Tomahawk - to avoid after lockdown

[Andy_W]

Haven’t you slammed someone for making assumptions. Going a long way to defend a position you really know jot all about

Look at the full post, it was designed to be read as a whole, like if all the scenarios were the case, then is it better to just fold up?
As in if those circumstances are all met, then is it best for all staff to go on the dole?

My estimate was put in brackets, individually on what I would think is most likely on the balance of probability, with my assumptions from running various businesses during this pandemic, and what I've experience of.

Do you think it's easy for leisure/ retail to get finance for cashflow? (my experience running three companies says it's not, and it's even harder now, and even worse when they ask for the balance sheet/ statements/ P&L)
Do you think the business would be weaker without the loan? (practical certainty)
Company directors are not obliged to liquidate all their personal wealth and assets to bail out a single limited company, that cannot sustain itself, this is UK law.

I'm defending business and directors on the whole to be honest, more than Tomohawk specifically, as there's not much balance on here and very little understanding of what's involved.

I'm also just explaining that the reward v risk for staff is massive and much better than the alternative.

I wonder if there would be the same uproar if the company just folded a year ago and made 250 redundant and then nobody took up the other premises, so no additional 250 jobs created.

 

[ForssAwakens]

Look at the full post, it was designed to be read as a whole, like if all the scenarios were the case, then is it better to just fold up?
As in if those circumstances are all met, then is it best for all staff to go on the dole?

My estimate was put in brackets, individually on what I would think is most likely on the balance of probability, with my assumptions from running various businesses during this pandemic, and what I've experience of.

Do you think it's easy for leisure/ retail to get finance for cashflow? (my experience running three companies says it's not, and it's even harder now, and even worse when they ask for the balance sheet/ statements/ P&L)
Do you think the business would be weaker without the loan? (practical certainty)
Company directors are not obliged to liquidate all their personal wealth and assets to bail out a single limited company, that cannot sustain itself, this is UK law.

I'm defending business and directors on the whole to be honest, more than Tomohawk specifically, as there's not much balance on here and very little understanding of what's involved.

I'm also just explaining that the reward v risk for staff is massive and much better than the alternative.

I wonder if there would be the same uproar if the company just folded a year ago and made 250 redundant and then nobody took up the other premises, so no additional 250 jobs created.

You don’t the companies situation more than anyone else arguing the other side.

 

[Andy_W]

Maths isn't my strong suit so give me a chance.
Say for example every member of staff is on £10 p/h and the company is asking for 10% that works out £80,000 based on each person also working a full 40 hour week (which they won't be). This also doesn't take into consideration the furlough payment, it's assuming full pay.
So you could actually determine that total amount they would be asking for would be less than £80,000.

The full portfolio most be in serious trouble if they are asking staff instead of say, borrowing or downsizing, what is, in the grand scheme of a things a small amount of money.

I looked at it based on £1500 a month average, so 10% is £150 x 3 months = 450 * 500 people = 225k
I've no idea how many part-time staff they have, the same as I don't know how many do 60 hours etc.

If they downsize by 20% that puts say 100 staff on the dole, so that's a net 20% loss average for all staff, which wouldn't be paid back of course.

So downsizing is collectively worse for the staff, by far.

The portfolio looks fairly weak, probably financed up to the hilt, but even if it wasn't then it makes no sense to take all the cash from many, to feed one (if they have any cash). All that would mean is all the other companies fail, and it compounds the problem.

 

[Andy_W]

You don’t the companies situation more than anyone else arguing the other side.

I've been on both sides, roughly half/ half my working life, they're both a nightmare, I'm trying to add a bit of balance or explain some of the problems.

>95% of people haven't been on both sides, so they naturally think the other side is rosy, or think those on the other side are all ba$tards, it's far from the case form my experience.

I've actually been waiting (and hoping) for someone who runs a leisure/ retail business around say 1m turnover, to tell me they've had it easy, got finance easy, got good cashflow etc as I've not seen it yet. I know little about leisure, but I know in construction its been a nightmare, and this isn't even a sector that's struggled as much. All I can think is it's 5-100 times worse for leisure/ non-essential retail.

I'm sort of just hoping the Tomohawk owners are all a$$holes too, to be honest, and that the Ferrari is actually fully paid off and in the companies name, and he just sells it off. Bails out the company, all staff keep their jobs on 100%, long enough until they can leave and get employed elsewhere. But my experience is telling me this isn't likely. There's a good chance they're just really struggling, have little alternative, and didn't mean bad by this.

How would you all feel if the loans get kicked into touch and the companies go bust?

 

[Lefty]

You don’t the companies situation more than anyone else arguing the other side.

Well quite. I think that is partly his point. He is trying to make as charitable an interpretation as he can, which is the decent thing to do if you don’t know all the actual facts.

He might be wrong when more facts become known, but he isn’t wrong now. Those making a judgement without any charity, yet not knowing the facts, aren’t adopting the fairest approach.

 

[Andy_W]

Well quite. I think that is partly his point. He is trying to make as charitable an interpretation as he can, which is the decent thing to do if you don’t know all the actual facts.

He might be wrong when more facts become known, but he isn’t wrong now. Those making a judgement without any charity, yet not knowing the facts, aren’t adopting the fairest approach.

That's it basically, just trying to add some balance as I've been on both sides.

I know for a fact that about 6 companies I deal with have had a nightmare, and it's absolutely zero compared to what some industries have had to deal with. Basically, I'm assuming every leisure/ non-essential retail business is having a 5x worse time than me, which must be absolutely $hit.

 

[Andy_W]

Anyway.... UTB

 

[Lefty]

That's it basically, just trying to add some balance as I've been on both sides.

I know for a fact that about 6 companies I deal with have had a nightmare, and it's absolutely zero compared to what some industries have had to deal with. Basically, I'm assuming every leisure/ non-essential retail business is having a 5x worse time than me, which must be absolutely $hit.

I’ve got clients of different sizes, across many sectors and there is a huge difference. Some have boomed, some are ticking over, some are hanging in there, some have been stuffed. The next few months are the crucial ones for the hospitality sector. They need govt support for a little longer.

 

[Primus84]

And none of any of the apologists have remotely come close to excusing the fact that they're putting people on very low incomes in an impossible position, a position from which many will have to turn to loans themselves, loans which will not be interest free.

Loan us some money or lose your job is not appropriate, no matter what way you spin it it will never be appropriate.

We hear regularly from the same voices about business owners being entitled to their spoils and the fruits of their labours - even on this thread when addressing the owner has multiple Ferraris. It works both ways.

I wouldn't dream of ever visiting one of their establishments now.

 

[ForssAwakens]

And none of any of the apologists have remotely come close to excusing the fact that they're putting people on very low incomes in an impossible position, a position from which many will have to turn to loans themselves, loans which will not be interest free.

Loan us some money or lose your job is not appropriate, no matter what way you spin it it will never be appropriate.

We hear regularly from the same voices about business owners being entitled to their spoils and the fruits of their labours - even on this thread when addressing the owner has multiple Ferraris. It works both ways.

I wouldn't dream of ever visiting one of their establishments now.

Exactly the letter May not say ‘we will sack you if you refuse’ just insinuates that, applying pressure to the employee

 

[Andy_W]

And none of any of the apologists have remotely come close to excusing the fact that they're putting people on very low incomes in an impossible position, a position from which many will have to turn to loans themselves, loans which will not be interest free.

Loan us some money or lose your job is not appropriate, no matter what way you spin it it will never be appropriate.

It's not excusing, jesus. Nobody knows the full facts to make excuses, the same as they don't know the full facts to makes assumptions or wild criticisms.

It's explaining that it might be the best of an extremely bad situation, regarding their employer's industry, and the entire economy. We know for a fact that the industry and economy as a whole have took an absolute beating.

The company might be in an impossible situation. If it's impossible for the company, it's going to trickle down to everyone related to the company, which also, surprisingly, will include the staff. The thing is the company has lost LOADS, which it cannot get back, the staff have took a 20% cut in return for doing no work. They're being asked to go to make that a 30% cut for 3 months (still for doing no work), and in return, they will get 110% the 3 months after.

It might have been badly worded, or interpreted, but being nice about doesn't excuse the fact we're in a pandemic, have been for a year, and this sector (so hence it's staff) has been hit hardest of them all. Not to mention their employer has only been going 3 years, which is also an additional risk for the staff, the company and the directors.

Is folding up, and making 500 people redundant a better choice for everyone, including the staff?
Keep in mind most of them would get zero pay, as not been there 2 years and the rest have likely not been there four years. Effectively the best they poorly paid staff would get is one weeks pay. This outcome is about 25 times worse considering the chance of getting other employment is probably slim.

We hear regularly from the same voices about business owners being entitled to their spoils and the fruits of their labours - even on this thread when addressing the owner has multiple Ferraris. It works both ways.

I wouldn't dream of ever visiting one of their establishments now.

Business owners are entitled to the spoils when things go well, that's what happens when you invest time and money for decades, taking unimaginable risks, but the vast majority who attempt it go broke, and not many get to the Ferrari stage.

Regarding the "ferraris" anyway, which owner? The one that has a 30% share in the company that had the wealth/ assets (although it's probably 30% of a lot less now). Or probably 30% of a load of debt. Are the Ferraris owned outright, or leased, or on loans? By selling them he may end up worse off, as the market is $hyte.

If people don't visit, then all they're doing is taking away jobs from those that have took part in the 10% loan scheme, or limiting the probability of their employer continuing. Maybe someone else will step up and fill the space, but I wouldn't bank on it, not after this year, a recession and brexit.

I'll probably go back, pending seeing further information (all their accounts are long overdue), but if I do I'll be giving the staff a decent tip.

 

[TeaCider]

For someone who apparently doesn't agree with them doing it, it's strange that you've spent days and written paragraph after paragraph condoning and advocating their right to do it.

 

[Andy_W]

Exactly the letter May not say ‘we will sack you if you refuse’ just insinuates that, applying pressure to the employee

The pandemic, government measures, lack of support and sector are applying the most pressure, on the company and the directors, the result of this is some pressure gets applied downward or the company just ceases to exist. It's far from nice, but we're in a pandemic, we're not all getting out unscathed, there's going to be economic repercussions of this for years.

 

[bear66]

For someone who apparently doesn't agree with them doing it, it's strange that you've spent days and written paragraph after paragraph condoning and advocating their right to do it.

Business - make money, make money, make money, lose money - poor business

Employees - on bread line, on bread line, on bread line, 30% below bread line - poor business

 

[Andy_W]

For someone who apparently doesn't agree with them doing it, it's strange that you've spent days and written paragraph after paragraph condoning and advocating their right to do it.

I didn't say I don't agree, and I didn't say I do agree either.

I'm saying this might be the only way, or might be the only low-risk way (which is essential to the companies future), the alternative might be just folding up and making 500 people redundant (which most will get zero or next to zero payout).
.
If you had read what I had written you may have understood this, on or two have.

I've spent time on it as the level of understanding of business ownership, possibilities and funding available in general on here seems to be quite poor. From what I've seen every comment against has been from someone who has never run a company of a similar size, or anywhere near that size. Like I said before, I would love for someone to prove me wrong here, and explain how easy they have had it.
As is the assumption that all directors are bad, don't care about staff or whatever, it's just not true, not from my experience anyway, even those that have decent cars (probably on lease).

There's been quite a few points on here from people against the loan, stating that if the loan had interest it would be fine. This is a completely bonkers stance, as the difference between the two is likely less than 1% of the earnings to the end of the year. Again this shows a poor level of understanding of reality. It's like going wild, and causing an uproar about a £9,900 offer for a car, but then saying the £10,000 offer is totally fine.

 

[WilliamMunny]

For someone who apparently doesn't agree with them doing it, it's strange that you've spent days and written paragraph after paragraph condoning and advocating their right to do it.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone spend so much time defending the actions of an unconnected 3rd party, for actions that they fundamentally agree are morally questionable.

Andy W - you've made your point countless times now. Perhaps it is time to do something else with your time as you're not going to convince anyone to change their mind based on a spurious devil's advocate point of view.

 

[Andy_W]

Business - make money, make money, make money, lose money - poor business

Employees - on bread line, on bread line, on bread line, 30% below bread line - poor business

This is what you seem to think:

Business - employ staff - employ staff - employ staff - employ staff (with 10% less as a loan, for 3 months, because there's a pandemic and their sector is screwed) = business owner is a ba$tard

Employees -100% pay for working (for the sector) -100% pay for working (for the sector) - 80% pay for doing nothing - 70% pay for doing nothing, but get 10% back in 3 months = worse than being on the dole

 

[bear66]

This is what you seem to think:

Business - employ staff - employ staff - employ staff - employ staff (with 10% less as a loan, for 3 months, because there's a pandemic and their sector is screwed) = business owner is a ba$tard

Employees -100% pay for working (for the sector) -100% pay for working (for the sector) - 80% pay for doing nothing - 70% pay for doing nothing, but get 10% back in 3 months = worse than being on the dole

The tax payer will continue to support business to the tune of £80 billion a year (normal) plus a lot more to get them out of trouble.

If a business owner is really in trouble, there's a £20 UC uplift to help him through this.

 

[Andy_W]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone spend so much time defending the actions of an unconnected 3rd party, for actions that they fundamentally agree are morally questionable.

Andy W - you've made your point countless times now. Perhaps it is time to do something else with your time as you're not going to convince anyone to change their mind based on a spurious devil's advocate point of view.

I know, I should go back to running my businesses, and seeing if I can get some of this CBLIS, or cash finance that's apparently so easy to get.

It is devils advocate, and I've had enough now It doesn't mean I'm wrong though.

 

[ForssAwakens]

I didn't say I don't agree, and I didn't say I do agree either.

I'm saying this might be the only way, or might be the only low-risk way (which is essential to the companies future), the alternative might be just folding up and making 500 people redundant (which most will get zero or next to zero payout).
.
If you had read what I had written you may have understood this, on or two have.

I've spent time on it as the level of understanding of business ownership, possibilities and funding available in general on here seems to be quite poor. From what I've seen every comment against has been from someone who has never run a company of a similar size, or anywhere near that size. Like I said before, I would love for someone to prove me wrong here, and explain how easy they have had it.
As is the assumption that all directors are bad, don't care about staff or whatever, it's just not true, not from my experience anyway, even those that have decent cars (probably on lease).

There's been quite a few points on here from people against the loan, stating that if the loan had interest it would be fine. This is a completely bonkers stance, as the difference between the two is likely less than 1% of the earnings to the end of the year. Again this shows a poor level of understanding of reality. It's like going wild, and causing an uproar about a £9,900 offer for a car, but then saying the £10,000 offer is totally fine.

You don’t know it’s there only way, and people have pointed out countless evidence around the lavish lifestyle and other businesses this directors has

as you have said yourself around things that are likely, it is likely he has other ways of generating said money than bending his staff over a barrel.