The B A Peters phoenix?

[wingdiver]

Re: Opal Marine Limited not opalmarine ltd

And what the earlier poster would have missed is that the company formerly known as OPALMARINE ltd also changed it's name yesterday to OM REALISATIONS 1 LIMITED thereby enabling the new company to use the OPAL MARINE name.
Simple stuff, done it myself for clients.

Lot's of ridiculous hot air by uninformed wassocks on this thread!

Shows that a little knowledge is a very dangerous thing in some peoples hands.

As someone who is in business and advises clients who are in business, I know that it takes 100 satisfied clients to prodice one new one and one person shouting the odds - whethere correct or not - to cause 100 people not to consider you.

I'm surporised that Keith hasn't pulled this thread as it's almost as bad as the false accusations levelled at Kemps previously.

 

[Rob_Webb]

The whole thing stinks.

The case for buying a Bavaria was always marginal given the price/quality equation and the other options available.

But discovering that the UK dealership arrangement was built on a pack of cards which caused many innocent parties to (potentially) lose money means that in my view, the case against buying Bavaria has reached 'tipping point' (to coin a fashionable phrase).

So I agree that whatever the ins & outs of who is is to blame and who is not and is the new company better than the old one etc ..... my advice is just don't do it. Ever again.

There are SO many better options.

 

[tcm]

I\'d like to see, I\'d like to think, i\'d like to ....

um, if you are using a limited company then ipso facto you have already put your (ultimate) interests above those of your customers: if the company has no money, you don't have to sell your house or other personal to make up the shortfall for your clients. Perfectly reasonable that you do this,and I fully agree that you would indeed "like to think" that you'd put your clients' interests before your own. Same as Stephen Byers said he "would like to see" railtrack investors compensated. But in the event,you didn't put your clients interests above your own interests (i.e you will retain possession of your house/assets) and similarly the things that stephen byers "would have liked to see" didn't happen either.

Heyho.

 

[Barr Avel]

Interesting to see that only Bavaria is silent on this. The other manufacturers are trying to help out the buyers (it is good PR after all).

Puts me off the company more than all the quality related Bavaria-bashing that happens on this forum!

Marc.

 

[Danny Jo]

Re: Opal Marine Limited not opalmarine ltd

[ QUOTE ]
And what the earlier poster would have missed is that the company formerly known as OPALMARINE ltd also changed it's name yesterday to OM REALISATIONS 1 LIMITED thereby enabling the new company to use the OPAL MARINE name.

[/ QUOTE ] OK, so I'm an uninformed wassock. My apologies. I also accept that it is entirely coincidental that Opalmarine Ltd should choose to change its name shortly before Opal Marine Ltd came into existence and that this does not in any way constitute evidence of any influence by the directors of the former over the directors of the latter, or vice versa.

But can someone explain to me why it is "dangerous" for uninformed wassocks to be looking on the web for information that is intended for the public domain.

 

[Barr Avel]

Re: I\'d like to see, I\'d like to think, i\'d like to ....

[ QUOTE ]
Same as Stephen Byers said he "would like to see" railtrack investors compensated. But in the event,you didn't put your clients interests above your own interests (i.e you will retain possession of your house/assets) and similarly the things that stephen byers "would have liked to see" didn't happen either.

Heyho.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually the thing about Stephen Byers is that arguably he DID put the interests of the clients (the travelling public) above the interest of the investors...

 

[Whitelighter]

Re: Opal Marine Limited not opalmarine ltd

The trading name Opal Marine was part of the assets of PetersOpal and therefor eligible to be sold by the administrators KPMG. If they have struck a deal with Opal Marine Limited (the new company) it is perfectly reasonable for KMPG to change the name belonging to them (opalmarine ltd) to avoid any confusion

 

[tcm]

Pack of card lessons for bleeding heart types

A company is a merely a legal entity - so all companies are merely a pack of cards, no more, no less . The packs of cards can extend to documents relating bank accounts, title deeds, ownership documents, but all these things are mere packs of cards too. Actually, not even cards -usually paper or even merely line entries in a database. Lose the data (or cards) and you too will join those companies who try to recreate the data, and are forced to write faltering letters to their customers - "Can you confirm how much you owe us please? pretty please? The customer write back that according to their records (perhaps also destroyed) they don't owe anything at all.

The flip side of this is worth considering: there would seem to be no circumstances under which a buyer has any fault whatsoever.

Say a boat manufacturer discovers a (completely legal) way of building boats a bit cheaper than the competition. Or a bit better for the same money. They're actually so cheap that they are cheaper than dealers of other boats can buy their boats wholesale. This has already happened in computer hardware markets, and elsewhere: computer dealers can't buy computers cheaper than you can get them from Dell.

You offer the boats for sale. The orders flood in. You make a special boat show offer and all customers insist that they too purchased during the boat show so they must get that special price as well. You weren't ready for that eh? Separately, you auction off one of the boats with no reserve price - but are then informed that according to the rules of the auction each winning bidder has the option to buy as many units as he likes at that same ridiculously low one-off loss-leading price. None of these special prices can affect any aspect of the finished product - you're fully liable for all that too. You hope to goodness that the supplier who promised to supply fifty winches for a fiver each wasn't (just like you were..) using a very attractive opening price to become a supplier. Hopefully the second fifty will cost a fiver too,won't they? But the supplier shows that the true cost is well over a tenner. The new price is three times the old price.

Plenty of your customers actually don't have the money to buy even one boat outright - but they can and do get a cheap £200k mortgage on their house. Heh, and with that £200k they can buy either one complete boat ...OR just pay the deposit on 10 boats. Oh, and there'll be all hell if your company goes bankrupt, that's just not allowed, there ought to be a law against it.

Is there not a point at which a customer is responsible for his own actions - to make judgements good and bad? It seems not.

People are very ready to take the winnings, to take the praise and feel justifiable fulsome personal pride in having correctly guessed the market would go - *if* they fall in their favour. But when things go wrong, those same customers are not prepared to take the hit. Note than language used is always in the passive too - "things go wrong" "the chips fall badly" "the cookie crumbles" . Out-of-pocket punters sling all sorts of mud - it's shocking, it stinks, ought to be illegal, unacceptable, outrageous.

Thionkabout it carefully guys. Your "warranty" is rubbish for a start. If just your unit gos wrong - hm -what have you done eh? Cos 5000 other units work *perfectly*. User error, see?

But supposing it turns out that the boats are like a de havilland Comet - extremely prone to catastrophic failure? The reason the product had no paint is that paint is quite heavy, the engines quite weedy, the stress atthe corners ofthe windows very high.

After a plane crashes - if you actually telephone de havilland and threaten legal action - dya think they'll give a monkeys? Do you even think you'll get through? I don't. No - you can go to the back of the queue - the directors houses are safe cos it's a limited company, then the taxman and bank will get what they can from the limited company, and everyone else can fight for whatevr is left over. Just how much money would you spend suing a company worth zero pence? Not much, eh?

I used to guard against claims by stating that i was "fully confident of our products and systems" - *our* systems , see? The very opposite of "your" systems.

 

[tcm]

Agreed but, but

er glumf... exactly so. Yes,he DID put the interests of the travelling public above thoseof the investors. So, those who put money up lost it all, and those who didn't put any money up er didn't lose that either.

I confidently expect to receive the same value cheque from BA Peters as everyone else, and I am willing to bet thatit will be the same value cheque as that which I received from Mr Byers...

 

[Richard10002]

Re: Very sticky mud being slung around here

[ QUOTE ]
Hm. Your would be convicted of murder if it was proven that you had killed some 5-year old children, and you would also be a confirmed paedophile if you had had sexual intercourse with them beforehand. But of course, only IF....

[/ QUOTE ]

Agree about the mud, but not so sure it is that sticky. Also not sure I understand what you are saying except that we dont have any proof yet - agreed.

Having said that, I've already agreed with Nick that it is all conjecture and may be bollocks, but it's all stuff that could/would be discussed in a normal conversation.

Things develop and new information is introduced which can change opinions and viewpoints so I unreservedly apologise for any mud I have thrown....

But I remain interested to see who the directors of the new company are, and whether there is any connection to those who ran Peters Opal.

 

[Sailfree]

Re: Very sticky mud being slung around here

The thing that missing from most of these posts (one notable exception ) is a realism of how Ltd companies work and if things go wrong whats best.

Surely the system is working well to give an organisation a clean sheet to start again albeit with assets from the old co sold cheaply? (but still at market price). It ensure people are prepared to be entreprenuarial in addition to creating jobs - or in this case saving a number of jobs.

In business I would like to do the right thing but if the crunch came I would do my best to protect my family and dependants first isn't that human nature and how we have survived?

In many discussions on here a number have mentioned bank guarantees but they do add 1% to the purchase cost. Like others I have always gone for the cheapest price but I accept that if I had lost money I would be wondering if someone had been lining their own pockets even if all they had done was try to stay in business.

I will be interested at SIB whether financial guarantees are offered automatically in with the price.

 

[phatcat1]

Re: Very sticky mud being slung around here

As far as Clipper Marine go, i know one of the MD's mentioned, not very well but well enough to know he was very unhappy with the way Peters/Opal were going over the last 18 months.

They started catching a cold when Fairline pulled the plug as they had invested heavily in that operation and comissioning, and the margins earned from the other dealers did not increase but decreased with competition.

Why they didn't re-structure earlier to reduce costs is a question for senior management and accountants, not necessarily for those three mentioned as directors of Clipper.

One had certainly seen a problem coming, hence a "package" had gone to KPMG very quickly.

I have no issues with the Clipper management, who were all Peters employees, and have good business and boating skills.

It is unwise to start slagging off people because of where they worked.

Please note for those of you that can't read, that Clipper Marine is not Opal Marine.

Clipper and Bavaria are making a joint announcement tomorrow, so just wait till then.

The gent in question will be very keen to work with Bavaria to pick up the pieces and help those who have paid deposits etc, after all, they are customers of the future for him and his business, but that can't be done till the legals have been sorted between the new company and Bav!

When you think about, neither company has hung around in sorting this!

So I suggest, unless you know, have evidence, and have submitted it to companies house and the fraud squad about maladministration and crooked deals, then I suggest you keep you gob firmly shut!!!!!!!!!

 

[Twister_Ken]

Re: Very sticky mud being slung around here

There are two entities here.

Clipper Marine seems to have acquired the Bav agency.

Opal Marine seems to be buying the rump of PetersOpal from the administrators/vultures.

 

[Danny Jo]

Re: Opal Marine Limited not opalmarine ltd

[ QUOTE ]
The trading name Opal Marine was part of the assets of PetersOpal and therefor eligible to be sold by the administrators KPMG. If they have struck a deal with Opal Marine Limited (the new company) it is perfectly reasonable for KMPG to change the name belonging to them (opalmarine ltd) to avoid any confusion

[/ QUOTE ] Yes of course. This dawned on me as I was driving to this morning's assignment at Holyhead. I regret the facetious tone of my earlier posting - in mitigation I would point out that the use of the term "wassock" had put me into riled mode - one that is commonly associated with the clouding of judgement.

The secretary of the new company is listed as Zickie Hwei Ling Lim, aged 33, of Saffron Walden. The only director listed is Tom Pickthorn, aged 40, of Cambridge. A Tom Pickthorn, with a Cambridge contact number (though I'm not suggesting he's the same Tom Pickthorn) is listed as a partner with Mills & Reeve, a leading UK law firm (to quote the company's web page). A Zickie Lim is listed as an associate of the same law firm. Presumably the new Opal Marine Ltd will appoint new directors, if it has not already done so, with the appropriate experience and skills to run it as a business.

 

[Richard10002]

Re: Opal Marine Limited not opalmarine ltd

[ QUOTE ]
Presumably the new Opal Marine Ltd will appoint new directors, if it has not already done so, with the appropriate experience and skills to run it as a business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Developments awaited with baited breath.... why dont either the new Opal Marine Limited, or KPMG, tell us who the directors are - we know all about the people running Clipper marine.

Cynical? Moi?

 

[BrendanS]

Re: Opal Marine Limited not opalmarine ltd

The current directors are irrelevant really, as it's just an 'off the shelf' company which has been purchased to speed things up, and new directors from Opal Marine will be amended in the company details shortly.

 

[Danny Jo]

Re: Opal Marine Limited not opalmarine ltd

[ QUOTE ]
The current directors are irrelevant really, as it's just an 'off the shelf' company which has been purchased to speed things up, and new directors from Opal Marine will be amended in the company details shortly.

[/ QUOTE ] Great! I had such faith in the transparency created by British Company law that I thought there would be an easy answer to the question with which Twister_Ken began this thread:[ QUOTE ]
So how does one find out who is behind Opal Marine Ltd?

[/ QUOTE ] As my granny used to say when we asked what's for pudding? "Wait and see." Transparency? The statement, "The joint administrators of BA Peters Ltd (appointed 14 August) are pleased to announce the sale of the Chichester, Brixham and Swanwick boat dealerships to a newly formed company which is going to trade as Opal Marine Ltd" is therefore about as transparent as a pane of frosted glass. (Edited for typos)

 

[BrendanS]

Re: Opal Marine Limited not opalmarine ltd

I really can't see what the issue is, it's totally transparent. They've taken an off the shelf company, and changed the name, which is now on Companies House within a day of the name change, and Companies House will process the change of Directors, which will also appear on companies house website when processed.

 

[Danny Jo]

Re: Opal Marine Limited not opalmarine ltd

I agree it's not much of an issue, but yesterday the administrators told us they'd sold part of the business to someone, but we don't know who that someone is.

 

[BrendanS]

Re: Opal Marine Limited not opalmarine ltd

They've sold it to a group who have the finances to do so, as administrators will have done due diligence on this. The timescales are such that may they haven't finalised who is going to have which positions in the company. They will have to notify companies house of who the directors are, as it is a legal requirement. What is the urgency to find out immediately who the directors are, rather than waiting a few days for absolute facts to show on companies house website.