Fairline - any news?

Whitelighter said:
I think the big problem is unlike other products you just can't get enough volume to really benefit from large scale production savings.

I don't know what the solution is - but I'm not convinced it's EHY. Have they actually sold any boats?
Click to expand...

Well I think that's why the sailing boat makers might make it work as they have the volume.

A friend of mine was on an EHY boat on the Thames in the summer so they must have sold at least one! Interestingly, his 'minor celeb off the TV' partner remarked that she thought a boat like that would cost about £30k, not £100k. Says it all really.
 
Dont forget the finish in most sailing boats that are mass produced is much more basic than even motorboats from the same manufacturer.

They can get away with CNCd bulkheads dropped straight in with little dressing. Yes I know there is Oyster, Discovery, Gunfleet et al who do a nice job but again these are anything but mass produced
 
Deleted User said:
As I say WB seem to know how to do this kind of thing so I'm sure they've worked out that the value of any saleable assets exceeds the cost of keeping the company going until they can close it
Click to expand...

There wont be any CVA if the creditors smell a rat and then it would be a little pointless to asset strip, as any proceedings from assets will go to the creditors before WB get's anything. I have no insight, but I somehow doubt there are any assets of significant value, considering what WB paid for the company....... which was a big round ZERO as far as is known. The most valuable asset would be the "Fairline" label. IMHO. Moulds and other production assets would quickly depreciate towards zero as production grinds to a full stop. Who would invest serious money in a restart of a failed and/or ageing product line?
 
I don't think that fb own any moulds.. Wierd little of shoot company's like masco
weave a wicked thread
Hugin said:
There wont be any CVA if the creditors smell a rat and then it would be a little pointless to asset strip, as any proceedings from assets will go to the creditors before WB get's anything. I have no insight, but I somehow doubt there are any assets of significant value, considering what WB paid for the company....... which was a big round ZERO as far as is known. The most valuable asset would be the "Fairline" label. IMHO. Moulds and other production assets would quickly depreciate towards zero as production grinds to a full stop. Who would invest serious money in a restart of a failed and/or ageing product line?
Click to expand...
 
Hugin said:
There wont be any CVA if the creditors smell a rat and then it would be a little pointless to asset strip, as any proceedings from assets will go to the creditors before WB get's anything. I have no insight, but I somehow doubt there are any assets of significant value, considering what WB paid for the company....... which was a big round ZERO as far as is known. The most valuable asset would be the "Fairline" label. IMHO. Moulds and other production assets would quickly depreciate towards zero as production grinds to a full stop. Who would invest serious money in a restart of a failed and/or ageing product line?
Click to expand...
Yup fair point but I don't think a CVA is what WB actually want because purely IMHO, they don't have any plans to continue building boats, CVA or otherwise. Only my guess but what they actually want is a prepack administration which leaves them with a newco shell owning the remaining assets which they can auction off and a trademark which they can sell off with or without the moulds to somebody like Hanse or some gullible Chinese investor. As i say all IMHO and I hope I'm wrong and that there is a future for building boats under the Fairline name in the UK
 
Deleted User said:
Yup fair point but I don't think a CVA is what WB actually want because purely IMHO, they don't have any plans to continue building boats, CVA or otherwise. Only my guess but what they actually want is a prepack administration which leaves them with a newco shell owning the remaining assets which they can auction off and a trademark which they can sell off with or without the moulds to somebody like Hanse or some gullible Chinese investor. As i say all IMHO and I hope I'm wrong and that there is a future for building boats under the Fairline name in the UK
Click to expand...

My reading of the situation as well.
 
Deleted User said:
Only my guess but what they actually want is a prepack administration which leaves them with a newco shell owning the remaining assets which they can auction off and a trademark which they can sell off
Click to expand...

I'm certainly no expert in regards to prepacked administration procedures but brief reading on the net seems to reveal that a prepacked administration is only possible with the view to continue operations - meaning the business has to be viable also financially after the sale - and the newco would need to have the cash to buy the assets at realistic prices (independent valuation). The administrator is still acting on behalf of creditors and allowing WB to just run away with and sell of the assets would be a violation of virtually all the so-called SIP 16 codes of practice (for appointed administrators)........ as well as plain fraudulent in the common understanding of the word.

I found the following on a website of something called "Company Rescue"

Where a pre-pack is used the following information should be disclosed to creditors in all cases, as far as the administrator is aware after making his or her enquiries:

• The source of the administrator’s initial introduction, in other words how did the case arrive on his desk.

• The extent of the administrator’s involvement prior to appointment and any marketing activities conducted by the company and/or the administrator.

• Any valuations obtained of the business or the underlying assets. We would always advise obtaining independent valuations.

• The alternative courses of action that were considered by the administrator, with an explanation of possible financial outcomes in each scenario.

• Why it was not appropriate to trade the business, and offer it for sale as a going concern, during the administration.

• Details of requests made to potential funders to fund working capital requirements and whether efforts were made to consult with major creditors

• Details of the assets involved and the nature of the transaction to newco

• The consideration for the transaction, terms of payment, and any condition of the contract that could materially affect the consideration.

• If the sale is part of a wider transaction, a description of the other aspects of the transaction.

• The identity of the purchaser, directors and any connection between the purchaser and the directors, shareholders or secured creditors of the company.

• The names of any directors, or former directors, of the company who are involved in the management or ownership of the purchaser, or of any other company into which any of the assets are transferred.

• Whether any directors had given guarantees for amounts due from the company to a prior financier, and whether that financier is financing the new business.

• Any options, buy-back arrangements or similar conditions attached to the contract of sale.

In our belief the pre-pack to a connected party will be a difficult "sell" now to creditors, unless all of these issues are carefully considered and noted. Where a business is pre packed to a third party, independent of the directors and possibly even secured creditors, then it will still be a very powerful and rapid tool.

The Enterprise Act 2002 and case law supports the use of the pre-pack sale but we also believe that in some cases this will be open to challenge, unless ALL of the issues above are considered and answered as part of the scheme. Other wise more pre packs could face challenge in court.

In other words, creditors now have right to full transparency into virtually every amount and every transaction...... and will probably veto it in case WB also controls newco .
 
Hugin said:
I'm certainly no expert in regards to prepacked administration procedures but brief reading on the net seems to reveal that a prepacked administration is only possible with the view to continue operations - meaning the business has to be viable also financially after the sale - and the newco would need to have the cash to buy the assets at realistic prices (independent valuation). The administrator is still acting on behalf of creditors and allowing WB to just run away with and sell of the assets would be a violation of virtually all the so-called SIP 16 codes of practice (for appointed administrators)........ as well as plain fraudulent in the common understanding of the word.

I found the following on a website of something called "Company Rescue"

Where a pre-pack is used the following information should be disclosed to creditors in all cases, as far as the administrator is aware after making his or her enquiries:

• The source of the administrator’s initial introduction, in other words how did the case arrive on his desk.

• The extent of the administrator’s involvement prior to appointment and any marketing activities conducted by the company and/or the administrator.

• Any valuations obtained of the business or the underlying assets. We would always advise obtaining independent valuations.

• The alternative courses of action that were considered by the administrator, with an explanation of possible financial outcomes in each scenario.

• Why it was not appropriate to trade the business, and offer it for sale as a going concern, during the administration.

• Details of requests made to potential funders to fund working capital requirements and whether efforts were made to consult with major creditors

• Details of the assets involved and the nature of the transaction to newco

• The consideration for the transaction, terms of payment, and any condition of the contract that could materially affect the consideration.

• If the sale is part of a wider transaction, a description of the other aspects of the transaction.

• The identity of the purchaser, directors and any connection between the purchaser and the directors, shareholders or secured creditors of the company.

• The names of any directors, or former directors, of the company who are involved in the management or ownership of the purchaser, or of any other company into which any of the assets are transferred.

• Whether any directors had given guarantees for amounts due from the company to a prior financier, and whether that financier is financing the new business.

• Any options, buy-back arrangements or similar conditions attached to the contract of sale.

In our belief the pre-pack to a connected party will be a difficult "sell" now to creditors, unless all of these issues are carefully considered and noted. Where a business is pre packed to a third party, independent of the directors and possibly even secured creditors, then it will still be a very powerful and rapid tool.

The Enterprise Act 2002 and case law supports the use of the pre-pack sale but we also believe that in some cases this will be open to challenge, unless ALL of the issues above are considered and answered as part of the scheme. Other wise more pre packs could face challenge in court.

In other words, creditors now have right to full transparency into virtually every amount and every transaction...... and will probably veto it in case WB also controls newco .
Click to expand...

The bullet points describe Statement of Insolvency Practice 16, introduced 1 November 2015.

The Enterprise Act 2002 changed the insolvency landscape, making it considerably more straightforward to use administration as a procedure and, as a consequence, administration has become much more widely used. Pre-packs, undertaken during the protection of an administrator's moratorium, have come in for a degree of criticism, carrying the occasional whiff of a non-transparent process. Hence SIP 16.

Owing to the recent introduction of SIP 16 it may be too early to tell whether the hoped-for transparency emerges.
 
So they've stopped there employees and company pension contributions and also there Union subs that employees pay out of there own wages without consulting them first. #fact
 
If the article is accurate (and I have no reason to believe it isn't) then I cant see a way back for Fairline in the UK.
Boats building is a skilled job and it also relies on a fair amount of good will from suppliers etc.

It saddens me to say it does look like WB have no real intentions of running a boat building business. I have no doubt the brand will survive but I wouldn't bet on production remaining in the UK
 
Boatingboy said:
http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/...rries-for-workers-at-fairline-boats-1-7094808
Click to expand...

The article gets off to a bit of a bad start when it says "Furniture and equipment is removed from the Fairline offices at Oundle." with the inference that it's some kind of repossession. Yet the furniture is being loaded into a Fairline van (presumably to move it back the factory as was reported last week)!

Still, its piss poor if workers and being paid what they are entitled to.

This is an odd thing to say though "“Questions certainly need to be asked as to why the current legislation can allow an employer to act in such a draconian way and treat its workforce in such a diabolical manner." Surely if the story is true then FL are not acting within the law. Or am I missing something?
 
This is such a sad depressing situation.
Firstly I feel sorry for the British Fairline brand, of which we've had 3 and I know there are many fans on this site, but most importantly I'm concerned for those skilled boat builders who up to a few years ago were building some of the best quality and designed boats on the market and now face a bleak future at this sensitive time of year.
My thoughts are with these guys.
 
I can't help feel that WB is doing nothing more than putting some distance between BC and Fairline in an attempt to prevent another BC/City Link/Christmas type bad press story.

There is always the possibility that WB turn out to be magicians, Fairline survives and finds its feet again and we will all wish we had some meat in their pie, or, (and my bet is) they try to realise some asset value back from selling a Fairline/Fletcher combo to a foreign investor.

Just my thoughts, based on what I have read here and in the press releases.

Hopefully the employees will get to know one way or the other fairly quickly so at least they can move on and get some control back on their lives.
 
We had owned 8 x Fairlines and overall they have been excellent boats. I cannot see me owning another one as WB have now destroyed any trust in the company as how would they treat a deposit or a warranty claim if it is true that they are avoiding paying over deductible payroll items. This is not a furniture business where you can reinvent yourself - this is a very niche market.
 
P4Paul said:
I can't help feel that WB is doing nothing more than putting some distance between BC and Fairline in an attempt to prevent another BC/City Link/Christmas type bad press story.
Click to expand...
I think thats been fairly obvious since the day that BC offloaded the company to WB
 
admillington said:
We had owned 8 x Fairlines and overall they have been excellent boats. I cannot see me owning another one as WB have now destroyed any trust in the company as how would they treat a deposit or a warranty claim if it is true that they are avoiding paying over deductible payroll items. This is not a furniture business where you can reinvent yourself - this is a very niche market.
Click to expand...

As I have spoken of earlier passion and care and attention to detail are what build the dream..that's what made a person buy 8 Fairlines. The people that built that dream go home with achievement and pride knowing somewere the dream they built floats and is a legacy. The like of BC and WB truly do not understand that concept.that is why people like Sam Newington and Ken Woppet and latterly Derick Carter took a moderate fair profit paid employees fairly as it should.be and enjoyed and prospered from a good solid reputation. A person once said that Mr Carter would say "if Fairline makes.money we all make money"...BC and WB cannot conceived that concept.. The People that bought 8 Fairlines work hard and want to enjoy the reward of the hard work they have put in to enjoy that dream..the guys and girls getting there pension money's and union fees "robbed"by a company that does not even pay its bills and rents are the People that build that dream...
 
I totally understand all that Rudder, and there is huge disappointment around here and among boaters widely to see Fairline slip away like this, as is surely going to happen. I've bought 5 new fairlines by the way, a phantom 42, 2x s58 and 2x s78, and love them. A friend in my marina is also on his 2nd s78. Another guy I know has placed a deposit (in escrow) for his 2nd s78, though of course terms aren't agreed to build it. That's how much people love Fairlines and appreciate your work. It was always a real pleasure to chat with the teams building the boats and see/feel their pride in the product, but that feeling began to get a bit thinner in the last couple of years as you know with the long standing guys leaving and new management (after Derek really) running the show. It's very sad to watch what is now happening.

I think the plot is a bit deeper than just "distance" between BC and formal insolvency - my guess, and it is just a guess, is nothing will happen till the s65 nearly finished is handed over, then some stuff will happen, then formal insolvency will happen

It is a sad fact that the market for these products has shrunk bigtime. Princess are losing more money than Fairline but they happen to have an owner with deeper pockets, for now. Sunseeker struggle too, though have had a remarkably good run I think for the last few months

Oundle won't be the same anymore and everyone is going to have to change their lives and find a new living. Very sad. All the best anyway
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top