The B A Peters phoenix?

Just because something is common does not mean that you shouldn't be disgusted at it.

I am sure that everything is above board, and over time people will forget about BA Peters PLC, and opal marine will grow and be very successful. As you say it happens time and time again in other industries. It may be legal, but it isn't moral and if the government was a little less interested in taxing companies, and more interested in how they were run then maybe this wouldn't happen.

I am a company director myself of a limited company, as I don't want to be liable for any debts my company may take on in the future. But I would like to think that if I was ever in Brian Peters position I would not put my own personal gain before the interests of my customers. And yes, I may be naive but that I hope I am a better person then that
 
There seems to be a lot of conjecture and bollocks on this thread. If the new company has only just been formed today, the chances of Companies House having the correct details are pretty slim.

Why don't folk wait for more facts and details to be published before shooting down the enterprise before its got off the ground.
 
[ QUOTE ]
There seems to be a lot of conjecture and bollocks on this thread. If the new company has only just been formed today, the chances of Companies House having the correct details are pretty slim.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nick,

I think conjecture and bollocks is something that people do in conversation, it's just a bit more open here.

I guess what you are saying is, that the company that has been found "Opalmarine Ltd", where Brian Peters is a director, probably isnt the company that has been formed to run this enterprise, which might be "Opal Marine Ltd."

Point taken - but will you be surprised if there are some connections between the old and the new?

So far people have been saying things like "we dont actually know if anyone has lost any money yet".... of course they have, and I think that has as good as been said now.
 
There is more chance of meeting Elvis in my local this evening than there is of Companies House having received the up-dated company share certificate statements, validated them and entered them into the database by close of business on the same day the company was sold.
 
[ QUOTE ]


I think conjecture and bollocks is something that people do in conversation, it's just a bit more open here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, I am as guilty as most on some therads but this stuff is serious.

[ QUOTE ]
I guess what you are saying is, that the company that has been found "Opalmarine Ltd", where Brian Peters is a director, probably isnt the company that has been formed to run this enterprise, which might be "Opal Marine Ltd."

[/ QUOTE ] My point exactly.

[ QUOTE ]
Point taken - but will you be surprised if there are some connections between the old and the new?

[/ QUOTE ] as there is a comment about 3 managers from the old business taking it on, I wouldnt be surprised at all. In fact, that is a good thing for continuity and skills retention.

[ QUOTE ]
So far people have been saying things like "we dont actually know if anyone has lost any money yet".... of course they have, and I think that has as good as been said now.

[/ QUOTE ] They won't know exactly who has lost how much, until the administrators have finished with it. No harm in making a positive statement, its part of talking the business up.
 
I dont wish to comment on the demise of BA peters Plc as i have no inside knowledge of what has happened. However i would like to point out that when i change any details with companies house the details are updated within 30 minutes, this includes directors listings. I have done a quick check myself and the company is listed is OpalMarine Ltd. When i setup my company there were certain limitations on the name being similar to any other.

I think that we will all know the answer in the next day or 2
 
I remain confident that no changes will have been made to the companies house director listing, and that in fact we are looking at historical information.

However just in case, I am going to the local to see if Elvis is there....................
 
[ QUOTE ]
However just in case, I am going to the local to see if Elvis is there....................

[/ QUOTE ]

dont forget to have a bet first - he might be
 
[ QUOTE ]
Just because something is common does not mean that you shouldn't be disgusted at it.

I am sure that everything is above board, and over time people will forget about BA Peters PLC, and opal marine will grow and be very successful. As you say it happens time and time again in other industries. It may be legal, but it isn't moral and if the government was a little less interested in taxing companies, and more interested in how they were run then maybe this wouldn't happen.

I am a company director myself of a limited company, as I don't want to be liable for any debts my company may take on in the future. But I would like to think that if I was ever in Brian Peters position I would not put my own personal gain before the interests of my customers. And yes, I may be naive but that I hope I am a better person then that

[/ QUOTE ]

What nonsense. Are you saying that if the company ever went bust for whatever reason you would personally pick up the whole bill and pay everyone in full. If so very noble, but why bother with a ltd company and the double taxation it involves?

The purpose of a limited liability company is to encourage people to take risks and build up businesses without the possibility of being wiped out personally as they might be as a sole trader. Its in all our economic interests that this happens, and it was the basis of our wealth in the last few centuries. The government has recently gone even further to try and remove the stigma of personal bankrupcy from individuals for exactly the same reason. Because a business can get into trouble for a lot of reasons other than criminality and incompetence - people can make mistakes in the real world, and they can have bad luck. And I say that after seeing numbers of my customers going bust on me over a long business career - numbers well into 6 figures.

I dont know Peters and have had no dealings with his company, so in a personal sense I have no axe to grind. But I do still think that some of the judgements / pronouncements made by posters other than yourself on this site have been outrageous given the lack of hard information as to what has gone wrong.
 
It's good and comforting to see the BMF taking such an active role in restoring consumer confidence in the marine trade. Leading from the front and ensuring that people see the industry as well self regulated and acting in the interests of the consumer. Jolly heartening.
 
[ QUOTE ]
If the new company has only just been formed today, the chances of Companies House having the correct details are pretty slim.

[/ QUOTE ] Opalmarine Ltd was formed in 1987. As of today it still had a valid listing at Companies House. Are you suggesting that Companies House would list a new company differing from an existing company by no characters other than a space? Hmm.
 
Opal Marine Limited not opalmarine ltd

There is a difference.

Look at company number 06278177

OPAL MARINE LIMITED
112 HILLS ROAD
CAMBRIDGE
CAMBRIDGESHIRE CB2 1PH

Status: Active
Date of Incorporation: 13/06/2007

Country of Origin: United Kingdom

Company Type: Private Limited Company
Nature of Business (SIC(03)):
None Supplied

Accounting Reference Date: 30/06
Last Accounts Made Up To: (NO ACCOUNTS FILED)
Next Accounts Due: 13/04/2009
Last Return Made Up To:
Next Return Due: 11/07/2008

This is the danger of going off half cocked and looking for information you don't understand. I can't be arsed to check out the directors, but it is a totally new company.
 
Re: Opal Marine Limited not opalmarine ltd

and it was only named Opal Marine yesterday (6th)
"Previous Names:
Date of change Previous Name
06/09/2007 M&R 1050 LIMITED "

Probably an off shelf company bought to set things up quickly, then name changed yesterday. Hence only appearing on companies house website today.

Several people have apologies to make about accusations made on this and similar threads
 
Very sticky mud being slung around here

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....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top