 Poster: A snowHead
|
In the 'small print' section of skiing europe's website under 'price guarentee' they state that they can change the basic quoted price 'due to any devaluation or revaluation of currency'.
I bet they have used this as an excuse to bump up prices - they can't have it both ways and use it as an excuse for cash-flow problems...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| D G Orf wrote: |
| outofpocket, I believe Stephen101, is referring to figures given out by AITO in a BBC programme, as I said earlier Mr Reynard appears to have either lied to AITO or he's lying to everyone else as there definitely appears to be a big discrepancy |
it all depends upon what basis you measure profit, pre tax/post tax etc. and the accounting protocol and especially at what point in time CR made that statement, how debt and reveunue is shown and considered and especially so with repsect to invoicing pre/post tax year - at one point in time maybe CR was showing a profit but if it excluded hotel bills that were to be invoiced after the tax year then it would change everything. Maybe CR simply provided personal funds to the company to provide AiTO with the numbers they wanted then paid it back to himself. If CR membership of AiTO was based upon falsified accounts maybe even that membership is deemed to be null and void and retrospectively non operable.
I am really amazed that without knowing the details of CR accounts that any one on here is considering such a statement that CR made with respect to profit with any degree of credibility or seriousness and using it as support/defence for any kind of argument 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
outofpocket, Something doesn't quite add up here, you are saying that you are worried about your trip, but then you are defending SE/CR whilst also saying he has problems and yet possibly still considering using him for the trip. Hmmm......
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
rayscoops,
| Quote: |
at one point in time maybe CR was showing a profit but if it excluded hotel bills that were to be invoiced after the tax year then it would change everything.
|
| Quote: |
Maybe CR simply provided personal funds to the company to provide AiTO with the numbers they wanted then paid it back to himself.
|
I don't know how to say it - but that isn't how you measure profit - and if Reynard did submit accounts to AiTO on such a basis then there is clearly something wrong.
Please don't misunderstand I am not making any claims for the accuracy of the accounts quoted by AiTO - I am just saying that they are not consistent with the other things that Reynard is claiming. When the story is not consistent then I'm afraid it is right to be suspicious. If incorrect accounts were presented to AiTO so as to secure membership then that would be a serious matter.
Of course one way that Reynard could clear up all of this would be to provide those looking to book business with him with up to date audited accounts - and in the circumstances it would not be an unreasonable request, especially as these should have been prepared in connection with the additional bank funding that he claims to be looking for.
Elston,
You are correct in my view
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Stephen101,
As they say Chris Sunlight is the best disinfectant - how about some audited accounts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| daveyladboy wrote: |
In the 'small print' section of skiing europe's website under 'price guarentee' they state that they can change the basic quoted price 'due to any devaluation or revaluation of currency'.
I bet they have used this as an excuse to bump up prices - they can't have it both ways and use it as an excuse for cash-flow problems... |
Good catch. As an alternative to putting up prices he proposed a change of departure date for us [less days for the same price] and did so for QK too. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-13443525
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chattonmill
I don't get it either. Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| daveyladboy wrote: |
Chattonmill
I don't get it either. Are you thinking what I'm thinking? |
Me to.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
Stephen101, ok, he made £400K profit on £2,000,000 , fact, and it justisfies your opinion that he has not had financial problems and he has simply robbed every one. Debate over, you win.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
rayscoops,
That isn't what I'm saying - I am just saying that there are inconsistencies between the accounts given to AiTO and other statements re financial problems/cashflow difficulties that are worthy of investigation. The fact here is what the accounts to AiTO said (unless AiTO have misquoted the figures from the accounts they received) not whether those figures were true and fair.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Stephen101, nothing is worthy of investigation unless it supports your views, I worked that one a long time ago.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
rayscoops, Do you think that Reynard's story as far as we know it hangs together and isn't it worthy of further investigation?
Last edited by And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports. on Wed 1-06-11 10:39; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Stephen101, nothing is worthy of investigation unless it supports your views, I worked that one a long time ago.
|
As to what the trigger/trigger(s) were for Reynard's financial difficulties I think you will find that I have studiously avoided expressing my views - all I am saying is that what is going on now looks like trading while insolvent and there are glaring inconsistencies in the explanations being offered. These should be investigated by the authorities and they are being investigated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Chattonmill wrote: |
| outofpocket, Something doesn't quite add up here, you are saying that you are worried about your trip, but then you are defending SE/CR whilst also saying he has problems and yet possibly still considering using him for the trip. Hmmm...... |
Not quite sure what you are inferring there matey?
My view is clear:
1) We have had 2 successful trips with SE in 2008 & 2010
2) Its not as easy as just asking for our deposit back, perhaps you could suggest how we could and still expect to get it?
3) It is possible that SE is just going bust and there is nothing underhand, just crap business/cash management.
So you can stick your hmmmmm up your arrrrrrrsssseeee!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| outofpocket wrote: |
| Chattonmill wrote: |
| outofpocket, Something doesn't quite add up here, you are saying that you are worried about your trip, but then you are defending SE/CR whilst also saying he has problems and yet possibly still considering using him for the trip. Hmmm...... |
Not quite sure what you are inferring there matey?
My view is clear:
1) We have had 2 successful trips with SE in 2008 & 2010
2) Its not as easy as just asking for our deposit back, perhaps you could suggest how we could and still expect to get it?
3) It is possible that SE is just going bust and there is nothing underhand, just crap business/cash management.
So you can stick your hmmmmm up your arrrrrrrsssseeee! |
1) Ok so you had two good ski trips, that is a bonus.
2) It is not easy to get the deposit back, but from what has been said on here there are plenty of people who have handed over money and not got a ski trip. They are having a much harder time trying to get a lot more money back. Feel free to hand over far more money that you are unlikely to ever get back. If you are really lucky you may get a ski trip...or not.
3) It is possible that SE are just going bust. I never insinuated that there was anything underhand going on. If it is just crap business/ cash management do you still want to give him money?
The way you have posted is disjointed, on the one hand asking if it is safe to go on, then on the other defending SE/CR to a point where if would seem that the original question was just a thinly veiled way to get in to the discussion in order to defend SE.
To be quite honest the only interest I have in this is to make sure that kids don't get disappointed when trying out a sport that I love. If there is a business out there not delivering for whatever reason they should be stopped.
As for telling me where to stick my doubts, why come on here asking opinions, ignore them whilst defending that nice man Chris Reynard whom you liked so much, then insulting people who call you out for seeming muddled in your approach.
I am not the only on with reservations, just the only one who voiced them.
If you are genuine, I apologise. If I was in your shoes I would read what had been said on here and have a good think whether it would be prudent to give this organisation your (The Kids) money, or to cut my losses and find a reputable organisation that would offer a great holiday that is certain to go ahead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
outofpocket, out of curiosity were your previous trips with SE, with SE Ltd or Mr Reynard trading as SE and how does that compare to the trip for which you've already paid a deposit ? I'm trying to understand if there is any difference between the business structure and how that might effect what's currently going on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Chattonmill, I read your post as implying that outofpocket was a SE/CR mole - a plant by CR to defend and provide a positive impression of SE.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| rayscoops wrote: |
| Chattonmill, I read your post as implying that outofpocket was a SE/CR mole - a plant by CR to defend and provide a positive impression of SE. |
I suppose I could have just put 'outofpocket you are SE/SE Ltd/CR and I claim my £5'
Just reading the comments and how they were put just looked inconsistant to me.
I have also apologised should I be mistaken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Chattonmill,  no probs - things do not come over as we intend sometimes on these forums.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
I am happy to give my my name and telephone number to anyone who wants it just PM me. Against my better judgement I have copied below an extract from a letter I sent CR last week. Read it and let me know if you think I am still a SE mole.
***** letter removed by me PM me if you want to view ******* (those who needed to read have done so)
Last edited by You'll need to Register first of course. on Wed 1-06-11 13:01; edited 3 times in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Following a lengthy conversation with AM Trust 20 mins ago, our situation has changed considerably.
Feel free to PM if you would like details but include your proper name please.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
outofpocket,
The letter seems fair enough to me.
Have you been provided with any invoices/business correspondence from SE - they are legally required to make clear who you are dealing with under the Business Names Act.
Do not be fobbed off with Reynard saying he will transfer your contract from one entity to another without your agreement to do so. Unless the original contract gave Reynard the right to transfer the contract (which I doubt) then he has no right to make the transfer without your specific agreement (or an Act of Parliament for anyone who wants to be really pedantic). I would be very surprised if Reynard has got insurance for SE Ltd - and if he has it is unlikley he will have got it from AmTrust who announced their withdrawal from TO Failure Insurance last year.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
outofpocket, I stand corrected by the above and as such apologise unreservedly. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I am aware of all of the above, hence my letter. So does anyone still think I'm a mole!!??
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
Our posts crossed! Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
Seeking to transfer business between entities can of course be indicative of many things but is not unknown when businesses are trading while insolvent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
If the Mail are interested, it must be impacting on house prices 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Sadly the mail article includes a screen shot from another company called, unfortunately for them, skiing europe, which they have captioned as his website... Still it's all publicity.
Was sent round robin e-mail from Halsbury travel today - never used them for a trip, but it warned of the situation (as well as advertising their products) so the message IS getting out there...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
My son was dispatched with his school party to Kitzbuhel with SE over the Feb half term. They never made it. Just as they were about to board the ferry they were informed that 'they had been gazumped on the hotel by another party'. At least that's what the kids told the parents. They eventually ended up in a different resort, many miles away from the intended resort. The food wasn't great however the kids seemed to enjoy the skiing. Now after reading all this I do wonder whether the school organised and paid for the alternative resort after being let down by SE on the original location. If so they didn't inform the parents. If SE made the arrangements then it sounds like the kids were some of the lucky ones although on the face of it they may have got a poorer quality holiday for the same price. If SE is still trading I will definitely be checking who the school are booking through for next year's trip.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Shimmy Alcott wrote: |
| Was it a SH that contacted The Mail? |
No but the journo registered here a few days back to do his research - would ha' been nice to get a wee link out of it 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| wizziwigg wrote: |
'they had been gazumped on the hotel by another party'.
.... after being let down by SE on the original location. If so they didn't inform the parents.
... got a poorer quality holiday for the same price. |
Wow! Wizziwigg I'm not sure who is telling the biggest whoppers here; the school or SE? I love these excuses as they make me laugh as a hotel in peak season with a booking of a coach load of school children finds a replacement at short notice? How realistic is that? My situation was similar and when we checked back the hotel was never booked for our children.
A change of hotel is a fundamental change in the package of the trip. Funny how we accept these things with our children but would no way accept it if was us abroad and a tour operator said heres the B&B in the wrong end of town instead of the hotel with a nice view? Most importantly your school could not meet its own standards. The risk assessment needed for such trips includes an assessment of accomodation etc. [see previous posts about HSE, ROSPA, LEA process]
In our case, we were told we booked the whole hotel to keep the children safe & secure. Assuming your school follows the standard protocols it is likely the school broke their own procedures and were unable to fulfill the requirements of risk assessment. The governors or trustees are ultimately responsible for the safety of the children and whoever signs the contract with your money.
For next year, the school needs a complete rethink and a robust process. It is uncomfortable asking the school these questions but burying embarrasing or bad news won't help prevent problems next year. The school chose to contract with -SE- a sole trader, a simple Google at that time would of set your hair on end.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
wizziwigg,
I think that you would be perfectly within you rights to ask who changed the arrangements - and then ask a refund from whoever was responsible for not providing the quality of holiday that you were promised. I think I would ask the school for an explanation of what happened - as they were in loco parentis this is the least that you are entitled to. The mind boggles as to what could have happened if something had gone wrong during the course of the holiday.
Given the creativity of the excuse - hotel gazumping - I have my suspicions as to who was responsible. So it was industrial sabotage in Interlaken, hotel gazumping in Kitzbuhel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| noskitrip wrote: |
...... The school chose to contract with -SE- a sole trader, a simple Google at that time would of set your hair on end.
. |
I thought this thread established that a search of SE was not sufficient - you needed to search CR specifically to stand much chance of picking up bad news a year ago, and I bet everyone thought they were dealing with SE, not CR trading as SE. At the time he wasn't a Director either (of the SE Limited entity).
I doubt the School paid for the 'replacement' hotel (they would have disclosed that to the parents) which means that SE probably switched to that (cheaper) hotel. If so, they were not the first. Since they chose to continue with the holiday then I doubt they can consider claiming anything. Luckily, they had a good time and therefore best to move on. +1 to CR lowball tactics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowjoe, not sure about claiming, I think if you were to take them to court you could reasonably claim that you hadn't recieved what you'd paid for and were entitled to at least a partial refund, of course as already stated that would probably take forever and cost a fortune.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D G Orf, snowjoe, If you don't claim you don't get I'm afraid. If the insurance were to be triggered then those concerned might become entitled to a refund. I too might not wish to invest in lawyers - but a simple recorded delivery letter to the tour operator with your claim might eventually lead to reimbursement of what the parents actually paid for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
I contributed to this thread many pages ago and have been keeping an eye on its progress, not because I have any financial interest in the saga but because in my professional capacity I act for a small independent ski tour operator. I might therefore be better placed than most to comment.
Firstly, I am staggered that a company turning over £2m can make a profit of £400k. Those sort of margins do not, in my experience, exist. A gross margin of 20% would be very achievable, defining gross profit as being turnover less direct costs such as hotels, flights/coaches, ferries, ski passes, local reps and instructors and then dividing the GP by the turnover. Admin expenses (advertising, marketing, free trips, travel expenses, office salaries and costs etc etc and dare I say directors' salaries) would eat heavily into the gross margin.
Secondly, I think I read earlier in the thread that SE was (but is no longer) a member of AITO. I have had no direct dealings with that body (my dealings have been with the ATOL scheme operated by the CAA) but a look at the AOTO website leads me to believe that only companies can become members (as opposed to unincorporated entities) and this is borne out by looking at the current list of members, everyone of whom I looked at is a limited company, even if using a trading name that does not include the word 'limited'.
Also from the AITO website, a condition of full membership (they also have something called 'Apprenticeship Members') is 2 years' accounts.
Reference has been made to audited accounts. Small companies (as defined in the Companies Act) are not required to have their accounts audited and are therefore not obliged to have their accounts even prepared by a professional/external accountant. There is no reference on the AITO website to audited accounts being required. Unincorporated businesses are not, of course, required to place any financial information in the public domain.
I would be very surprised if anyone would start a business in this sector without the benefit of limited liability. Whilst there are tax advantages of being unincorporated (and there are many disadvantages) the benefit of limited liability would outweigh these in most cases. The 'veil of incorporation' can be lifted in certain circumstances, such as failing to publicise the fact that you are a trading through a limited company or fraudulent/wrongful trading.
As has been observed by many posters, a tour operator has very positive cash flow. If accounts had been presented based on money in less money out then most of the time a positive position would be conveyed. Hotels will look for payments on account as the season progresses, as will ski pass companies. Flights normally have to be paid for very promptly. The final settling up takes place after the season has ended. In SE's case, based on what has been posted here, that is a long time after the season has ended.
So what is my point? I am very sceptical of the profits that have been quoted here, I strongly suspect that trading took place through the medium of a limited company and only a full investigation of CR's activities will reveal the truth. Oh, and before anyone jumps down my throat, I accept that this is only reasoned speculation. I would personally have nothing to do with CR or SE and would give my custom to one of the many other operators in the market place - most of them are struggling at the moment and would fall over themselves to strike a balance between a good price and an excellent service.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Mason, nice post, honest and open
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
