Quite shocked that a big company like Carillion could go under so easily.

51
Edited by:"tryn2help"Found 16th Jan
I find it hard to believe this massive company could fall apart so easily.

They won major contracts and sub-contracted most of the work out - it's simple maths, not rocket science.
They knew how much the job was worth and what the profit margins would be - how could they possibly mess up?

Early reports suggest far too much bonus money was going into the pockets of individuals, and Shareholders were being given over-generous dividends - I find it hard to believe that's the sole cause of the collapse.

Their accountants can't have been that stupid - can they?
Community Updates
  1. Misc
Groups
  1. Misc
Top comments
tryn2help12 m ago

Even so, is it not still standard practice to price the jobs with safety …Even so, is it not still standard practice to price the jobs with safety net built in, i.e. price for building it, taking it down, building it again?Wouldn't that basic approach have covered them?If they were just pricing with no net for mishaps then that would have been incredibly stupid business practice - that's the sort of thing cowboys do.I find it difficult to believe such a massive company would use the same shady practices as back street builders use.

one of the north easts biggests construction companies went bust last year, quotes from their former chairman at the time looked like sour grapes but now....

“I have to say that some of the companies we’ve worked for have shown a complete lack of moral scruples. Some of the main contractors are often just bullies.

“In most industries you will put in an invoice for your work and expect to be paid for 95% of it; we were sometimes getting 10 or 15%. The law allows companies to do that and there’s no incentive to behave properly. We could go to adjudication, but it would cost us £50,000 before it even started and all we’d get back is the original sum. There’s no penalty for the bad behaviour.

“This doesn’t happen in other countries and it doesn’t happen in other industries. It’s a thing that happens in construction.”


chroniclelive.co.uk/bus…046
51 Comments
@tryn2help The executives are not stupid at all, they are very smart. They work on personal gain, not employee common-good gain; nor national good, this is business. This is the simple maths part.

The contract complexity is the rocket science, extremely hard to calculate for a good profit margin of <20% gross profit against all the risks. Even when it is a no-bid situation, the executives may override, signing a bad deal because of the alluring nature of bonus incentives and elimination of personal risks in corporate governance and management risks using accountants and lawyers. Any contracts of total contract value of £20m+ is easy to mess up when there are political and commercial interference and override against the engineers, change control and project managers.

The collapse of this whole thing is an elegant solution in eliminating liabilities and risks which would otherwise be unavoidable without breach of contract. This is a corporate system solution using existing commercial law. Of course the messy part is the people/employee part, which is employment and pension law. In this case you will find liabilities and risks willl be borne by the public purse.

There is much behind the scene which we don't know, the devil is in the detail and the detailed contractual terms, contract chargeable items for contract changes, which have led to an exposure of delivery costs rising above the revenue.


Now back to the simple maths part, annually there are many complex commercial and engineering projects to bid for, the signing of some of these would lead company growth and earnings per share. Then the executives and sales are incentivised on the amount of growth (via signing of must-win contracts). Note that in the news reports in the last two days, these executive incentives are not on deferred share options on company performance but are on "guaranteed" bonuses.
Edited by: "splender" 16th Jan
Dont forget the fat greedy politicians who had their piece of cake and eat it.
Government will have had a hand in it specially since the company won government contracts.

Now the so called "specialists" will come out in force on to the media asking for tighter policies and what can we learn from this so it never never happens again.

Simply due to greedy people and fat profit margins you will always get this happening in the future unfortunately. Its the everyday hard working people that have everything to lose

Should name and shame the directors including anyone who knowingly from the gov had a hand in it.
in the industry they know why, the whole process is a total mess.

Some critial pieces still need answering though.

How they were allowed not to fund the pension fund for years, and how after we have seen issues with the pension for generations now that is still allowed. Of course its the governments fauilt, but we had plenty of labour governments who also never fixed it. Tax, Pensions should come before management salaries and shareholder dividends.

If you want your offices cleaned, how can you get them cleaned cheaper than you can employ someone to do it yourself. Only one way reduce employees salaries, benefits all the while allowing the company who supplies the workers to be able to make a profit. Yes there are ecomonies of scale but come on the real losers are the employees many of who just get passed from company to company. This part was actualy making money.
Too big to fail, now where have I heard that before............................
Yup the government allow this to happen because they are in on it. The only thing they haven't done is a bail out because that would quite literally be the icing on the cake. THIS is exactly the reason why public/vital services need to be government owned. Otherwise we have a situation where losses go to the people and profits go to private companies/share holders. They cannot loose!
Original Poster
splender16 m ago

@tryn2help The executives are not stupid at all, they are very smart. They …@tryn2help The executives are not stupid at all, they are very smart. They work on personal gain, not employee common-good gain. This is the simple maths part.The contract complexity is the rocket science, extremely hard to calculate for a good profit margin of <20% gross profit against all the risks. Even when it is a no-bid situation, the executives may override, signing a bad deal because of the alluring nature of bonus incentives and elimination of personal risks in corporate governance and management risks using accountants and lawyers. Any contracts of total contract value of £20m+ is easy to mess up when there are political and commercial interference and override against the engineers, change control and project managers.The collapse of this whole thing is an elegant solution in eliminating liabilities and risks which would otherwise be unavoidable without breach of contract. This is a corporate system solution using existing commercial law. Of course the messy part is the people/employee part, which is employment and pension law. In this case you will find liabilities and risks willl be borne by the public purse.



Even so, is it not still standard practice to price the jobs with safety net built in, i.e. price for building it, taking it down, building it again?
Wouldn't that basic approach have covered them?

If they were just pricing with no net for mishaps then that would have been incredibly stupid business practice - that's the sort of thing cowboys do.

I find it difficult to believe such a massive company would use the same shady practices as back street builders use.
Carillion was master con agent!

They "maintained" prisons at exuberant costs to the tax payer.

NHS hospitals were also on their book.

The HS2 con was where they sort to profit heavily.

Good riddens to these tax money thieves!

Now to get a in a decent new process for bidding for these jobs.
Original Poster
Wongy11018 m ago

Working hard on your behalf …Working hard on your behalf T2Hhttps://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2018/jan/16/has-this-mp-fallen-asleep-during-ken-clarkes-speech-video-desmond-swayne



To be fair, I like Ken Clarke, but by gosh he does go on and could put anybody to sleep - and he was on about Brexit again!
The surprising thing is only one chap fell asleep.
The whole thing stinks. It does make you wonder why the banks and creditors wouldn’t do more to stop them going bust, from what I’ve read they’ll be very lucky to see 6p in the pound.
tryn2help12 m ago

Even so, is it not still standard practice to price the jobs with safety …Even so, is it not still standard practice to price the jobs with safety net built in, i.e. price for building it, taking it down, building it again?Wouldn't that basic approach have covered them?If they were just pricing with no net for mishaps then that would have been incredibly stupid business practice - that's the sort of thing cowboys do.I find it difficult to believe such a massive company would use the same shady practices as back street builders use.

one of the north easts biggests construction companies went bust last year, quotes from their former chairman at the time looked like sour grapes but now....

“I have to say that some of the companies we’ve worked for have shown a complete lack of moral scruples. Some of the main contractors are often just bullies.

“In most industries you will put in an invoice for your work and expect to be paid for 95% of it; we were sometimes getting 10 or 15%. The law allows companies to do that and there’s no incentive to behave properly. We could go to adjudication, but it would cost us £50,000 before it even started and all we’d get back is the original sum. There’s no penalty for the bad behaviour.

“This doesn’t happen in other countries and it doesn’t happen in other industries. It’s a thing that happens in construction.”


chroniclelive.co.uk/bus…046
tryn2help21 m ago

Even so, is it not still standard practice to price the jobs with safety …Even so, is it not still standard practice to price the jobs with safety net built in, i.e. price for building it, taking it down, building it again?Wouldn't that basic approach have covered them?If they were just pricing with no net for mishaps then that would have been incredibly stupid business practice - that's the sort of thing cowboys do.I find it difficult to believe such a massive company would use the same shady practices as back street builders use.



No, their bidding processes are extremely complex. Engineers and technical giants have cost margins built in based on engineering and commercial risks.
Then the executives have powers to override these margins (driven by how badly that they need the must-win contracts). The critical point is to what extent the executives are personally liable to the corporate risks of these contracts. If it is personally low risk then they are bolder to take on higher corporate risks. In Germany, where many large companies are stlll family businesses, they are usually risk adversed. This is where the German industrial power house really excel in continuity with steady growth.

The limited company structure allows executives to take corporate risks. This is the Anglo-American system. The banks and HMRC are OK to support this system as they have secured assets and high in the pecking order in liquidation. In a collapse, the risks are transferred effectively to employees and to the public purse in this case and to the sub-contractors. Then in a fire-sale, new companies would emerge to pick up the lucrative parts.

This type of aggressive capitalism is what PM May warned about when she first came into office. I think only Labour has the will to implement something to prevent these corporate excesses which will not go away on a voluntary good behaviour code of practice. They (Labour) are not that good either but we have no other alternative. (France do not have much in a way of alternative either, Macron will probably run out of steam, he is not that great an alternative; Trump is not a great alternative too for Amerca).
Edited by: "splender" 16th Jan
Original Poster
eslick12 m ago

one of the north easts biggests construction companies went bust last …one of the north easts biggests construction companies went bust last year, quotes from their former chairman at the time looked like sour grapes but now....“I have to say that some of the companies we’ve worked for have shown a complete lack of moral scruples. Some of the main contractors are often just bullies. “In most industries you will put in an invoice for your work and expect to be paid for 95% of it; we were sometimes getting 10 or 15%. The law allows companies to do that and there’s no incentive to behave properly. We could go to adjudication, but it would cost us £50,000 before it even started and all we’d get back is the original sum. There’s no penalty for the bad behaviour. “This doesn’t happen in other countries and it doesn’t happen in other industries. It’s a thing that happens in construction.”http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/business/business-news/owen-pugh-boss-blames-bully-13749046



I had no idea.

I'd heard about such behaviour by rogue smaller companies, but had no idea our bigger companies would behave that way.

I thought the Government would have all sorts of laws in place to prevent this sort of thing - I really did - how the heck have we become so slack in our business practices?
Banned
I wondered when that magnificent ruby would turn up again.


bbc.co.uk/new…577
Original Poster
The more I read about this the more incredulous I find it.

Someone in Government has called for Directors' conduct to be examined - why? Does anybody really think they'll be brought to book - I doubt it.
Only countries like Iceland jailed Shady Directors - here, we supported them in every way we could - looking back, I'm wondering if we set a precedent; who's next to have Directors overseeing another calamitous company failure?
Edited by: "tryn2help" 16th Jan
2008 disproved Too Big to Fail notion...small companies grow and large companies collapse, just nature.
In-Source vital services, or else have proper oversight over contractors.
e.g. look at all the vast increases in costs for those two aircraft carriers - who the heck draws up a contract that allows contractors to charge way more than originally agreed?
tryn2help9 m ago

The more I read about this the more incredulous I find it.Someone in …The more I read about this the more incredulous I find it.Someone in Government has called for Directors' conduct to be examined - why? Does anybody really think they'll be brought to book - I doubt it.Only countries like Iceland jailed Shady Directors - here, we supported them in every way we could - looking back, I'm wondering if we set a precedent; who's next to have Directors overseeing another calamitous company failure?



In spite of law changes in the Companies Acts, these excessive from Maxwell, to Philip Green of BHS and now this Philip Green of Carillion, you will find that they are above the law. There are legal precedents which allow them a defence to get away with it (in the UK). That's how the legal system work in big corporate business, with tens to hundreds of limited companies, in limited liability and in legal reasonableness and in good faith tests.

On the continent this is different.
Edited by: "splender" 16th Jan
Bestard5 m ago

In-Source vital services, or else have proper oversight over …In-Source vital services, or else have proper oversight over contractors.e.g. look at all the vast increases in costs for those two aircraft carriers - who the heck draws up a contract that allows contractors to charge way more than originally agreed?



The ability to charge extra is called contract change control. A contract is bounded by specifications, when specifications change then there are extra charges due to the change.
Original Poster
davewave11 m ago

2008 disproved Too Big to Fail notion...small companies grow and large …2008 disproved Too Big to Fail notion...small companies grow and large companies collapse, just nature.



Not really, Dave, surely we are capable of learning from these events and taking steps to prevent them - I mean, what the heck has the Government been doing since 2008?

People in the know are saying the warning signs were there, but the Government kept awarding big contracts to them - did everybody but the Government know?


One chap whose company is owed almost 1m from Carilliion said; "When Carillion started to get into trouble last year we were considering that we would scale back our involvement with them.

"However... the government continued to give them billion-pound contract after billion-pound contract and that said to me, as a small supplier, that the government had done their due diligence.

"We were following the government lead... only to be given a sucker punch.

"I had to make 10 people redundant yesterday. That's 10 people with mortgages, car loans, all that stuff. It's an absolute disgrace
."


I remember the days when companies had to meet all sorts of overly strict criteria to 'win' contracts - obviously not the case these days.

If we keep going like this, Dave, we're going to find ourselves in very dire straits indeed.
I really hope Theresa May steps up to the plate on this - I believe she would want to.
Edited by: "tryn2help" 16th Jan
Serco are another contractor with lots of government contracts and lots of controversy too.
Why is there such poor regulation?
Original Poster
Right, either journalists are losing the plot with this or we really are entering into a nonsense scenario.

I've just read that Oxford Council have put their Fire Brigade on standby to deliver school meals to children rather than standing by to fight fires - seriously?

I shall be very surprised if this report hasn't been written by some irresponsible leftie loving Journo - hopefully such scaremongering shall not go unpunished?

One company falling apart and opposition loving journos painting end of world scenario - get a grip.


EDIT: Okay, I take it back - it was reported in the Daily Mail - admitedly not well known for harbouring leftie loving Journo's.
Edited by: "tryn2help" 16th Jan
Banned
Bestard14 m ago

Serco are another contractor with lots of government contracts and lots of …Serco are another contractor with lots of government contracts and lots of controversy too.Why is there such poor regulation?


To be fair to the directors of the companies the fault mainly lays at the doors of the chief finance officers or the appointed accountants.

The moment they are trading insolvent then the directors are supposed to declare this but because of common questionable accounting practices the directors are somewhat oblivious to the real state of affairs.

Carillion should have declared trading insolvent when it owed £1 more than it was due. Let alone £1 billion.

It is inexcusable.
May is the worst person to have in charge of all of this - she is the one who awarded contract after contract to run prisons to G4S despite numerous prior failings.

I believe she has very close ties to large shareholders of G4S.

This is the exact reason why vital public services should be publicly owned. It ends up costing more with profits going to private companies rather than back in the public purse and the public get no better services whatsoever, if anything, they get worse!

And yet most of you stupid sheep will still votes Tories!
freakstyler2 h, 2 m ago

The whole thing stinks. It does make you wonder why the banks and …The whole thing stinks. It does make you wonder why the banks and creditors wouldn’t do more to stop them going bust, from what I’ve read they’ll be very lucky to see 6p in the pound.


Because if the bank kept it going they may only get 1p in the pound. They would rather have 6p than less.
I feel this will be repeated in the near future with Serco and G4S you can bet both those companies are trading at a loss and still getting more government contracts. They will be in the background sweeping up carillions loss of hospital and school contracts as we speak. Not sure who the hell could take on the construction side of carillion though cant think of anyone big enough. Balfour Beatty perhaps ?
Edited by: "larrylightweight" 16th Jan
Quite shocked that in In 2017, the company received the Queen's Award for sustainability according to wiki
Edited by: "larrylightweight" 16th Jan
JoggingOnAgain1 h, 16 m ago

To be fair to the directors of the companies the fault mainly lays at the …To be fair to the directors of the companies the fault mainly lays at the doors of the chief finance officers or the appointed accountants. The moment they are trading insolvent then the directors are supposed to declare this but because of common questionable accounting practices the directors are somewhat oblivious to the real state of affairs. Carillion should have declared trading insolvent when it owed £1 more than it was due. Let alone £1 billion. It is inexcusable.



How do you know that the directors did not deal with insolvency as soon as possible, which is this week? Why is the CFO or appointed accountant more at fault than the CEO, COO and other executive directors on the board? At fault at what, though, trading becomes insolvent, or trading while insolvent or what?
Edited by: "splender" 16th Jan
JoggingOnAgain2 h, 26 m ago

I wondered when that magnificent ruby would turn up again. …I wondered when that magnificent ruby would turn up again. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-25281577


Old Chestnuts returning to the fire is also a common occurrence it seems.
Banned
splender6 m ago

How do you know that the directors did not deal with insolvency as soon as …How do you know that the directors did not deal with insolvency as soon as possible, which is this week? Why is the CFO or appointed accountant more at fault than the CEO, COO and other executive directors on the board? At fault at what, though, trading becomes insolvent, or trading while insolvent or what?


£1bn with 20,000 employees @ say an average of £150 per day.

You do the math.
JoggingOnAgain26 m ago

£1bn with 20,000 employees @ say an average of £150 per day. You do the m …£1bn with 20,000 employees @ say an average of £150 per day. You do the math.



I think quite a few of us on here have done the equation, and all have come to the same conclusion. Liquidation clock is ticking.
JoggingOnAgain40 m ago

£1bn with 20,000 employees @ say an average of £150 per day. You do the m …£1bn with 20,000 employees @ say an average of £150 per day. You do the math.


Don't duck out of my questions on what you alleged the CFO and the appointed accountants did not do and what that they were at fault of ?
Banned
splender15 m ago

Don't duck out of my questions on what you alleged the CFO and the …Don't duck out of my questions on what you alleged the CFO and the appointed accountants did not do and what that they were at fault of ?


I am not ducking out of anything. The CFO & appointed accountants could only have based the business value on projected future contracts. & the directors signed the accounts off because they are stupid directors, which is all too common nowadays.

After all. the liability of payroll would have stood the company fine for at least 1 year without that being a factor. So it can only be the added value of future profit that kept that company not declaring bankruptcy last year.

Feel free to duck out.

Carillion accountancy maths return:

Obligations & liabilities. £3bn
Assets £1bn
Future contract profit £5bn

But there is no future profit. Bankrupt by balancing the books on £5bn in never neverland. Its bust. Its exactly the same business model that created the financial crisis 2008. Borrowing money on the basis of your future performance.
lamboo4 h, 17 m ago

Dont forget the fat greedy politicians who had their piece of cake and eat …Dont forget the fat greedy politicians who had their piece of cake and eat it.Government will have had a hand in it specially since the company won government contracts.Now the so called "specialists" will come out in force on to the media asking for tighter policies and what can we learn from this so it never never happens again.Simply due to greedy people and fat profit margins you will always get this happening in the future unfortunately. Its the everyday hard working people that have everything to lose Should name and shame the directors including anyone who knowingly from the gov had a hand in it.


"Dont forget the fat greedy politicians who had their piece of cake and eat it."


And the big bosses, including those that left are still entitled to their bonuses


"Chief executive Richard Howson stepped down in July last year after a profit warning. There has been much criticism over the size of Mr Howson's pay award in 2016 which, including bonuses, totalled about £1.5m.

Finance director Richard Adam, who retired in December 2016 after nine years at Carillion, received almost £1.1m in salary and bonuses in 2016."


And, if my memory serves me well, I did read that they will still be entitled to bonuses/renumeration even though Carillion has collapsed


This goes back to my previous thread about those in authority being held accountable for their actions and that includes decision makers in parliament/government.

The Tories won't do anything because they got to many hands in the back pockets of the big corporations but that said Labour did nothing and with the likes of Diane Broken Abacus we'd be better off electing Bob the Builder
philphil6115 m ago

"Dont forget the fat greedy politicians who had their piece of cake and …"Dont forget the fat greedy politicians who had their piece of cake and eat it."And the big bosses, including those that left are still entitled to their bonuses"Chief executive Richard Howson stepped down in July last year after a profit warning. There has been much criticism over the size of Mr Howson's pay award in 2016 which, including bonuses, totalled about £1.5m.Finance director Richard Adam, who retired in December 2016 after nine years at Carillion, received almost £1.1m in salary and bonuses in 2016."And, if my memory serves me well, I did read that they will still be entitled to bonuses/renumeration even though Carillion has collapsedThis goes back to my previous thread about those in authority being held accountable for their actions and that includes decision makers in parliament/government.The Tories won't do anything because they got to many hands in the back pockets of the big corporations but that said Labour did nothing and with the likes of Diane Broken Abacus we'd be better off electing Bob the Builder


Are you still a Tory voter Phil?
Lots of companies have gone shops closed etc economy isnt stable but God's kingdom is
JoggingOnAgain8 h, 54 m ago

I am not ducking out of anything. The CFO & appointed accountants could …I am not ducking out of anything. The CFO & appointed accountants could only have based the business value on projected future contracts. & the directors signed the accounts off because they are stupid directors, which is all too common nowadays. After all. the liability of payroll would have stood the company fine for at least 1 year without that being a factor. So it can only be the added value of future profit that kept that company not declaring bankruptcy last year.Feel free to duck out. Carillion accountancy maths return:Obligations & liabilities. £3bnAssets £1bnFuture contract profit £5bnBut there is no future profit. Bankrupt by balancing the books on £5bn in never neverland. Its bust. Its exactly the same business model that created the financial crisis 2008. Borrowing money on the basis of your future performance.



I think you (the press and "we") are sofa-chair experts calling these, the best of the best of English/British, stupid. You are entitled perfectly to your opinion, of course. I am just trying to explore a bit if you have reasonable insight prior to last week or even last month that's all. Besides, you didn't post a thread here about this Carillion earlier, did you, if they were so plainly stupid?! Any one can be an expert after an event.

Going back to what you alleged point by point , there are 4:-

1. To be fair to the directors of the companies the fault mainly lays at the doors of the chief finance officers or the appointed accountants.

My question to you is what is the fault and why the CFOs or the appointed accountants? Because there are as yet results an inquiry or have you got insider knowledge beyond the three profit warnings last year? And if it were that bad as you alleged why didn't other very clever people call them out before more contracts were awarded (there were three profit warnings). I don't know if you know, before a new contract is awarded there is financial diligence (e.g. why was HS2 awarded? ). The issues with all the large complex cases are who were responsible with realistic chance of putting blame to with personal penalty.

2. The moment they are trading insolvent then the directors are supposed to declare this but because of common questionable accounting practices the directors are somewhat oblivious to the real state of affairs.

How do you know when this moment was because your allegation is "supposed to"? And if so, when was this moment and how do you know that the directors did not declare (and switch their legal obligation to protecting the interests of the creditors)? Again, the problem of your allegation is that the directors have yet to be called to account for the events against the financial spreadsheets.

3. Carillion should have declared trading insolvent when it owed £1 more than it was due. Let alone £1 billion.

Yes, your allegation is "should have", which is easy for anyone to say, but how did you determine when "the balance sheet" indicated this insolvency and that the directors have not done so when they should? Moreover, your stated £1b is debt, at which point between £0 debt, which is break-even, and £1b debt, was £1 over? (Carillion have £16b in order book and £40b in the pipeline.) I don't know if you know, financial year end is 31st Dec, the new contracts and extensions to contracts are mostly signed in the last quarter (?), therefore it is a laborious exercise to consolidate all the subsidiaries' balance sheets at year end to take into account of all contingent liabilities and assets as well as financial performance of all the running contracts with complex staged payment terms. This is probably what the directors did in Dec and Jan. (It was 15th Jan when news came out.) So I am at a lost as how you say, "should have"? I am more of the opinion that at year end, they (directors) did when they "should have" without further evidence.

4 It is inexcusable.

All we know at this stage as outsiders is that extremely bad things have gone wrong, but we don't know as yet which allegations of wrong-doings may stick on who, if any. The main general news only had "Fat Cats" as reports. There was an absence of allegations with substantive evidence on wrong-doings. Did any regulators start any investigations into the directors in December or before? Looking at Grenfell, one year on, any directors taken to court for alleged wrong-doings?
Edited by: "splender" 17th Jan
tryn2help11 h, 7 m ago

Not really, Dave, surely we are capable of learning from these events and …Not really, Dave, surely we are capable of learning from these events and taking steps to prevent them - I mean, what the heck has the Government been doing since 2008?People in the know are saying the warning signs were there, but the Government kept awarding big contracts to them - did everybody but the Government know?One chap whose company is owed almost 1m from Carilliion said; "When Carillion started to get into trouble last year we were considering that we would scale back our involvement with them."However... the government continued to give them billion-pound contract after billion-pound contract and that said to me, as a small supplier, that the government had done their due diligence."We were following the government lead... only to be given a sucker punch."I had to make 10 people redundant yesterday. That's 10 people with mortgages, car loans, all that stuff. It's an absolute disgrace."I remember the days when companies had to meet all sorts of overly strict criteria to 'win' contracts - obviously not the case these days.If we keep going like this, Dave, we're going to find ourselves in very dire straits indeed.I really hope Theresa May steps up to the plate on this - I believe she would want to.


Whilst other companies grow, the contracts don't disappear just change hands, I feel terrible for those who lost out but that is what happens in business. Other companies will grow from this incident.
Bestard8 h, 36 m ago

Are you still a Tory voter Phil?



because none of this happened under Labours watch did it
davewave46 m ago

Whilst other companies grow, the contracts don't disappear just change …Whilst other companies grow, the contracts don't disappear just change hands, I feel terrible for those who lost out but that is what happens in business. Other companies will grow from this incident.


That's a really simplistic way of looking at it. Whatever comes before GCSE economics.... That's what this is and it bears little resemblance to the real world of business.

Carillion failed because execs tend to look too short term and care too much about wins. They win tenders by coming in way too low and leaving themselves too exposed to bumps in the road. It happens throughout every industry because a lot of people only care about the next bonus.

The contracts will be reallocated but they'll be underwritten or part funded by the taxpayer.

Smaller companies sub contracted by Carillion will be the other victims which is why I can't share Dave's nonchalance.
Post a comment
Avatar
@
    Text

    Top Discussions

    Top Merchants