B A Peters OBE

I haven't met BP (or at least I don't think so) but friends have and speak well of him

Why is it that we so enjoy failure in this country? And so ready to kick someone who is on the floor

It takes guts and hard work to build a business like he did, especially in this country where every daft EU directive is followed religiously and enforced by an expensive team of inspectors. Businesses here are drowning in red tape and are forced to take on more and more admin staff to cope with it, at the expense of productive people. This makes us uncompetitive. Every foreign nation with the common sense to ignore the odd directive beats us hands down

Whatever the outcome, I'm prepared to wait for the facts to emerge before indulging in accusations
 
I'm sorry but I didn't see anybody kicking Angela and the other buyers and sellers or the workers who have lost their jobs and pay owed or for that matter the small businesses who have undoubtedly lost out on work completed for PO.
I doubt if the directors will be out of pocket by much and will be able to get new directorships without much trouble.
 
In my industry there were a lot of companies that went to the wall in the 1990's and the biggest crooks of the lot were the banks that foreclosed on companies just because they had a cash flow problem.

There was a case of a contractor who could trace their origins back hundreds of years. The banks foreclosed for a couple of million quid and within a month the receiver pulled in two or three times what the bank was owed. But by then it was too late. A superb business was dead. The receiver no doubt made a bomb out of it.

All you peeps passing judgement without any knowledge of the true facts are worse than the old ladies sat round the guilliotine during the French Revolution.

When a company like Peters Opal goes down there are a lot of losers and my heart goes out to all the people who have lost. Not only the customers, creditors and staff, but also the people who no doubt tried really hard to keep thier company alive.

I've been through receivership/administration and the only winners are the banks, accountants and solicitors.

Everyone should back off untill the facts are known.
 
Banks often pull the rug out of companies just after they have received large lumps of cash. They have a wonderful way of making themselves a preference by first reducing the companies overdraft limit, so cash received cannot be passed on to third parties. The point I am making is it is we just do not know the series of events that have led to this awful situation.

Whose decision was it, what was the cause, who set the timetable. One thing is certain, that the shortfall is going to be far higher than if the company had been able to make an orderly exit. I think that there is a real need in this country for some kind of chapter 11 protection, similar to the US, it must be in the best interests of all creditors. I think that the problem with Banks is that because they have charges their money is secure, so they are reckless in their decision to appoint receivers. If they had a vested interest in an orderly sale or closure or re-sizing of a business then I think the outcome would be better for everyone.

I run my own business and have sustained many bad debts over the years amounting to tens of thousands of pounds. Some times it happens and the management is very culpable, and one others it is simply devastating and often not their fault, they are the victims of circumstances. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it is a terrible irony that when a company needs to downsize, it is the costs of doing so that are so prohibitive i.e. redundancy costs, these enormous liabilities are often enough for a company not to be able to meet its liabilities.

Whilst some people on here will know what has really happened, it is not right to make any comment on any of the apparent action of the the company. Al creditor will get a report from the reciever and no doubt it will be published soon enough.
 
I'm sorry, but do you know anything at all about business and the way that a cash flow issue can kill an otherwise sound company?

Do you think that Peter's made some sort of decision to run out of money so that they could somehow rip people off?


sheesh.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Do you think that Peter's made some sort of decision to run out of money so that they could somehow rip people off?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they didnt - but the problem doesnt happen overnight, can usually be seen coming, and steps can be taken to deal with it:

additional finance
reducing debtors
delivering faster
discounting
cutting costs
selling assets
blah blah blah
 
Nice words, Richard, and I'm sure that Peters were doing that as quickly as they could, but the bottom line is that if they realised they were insolvent, they had a legal obligation to bring in the administrators. Any company has fixed costs which can't quickly be reduced. How long would it take to sell their assets?

Anyway, my issue is with the statement that Brian Peters should feel obliged to give back his OBE because his company is in difficulty, which is a ridiculous concept.
 
[ QUOTE ]
his company is in difficulty

[/ QUOTE ]

Now THAT must be the understatement of the year.


Lots of people will be out of pocket - buyers (lost deposits), suppliers (unpaid bills) and employees...
But I very much doubt if BP or any boardmember will feel the pinch to the same extent - if at all. And, let us not forget, they were at the helm.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I think that there is a real need in this country for some kind of chapter 11 protection, similar to the US, it must be in the best interests of all creditors. I think that the problem with Banks is that because they have charges their money is secure, so they are reckless in their decision to appoint receivers.

[/ QUOTE ]There is, it's called administration. The banks are scum, but unfortunately they are the scum with the money without which businesses wouldn't start up or survive. If there were a limitation on the security that the banks would have for their loans, they wouldn't lend and that would be that.

The biggest losers in all this is probably Mr Peters and the other shareholders despite what is being put about on here.

I still think there is a case for financial information about companies being more easily and cheaply available. Private customers have no idea what they are dealing with when the give money to a company.
 
[ QUOTE ]
The biggest losers in all this is probably Mr Peters and the other shareholders despite what is being put about on here.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree entirely with what you say. Mr Peters and his fellow director/shareholders have seen their baby keel over dead. I doubt very much that they just sat back and did nothing whilst it happened. Human nature says they would have fought tooth and nail to prevent it.

However, there are a lot of "smaller" people who have lost a huge amount. As I said earlier everyone is a loser, except the banks and the people who clear the mess up.

All very sad. /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
 
For about 20 years, I owned a travel agency. During this period we were regulated to the extreme - and financially controlled to the absolute degree.

It added huge amounts of effort to our administration - and the annual costs of the licencing were enormous.

This licencing was forced on all Travel Agents as a result of company failures in the 70s and 80s. However, the sums of money that we held on behalf of our customers were peanuts in comparison with the figures involved for boats.

Typically, had we gone bankrupt - the biggest single loss would have been about £5k. I bet there are dozens of unlucky would-be owners of Peters boats who would now be delighted if their loss was "only 5k".

Yet boat manufacturers/distributors can still do exactly as they wish with the huge funds that they receive from hardworking customers.

Doesnt seem right to me? /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif
 
One good way to find out about a company is to go chat to those who work(have worked) there...
Looking at the company website,I dunno just what assets there are,a few leases and unserviced debts,some part paid for boats and some skilled staff....
Other companies have been to the wall and back though-I expect BP is doing everything he can to save what can be saved..In 3 years time if all is well again and peeps have not lost their shirts(new boats)in the administrative phase,BP may well be soundly applauded as the chap who stuck it out through and through. Who knows.
 
Looking at this from a possible criminal scenario and I dont know the full details,but if customers handed over money for a boat and were told that the money would be retained safely in a client account and the money was not retained there,then at some point there could be a criminal deception or if the money was removed ,a theft ,then this could be a criminal matter,and should be reported to the police.
Some police forces might be reluctant to deal with this,but if approached by a few angry people who had lost a lot of money in these circumstances they might well act.
Acting in these circumstances could well include seizing the boats as evidence or the funds in question.
For the alleged victims recovery of boats or funds would presumably be easier in this scenario than through civil administration.
 
On that basis it sounds like a worst case result is 61p in the pound back. Of course, some of the funds will have already been paid to builders and suppliers.

Seems like the accusation that BP and his staff were using the CA to support the business is false.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Seems like the accusation that BP and his staff were using the CA to support the business is false.


[/ QUOTE ]

Or in other words - ill informed people jumping to miss informed conclusions.

Although it is before my time, I believe during the second world war there was a campaing against loose talk as it could cost lives.

Today that still applies, ill informed people mouthing off when they don't know the facts can cause other people great injury.

If there is a requirement for a criminal investigation I believe the administrators will take the appropriate action. It does not require vigilante tactics.
 
[ QUOTE ]


Yet boat manufacturers/distributors can still do exactly as they wish with the huge funds that they receive from hardworking customers.

(

[/ QUOTE ]

Not correct. You the buyer have a role too. You can insure the transaction. You can get details of the suppliers accounts and make a judgement as to whether they are a good risk. You can pay money into escrow with a solicitor rather than direct to the distributor. You can pay on delivery. Lots of options to protect yourself.

These may not be the suppliers standard terms but everything is negotiable in the end. And if you dont like the risk, walk away - I did so a couple of years ago because the accounts of the yachtbuilder showed that the company I would have been paying my money to was in effect a "shell" and all the hard assets were owned directly by the directors. So liabilities in one company, assets in another. Interestingly they are still in business.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Seems like the accusation that BP and his staff were using the CA to support the business is false.


[/ QUOTE ]

Or in other words - ill informed people jumping to miss informed conclusions.



[/ QUOTE ]

Seems like the accusation that BP and his staff were using the CA to support the business is false.

Seems is equally ill-informed as other accusations/statements.

IMHO there are two kinds of people/reactions towards this whole sad story

1. A sympathetic attitude towards BP & Co of fellow business people also operating in an environment where ripping of customers - sorry, meant to say profit maximisation, is a way of life

and

2. (Self)employed people who possibly have lost a lot of hard-earned cash and feel the b*st*rds should be hung, drawn & quartered
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Other threads that may be of interest

O
Cannot give it away ?
Replies
4
Views
833
oldgit
O
S
Interior Sadler 29 terrible paint job?
Replies
19
Views
616
vyv_cox
vyv_cox

Share this page

Top