 Poster: A snowHead
|
| Glen Charman wrote: |
After all the comments about how great it is to see Scott Hargreaves back in business I feel compelled to have my say.
I hadn't any grievance with Edge & Wax or Scott Hargreaves, their customer service was excellent.
However I have a big problem with owners of businesses who hide behind the Limited companies that go bust and start back up a year later.
Lets look at the faxes he's using his old Facebook page as it has 180000 followers he can instantly contact. This is however the property of Edge & Wax which is now owned by the administrators so possibly breaking the law.
But lets get to my main grievance
Edge & Wax which Scott Hargreaves was the owner of went down for well over £600,000.00 the sales of stock and workshop equipment I bet didn't make more than £80,000.00. By the time the administrators took their cut and HMRC and bank got a look in there was nothing left for the poor creditors who supplied them in good faith.
The big multi national company may well suffer but the one's I fell sorry for are the smaller suppliers who take a hit of 5,10 or 15 grand they will have really suffered. Jon from the Piste office and even Snowheads went down for a four figure sum (I do know how much but I don't know if I can say)
I do find it unbelievable that Anything Technical is back supplying him with stock even on a pro forma. However I do know there are some very upset suppliers out there that won't be supplying him.
So its up to individual Snowheads to decide if you wish to support Mr Hargreaves and his new business Ski & Snowboard wax. However do spare a thought for all the business out of pocket and how you would feel if you owned one of them. |
limited companies are there to allow people to set up a business without the risk of losing everything should the business fail to be a success.
Without them, the rate of self starters would plummet and commerce and the wider economy would suffer so they are a very good idea and we benefit from their invention.
If you want morals, go to church. He's doing nothing wrong so lets hope his new venture works out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
Funny talking about administrators, yesterday I was talking to a colleague that worked alongside PWC when a fairly large construction company went pop he said that it was eye opening to see how they worked.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
| SnoodlesMcFlude wrote: |
| Funny talking about administrators, yesterday I was talking to a colleague that worked alongside PWC when a fairly large construction company went pop he said that it was eye opening to see how they worked. |
Indeed, I have seen it first hand:
1) They are vultures
2) Those owed money tend to inflate what they are owed in the hope they get a larger % of what is owed
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| PaulC1984 wrote: |
| Glen Charman wrote: |
However I have a big problem with owners of businesses who hide behind the Limited companies that go bust and start back up a year later.
|
On this point as well, whilst I in no way condone the large sums owed by companies when going bust, I don't think you can say in this case it was to hide behind a LTD company. Having my own LTD company, its not there to hide behind, but is there for all manner of reasons - in Scotts case, because a business of that size he simply couldn't have run as a Sole Trader / self employed.
|
I think there are two sides to this.
Ltd Companies are important. The government needs to encourage business growth and development, and if you work in some sectors, things just cost so much that if you had to take personal liability for everything, you'd stay a small company forever. I've recently incorporated my company because I'm taking on new jobs where the stakes are higher and more money is at risk. If I took on the job as a sole trader, and things went wrong, I'd almost certainly lose my life savings and my flat. I'm not interested in that, so the Ltd Company model allows me to expand into the kind of work where more money is changing hands, with the security that if things go south, the worst I can lose is all my company assets, but not my personal ones.
On the other hand, there are professional shysters who fold Ltd Companies with shameful frequency. A guy I used to work for basically runs up big debts every year then folds the company and starts up again with a slightly different brand name. No idea how he gets away with it but he does.
I have to say that whilst I support the model of Ltd Companies, I am against the principle that you can fold a business as a Ltd Company, leaving half a million quids worth of debts in your wake, and then simply register a new company a year later that performs the same role to the same market with the same products.
I have no beef with Scott or his companies, but I think that should not be allowed. I think that there should be a law that prevents a director from taking directorship of another company fulfilling the same role as that of a company that they previously folded, unless they can - prior to beginning trading - pay off all their creditors so that nobody's lost any money; for at least a set period of time.
I respect and appreciate the challenges of running a business and that it's way easier than you think to run up a substantial debt. There's also an element - like Snoodles said - of companies over-egging both (a) what they're owed, and (b) any 'knock-on' consequences of what they're owed; to try and get paid more money than they're actually owed. With one of my suppliers I get a 65% discount on their list price... I bet you if I went bust they'd neglect to mention the discount to the administrators when valuing the stock I hadn't paid for.
But there also needs to be protection for other people. Not just for suppliers that end up being unpaid creditors, but also to the competitors. What's the point in running your business in a responsible manner, only taking on what you can afford to lose and charging a price that actually turns a profit; if somebody else can come along and take huge gambles, charge too little, then when it goes wrong fold the business and start up again called something else? It can't work that way. Liability should be limited but alternative sanctions should exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
@dp, A thoughtfully argued post imv. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
Unlike many 'phoenix' type businesses, Scott is being very open about his history. Limited companies have been a feature of life for ages . . . . suspect it is rare of a business to go bust and for the owner/shareholder to be quids in . . . perhaps losses are limited (hence the name) but this isn't a way to make money, although some will push the boundaries.
My experience of E&W was great - don't know the background as to whether or not they pushed the boundaries with suppliers etc but from a pure consumer perspective I wish them well
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
If you want morals, go to church
|
 Are you suggesting that unless one is a "believer" then ethical considerations are irrelevant? Or that even if you are, then ethics are irrelevant in the market place?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@pam w no I think he is just saying that if you want morals then looking for them in the business world will not be too fortuitous.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@dp, good post!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
