus structures linked to share prices, and yet need government support when something unexpected happens. There is no link any more between the reward of owning shares, and the risk that comes with it. Taxpayers are taking the risk, while shareholders reap the rewards. All businesses should have to draw down credit lines and shareholder funds before expecting help from the taxpayer. Then, if the government decides to step in, it should be in return for equity so that when the business recovers the government shares that benefit and the investment pays for itself. We simply cannot go on transferring corporate debt and risk to government books at no cost.
Edited by Condi on Monday 20th April 13:58
crankedup said:
miniman said:
Delta, the owner of the other half of Virgin Atlantic, made a profit of $6bn last year alone. Even if you assume Branson owns the whole of Virgin Group, which he doesn't, why should he pony up his own cash if the other shareholders in VA aren't doing the same?
Lead by example?s1962a said:
crankedup said:
miniman said:
Delta, the owner of the other half of Virgin Atlantic, made a profit of $6bn last year alone. Even if you assume Branson owns the whole of Virgin Group, which he doesn't, why should he pony up his own cash if the other shareholders in VA aren't doing the same?
Lead by example?Digga said:
s1962a said:
crankedup said:
miniman said:
Delta, the owner of the other half of Virgin Atlantic, made a profit of $6bn last year alone. Even if you assume Branson owns the whole of Virgin Group, which he doesn't, why should he pony up his own cash if the other shareholders in VA aren't doing the same?
Lead by example?Other carriers would step in to take the flight slots, the planes would go back to their owners to be leased to somebody else. The 8,000 staff would end up unemployed and the offices empty seeking new tenants at a time when unemployment is doubling and nobody is looking for new offices. Share holders would lose a packet and Branson would be embarrassed but not really financially bruised, and then it will all be lost in the wider COVID-19 pandemic news...….
If the Government stepped in to support Virgin it would have to do the same with all the UK based carriers, it would be just throwing good money after bad IMHO.
crankedup said:
miniman said:
Delta, the owner of the other half of Virgin Atlantic, made a profit of $6bn last year alone. Even if you assume Branson owns the whole of Virgin Group, which he doesn't, why should he pony up his own cash if the other shareholders in VA aren't doing the same?
Lead by example?Easyjet paid Stellios a £60m dividend in March, and have received a public funded loan of £600m.
The Surveyor said:
Digga said:
s1962a said:
crankedup said:
miniman said:
Delta, the owner of the other half of Virgin Atlantic, made a profit of $6bn last year alone. Even if you assume Branson owns the whole of Virgin Group, which he doesn't, why should he pony up his own cash if the other shareholders in VA aren't doing the same?
Lead by example?Other carriers would step in to take the flight slots, the planes would go back to their owners to be leased to somebody else. The 8,000 staff would end up unemployed and the offices empty seeking new tenants at a time when unemployment is doubling and nobody is looking for new offices. Share holders would lose a packet and Branson would be embarrassed but not really financially bruised, and then it will all be lost in the wider COVID-19 pandemic news...….
If the Government stepped in to support Virgin it would have to do the same with all the UK based carriers, it would be just throwing good money after bad IMHO.
surveyor said:
He has put in over £250m.
No he has not.He has said he will be spending $250m (note dollar amount stated, as sounds bigger) across the group in the near future, so that is not the Airline alone.
The cynics may question if that is double speak, and part of that was already being invested anyway, and how much in the airline?
Also spending $250m across Virgin, isn't so impressive from a $4bn guy.
Edited by hyphen on Monday 20th April 14:53
surveyor said:
crankedup said:
miniman said:
Delta, the owner of the other half of Virgin Atlantic, made a profit of $6bn last year alone. Even if you assume Branson owns the whole of Virgin Group, which he doesn't, why should he pony up his own cash if the other shareholders in VA aren't doing the same?
Lead by example?Easyjet paid Stellios a £60m dividend in March, and have received a public funded loan of £600m.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff