Wilsons of Kinver - merged topic

[David Schweizer]

I see. So your sympathy for those affected didn't extend to offering market value for their assets?

But you can look at it a different way. If he hadn't submitted the highest bid, they would have produced even less funds for the creditors.

[Gibbo]

I'm not sure they even try to get the best price.

 

A few years ago I bought a PCB assembly robot from a certain liquidator. I paid £650 for it. I sold it on Ebay two weeks later for over 10 times that.

[cotswoldsman]

And another greenie. Popped away from the PC to return to see Carl pinched my thoughts.

 

Am I bothered? No.

 

Martyn

 

I would have given you a greenie for your thoughts, but have used my ration for the day already on this thread.

[Proper Job]

I'm not sure they even try to get the best price.

 

A few years ago I bought a PCB assembly robot from a certain liquidator. I paid £650 for it. I sold it on Ebay two weeks later for over 10 times that.

I would say good luck to you for using you entrepreneurial skills to your best advantage

[Ally]

Please don't get me wrong...I don't support the ethics of the way this all happened...my point is that firstly we rarely know all the circumstances, and even paperwork from liquidators doesn't tell us a complete story. If the business has continued under a new name, as it has, and some are continuing their employment within that, I'm not sure we can judge their personal sentiments towards the company, or their financial situations....either positively or negatively. We simply don't know. To my understanding, 2 employees went off and re-started another rival company, so presumably had enough to do so at the very least....and to them I wish the best of business.

We re-used them as they had already templated for us before all this, and liquidated before we got our order delivered. Anyone else would do the same just a couple of weeks before launch, who had already put the order through, and was offered by the 'new' company, to have that order completed.

[magpie patrick]

The trouble is this sort of thing is not just unfair on debtors it is unfair on competitors who manage to keep going without writing off their debts. There is a reason for company limited status, so that owners aren't taking unlimited risk. That is valuable if, for example, your business goes bust because you yourself are a creditor, you don't lose your house

[Dorman]

On the same basis, it is surprising that several boat builders and fitters have also been able to take new orders after starting to trade again in a subtly different quite after a previous liquidation.

 

I'm firmly with John on this - company law in this country allows complete piss taking.

 

One sees the same with computer suppliers, double glazing suppliers, etc - we have people leafleting us around here saying they have been established lots of years, but omitting to mention how many times they have gone under in that period.

 

As well as issues about creditors, including employees, it is unusual for a guarantee that was issued by a former incarnation of a company to be honoured in any way by the new iteration of the company.

 

They took a friend of mine for a few £000s --twice--when they where building Drawncrafts many years ago under different names

[cotswoldsman]

Please don't get me wrong...I don't support the ethics of the way this all happened...my point is that firstly we rarely know all the circumstances, and even paperwork from liquidators doesn't tell us a complete story. If the business has continued under a new name, as it has, and some are continuing their employment within that, I'm not sure we can judge their personal sentiments towards the company, or their financial situations....either positively or negatively. We simply don't know. To my understanding, 2 employees went off and re-started another rival company, so presumably had enough to do so at the very least....and to them I wish the best of business.

We re-used them as they had already templated for us before all this, and liquidated before we got our order delivered. Anyone else would do the same just a couple of weeks before launch, who had already put the order through, and was offered by the 'new' company, to have that order completed.

 

When you say employees I think you mean directors.

When you say the paperwork from the Liquidators does not tell the complete story can you please tell me what they have missed, is it worse than stated in the filling with Companies House?

On a business the size of Wilsons just a small company it takes quite a while to build up liabilities of over £250,000 so it would appear they have been trading for quite a while in a position where they would not be able to pay creditors.

These things are a complete sham and unfortunately it will continue until the law is changed.

 

The trouble is this sort of thing is not just unfair on debtors it is unfair on competitors who manage to keep going without writing off their debts. There is a reason for company limited status, so that owners aren't taking unlimited risk. That is valuable if, for example, your business goes bust because you yourself are a creditor, you don't lose your house

 

Sorry Patrick non of that makes any sense to me could you explain in simple language just for me.

Edited June 22, 2011 by cotswoldsman

[Ally]

When you say employees I think you mean directors.

When you say the paperwork from the Liquidators does not tell the complete story can you please tell me what they have missed, is it worse than stated in the filling with Companies House?

Why did they not start trading under a completely different name?

On a business the size of Wilsons just a small company it takes quite a while to build up liabilities of over £250,000 so it would appear they have been trading for quite a while in a position where they would not be able to pay creditors.

These things are a complete sham and unfortunately it will continue until the law is changed.

No, I can't answer your questions, and that is partly my point. None of us know the ins and outs. The figures you have are, I am sure, correct as seen on paper, but as most people know, figures on paper do not tell the whole story.

We are not privvy to the story, the issues, the problems, yes, perhaps the bad management or where they also badly done by creditors...we just don't know.

I have no idea...as no-one else does, except those involved directly, if they are paying the debts or not. I have not condoned their way of business or the phoenix style re-forming, but have just pointed out we don't know the full story, the ins and outs and the things most businesses have to contend with. Who are we to judge others when we don't have all the information.

[cotswoldsman]

No, I can't answer your questions, and that is partly my point. None of us know the ins and outs. The figures you have are, I am sure, correct as seen on paper, but as most people know, figures on paper do not tell the whole story.

We are not privvy to the story, the issues, the problems, yes, perhaps the bad management or where they also badly done by creditors...we just don't know.

I have no idea...as no-one else does, except those involved directly, if they are paying the debts or not. I have not condoned their way of business or the phoenix style re-forming, but have just pointed out we don't know the full story, the ins and outs and the things most businesses have to contend with. Who are we to judge others when we don't have all the information.

 

I don't really want to keep on and I am not having a go at you, but I do have the relevant information. It is a creditors liquidation meaning the creditors filed for the liquidation. Because the company was in a position where they could not pay creditors. The figures are correct because they have been filed by the liquidator. Not sure what you mean by" a badly done for creditor" could you please explain.

I would also be interested to know how another supposed company managed to get hold of your templates surely these were the property of Wilsons?

Edited June 22, 2011 by cotswoldsman

[magpie patrick]

Sorry, it was a bit garbled, I'm cooking at the moment

 

If a company writes off it's debts by going into administration, and then rises from the ashes, that is unfair on competitors who have paid their way. Lets say, you make the best shoes and get away with low prices by periodically going into administration at which point your leather suppliers find their bill is paid perhaps 20p in the pound, meanwhile your competitor producing identical shoes charges more but never goes under, you are undercutting and taking some of their trade away by defaulting on your suppliers.

 

This is why the FA deduct points from clubs that go into administration, to put them at a disadvantage to those who pay their way.

 

BUT the Company limited structure exists for a reason, to protect those who own the company from excessive risk. Without this very few people would put investment capital in, after all, many company "owners" have little say other than a vote at the AGM. Suppose my own company gets into difficulty because I commission a traffic survey for a client and the client then refuses to pay for it? Didn't happen to me, but it happened to one previous employer of mine. Small companies can't always afford to sue big clients, something big clients have been known to take advantage of. In this case there was a happy ending, I was working for another company (well, technically a partnership) and bought the survey off my former employer at what he'd paid for it

 

Perhaps Ltd companies, like banks, should have asset to debt ratios. Moss Naylor Young Limited, my company, is very fortunate to have no debt and a debt free policy, but then, that's easy in consultancy, where it is my time, rather than a manufactured product or delivery on an expensive vehicle you are paying for.

 

Protection is needed, otherwise people won't venture their capital, but the balance is wrong

 

I would also be interested to know how another supposed company managed to get hold of your templates surely these were the property of Wilsons?

 

Technically illegal unless the other company should have bought them off the liquidated company through the administrator

[sociable_hermit]

But you can look at it a different way. If he hadn't submitted the highest bid, they would have produced even less funds for the creditors.

That's true. However disposal auctions are a phoney environment in many ways - as others have said, liquidators aren't necessarily that bothered about getting best price, provided their fees are covered. And going in to make a killing out of someone else's misfortune is common enough in business. However pontificating about how terrible the Directors of the liquidated firm were, whilst simultaneously adding to the woes of their staff, is a new one on me.

 

If you're that bothered about the morals of business, John, why didn't you offer closer to the true market value (which presumably you must have known, in order to state that you bought cheap) and tell them, "I'll pay that, because that's what I think it's worth". Or alternatively stop having a go at Directors who are, by the sounds of things, only being as cut-throat as you are.

[cotswoldsman]

Sorry, it was a bit garbled, I'm cooking at the moment

 

If a company writes off it's debts by going into administration, and then rises from the ashes, that is unfair on competitors who have paid their way. Lets say, you make the best shoes and get away with low prices by periodically going into administration at which point your leather suppliers find their bill is paid perhaps 20p in the pound, meanwhile your competitor producing identical shoes charges more but never goes under, you are undercutting and taking some of their trade away by defaulting on your suppliers.

 

This is why the FA deduct points from clubs that go into administration, to put them at a disadvantage to those who pay their way.

 

BUT the Company limited structure exists for a reason, to protect those who own the company from excessive risk. Without this very few people would put investment capital in, after all, many company "owners" have little say other than a vote at the AGM. Suppose my own company gets into difficulty because I commission a traffic survey for a client and the client then refuses to pay for it? Didn't happen to me, but it happened to one previous employer of mine. Small companies can't always afford to sue big clients, something big clients have been known to take advantage of. In this case there was a happy ending, I was working for another company (well, technically a partnership) and bought the survey off my former employer at what he'd paid for it

 

Perhaps Ltd companies, like banks, should have asset to debt ratios. Moss Naylor Young Limited, my company, is very fortunate to have no debt and a debt free policy, but then, that's easy in consultancy, where it is my time, rather than a manufactured product or delivery on an expensive vehicle you are paying for.

 

Protection is needed, otherwise people won't venture their capital, but the balance is wrong

 

 

 

 

Thanks Patrick for clearing that for me. I agree 100% about companies should only be prepared to trade on a 100% debt to equity ration, excluding bank loans.

 

 

 

Technically illegal unless the other company should have bought them off the liquidated company through the administrator

 

Yes highly illegal without buying from liquidator.

 

That's true. However disposal auctions are a phoney environment in many ways - as others have said, liquidators aren't necessarily that bothered about getting best price, provided their fees are covered. And going in to make a killing out of someone else's misfortune is common enough in business. However pontificating about how terrible the Directors of the liquidated firm were, whilst simultaneously adding to the woes of their staff, is a new one on me.

 

If you're that bothered about the morals of business, John, why didn't you offer closer to the true market value (which presumably you must have known, in order to state that you bought cheap) and tell them, "I'll pay that, because that's what I think it's worth". Or alternatively stop having a go at Directors who are, by the sounds of things, only being as cut-throat as you are.

 

Hang on I am not responsible for companies going into liquidation. Another way of looking at it I would not have bought the trucks had they not been cheap as I very rarely purchased second hand trucks.

By buying of the liquidator I am not adding to the woes of the staff that was caused by the directors who do not seem to care about employees. During my time I also bought companies in receivership keeping on all the employees and taking on the debt.

I can not save the world on my own.

My anger on this thread is about company law not really individuals.

[Ally]

I don't really want to keep on and I am not having a go at you, but I do have the relevant information. It is a creditors liquidation meaning the creditors filed for the liquidation. Because the company was in a position where they could not pay creditors. The figures are correct because they have been filed by the liquidator. Not sure what you mean by" a badly done for creditor" could you please explain.

I would also be interested to know how another supposed company managed to get hold of your templates surely these were the property of Wilsons?

I wrote..'badly done by creditors' not 'for'...meaning perhaps they were creditors to others that didn't pay up at some points during their business. Maybe, maybe not.

I know you have the paper infront of you with all the figures...again...figures tell an end result...not a whole story, business or otherwise. My bank statement does not reflect my whole life for example...it takes no account of many aspects.

As for the template question..I believe that to be rhetorical so will leave it at that.

I rest my case.

Oh, and by the way, I am part of a limited company. We have no debt, not even an overdraft, pay ourselves only twice a year when we are sure we can afford to, work our socks off, pay all our bills monthly, and also run our personal lives the same. We went a year without wages at one point to ensure we could pay for something. Other boatbuilders have done as Wilsons have, and yes, it's guiling, but at the end of the day we know we can hold our heads up with good cause.

Edited June 22, 2011 by Ally

[cotswoldsman]

I wrote..'badly done by creditors' not 'for'...meaning perhaps they were creditors to others that didn't pay up at some points during their business. Maybe, maybe not.

I know you have the paper infront of you with all the figures...again...figures tell an end result...not a whole story, business or otherwise. My bank statement does not reflect my whole life for example...it takes no account of many aspects.

As for the template question..I believe that to be rhetorical so will leave it at that.

I rest my case.

 

Again the figures tell you this Debtors are £30,274 and the liquidators expects to recover £22,706 of this so no big bad debtor there.

THe filing with company house tell a lot more than a bank statement as it shows assets and liabilities unlike a bank statement.

 

 

Edited to say The liquidators filing is the same as a balance sheet unlike a bank statement.

 

.

Oh, and by the way, I am part of a limited company. We have no debt, not even an overdraft, pay ourselves only twice a year when we are sure we can afford to, work our socks off, pay all our bills monthly, and also run our personal lives the same. We went a year without wages at one point to ensure we could pay for something. Other boatbuilders have done as Wilsons have, and yes, it's guiling, but at the end of the day we know we can hold our heads up with good cause.

 

That is great and how all companies should be run. Makes it even more difficult for me to understand why you are defending Wilsons, if they had run there business as well as you run yours we would not be having this discussion.

Edited June 22, 2011 by cotswoldsman

[sebrof]

OK so just to put this Wilsons the good guys thing to rest I have paid my £1 to Companies House to get the Statement of Affairs dated 19 My 2011 I am unable to cut and paste as that is not allowed but if you do not believe me then pay the £1

 

The figures show estimated total assets estimated after auction £62,259

Total Liabilities £333,905

Total Liability after asset sale £271,646

 

 

Sue while you are busy defending this great company employees are owed £77,069 in wages and redundancy.

The smallest trade creditor is £30.12 and the largest single trade creditor is £20,399

HM Revenue is £185,761 (That would pay quite a few nurses and teachers salaries and pensions)

 

All I can say is if you want keep defending Wilsons without the facts please carry on!!!!!!!!!!

 

You do talk a lot of nonsense at times.

 

Companies only ever go broke for one reason - they run out of cash. They may have plenty of assets (as Rolls-Royce did when it was forced into liquidation in the '60s), but if you can't stump up the cash an impatient bank can put you under.

 

On a winding up, the assets typically realise much less than they would have done if the company had continued to trade. Work in progress, for instance, might be a significant asset for a business, but on a winding up it will make vastly less than the value it had while the company was trading. Half-built hull, anybody? A piece of plant, made specially for the company, or the fixtures and fittings, will often be worthless.

 

That is why, so often, there is so little left for the creditors.

 

I have no idea what the underlying facts are concerning Wilsons, but I do know that you, on the evidence shown, know less than nothing about this subject. You might be right to assume incompetence or skullduggery, or whatever is festering in your little mind, but you don't KNOW, and you should stop pretending you DO. The facts may well be very different from your wild imaginings.

 

Also, we are in the midst of a major economic downturn. There are lots of companies out there, employing staff, giving business to other tradesmen, paying taxes. They naturally try to keep going as long as possible, rather than throwing in the towel at the first sign of trouble. These people need our support, not your nasty whingeing.

 

I know company directors who are not sleeping well at the moment, and in some cases their biggest concern is the prospect of having to make loyal staff redundant. Not all business owners are the villains you think they are.

[Ally]

You do talk a lot of nonsense at times.

 

Companies only ever go broke for one reason - they run out of cash. They may have plenty of assets (as Rolls-Royce did when it was forced into liquidation in the '60s), but if you can't stump up the cash an impatient bank can put you under.

 

On a winding up, the assets typically realise much less than they would have done if the company had continued to trade. Work in progress, for instance, might be a significant asset for a business, but on a winding up it will make vastly less than the value it had while the company was trading. Half-built hull, anybody? A piece of plant, made specially for the company, or the fixtures and fittings, will often be worthless.

 

That is why, so often, there is so little left for the creditors.

 

I have no idea what the underlying facts are concerning Wilsons, but I do know that you, on the evidence shown, know less than nothing about this subject. You might be right to assume incompetence or skullduggery, or whatever is festering in your little mind, but you don't KNOW, and you should stop pretending you DO. The facts may well be very different from your wild imaginings.

 

Also, we are in the midst of a major economic downturn. There are lots of companies out there, employing staff, giving business to other tradesmen, paying taxes. They naturally try to keep going as long as possible, rather than throwing in the towel at the first sign of trouble. These people need our support, not your nasty whingeing.

 

I know company directors who are not sleeping well at the moment, and in some cases their biggest concern is the prospect of having to make loyal staff redundant. Not all business owners are the villains you think they are.

well put! have a on me!

[alan_fincher]

Also, we are in the midst of a major economic downturn. There are lots of companies out there, employing staff, giving business to other tradesmen, paying taxes. They naturally try to keep going as long as possible, rather than throwing in the towel at the first sign of trouble. These people need our support, not your nasty whingeing.

 

I know company directors who are not sleeping well at the moment, and in some cases their biggest concern is the prospect of having to make loyal staff redundant. Not all business owners are the villains you think they are.

Having met the John, I think you may be misjudging the man.

 

I feel sure that he is more than capable of conducting his own defence, but it is clear he has run a major business, and himself been a significant employer.

 

What I'm guessing distinguishes him from many is that he probably has far more social conscience.

 

I'm sure John is not naive enough to not know the pressures facing any small to medium business at this time, and would not want to see any go under needlessly.

 

All I am seeing him objecting to is UK law that allows companies to walk away from their liabilities, and reform is a subtly different way, neatly leaving lots of people and other similar businesses hurt on the way. OK, I know bugger all about Wilsons, but if they couldn't find the money to meet all their creditors before, lets no seriously pretend that any newly formed replacement is suddenly going to find the cash to make good all the former shortfalls. There will clearly have been casualties - should they not have at least our equal support ?

 

Sorry, I'm fully with John on this. Wilsons may have risen is some way from the ashes, but the quite probably result of that is that someone else who was on the margin before will be at even greater risk now they are unlikely to ever recover what they have lost.

[Robin2]

 

 

Companies only ever go broke for one reason - they run out of cash. They may have plenty of assets.

 

These two sentences sum up the entire problem perfectly.

 

They run out of cash because they borrow too much because they have been convinced by / have persuaded / their accountants that their assets are worth more than they really are.

 

The assets should have been valued at what they will fetch in a liquidation - which would simultaneously remove all the stigma from those who buy from liquidators.

[sharpness]

You do talk ...................think they are.

Is there a Victor Meldrew smiley please?

 

Steve

[sebrof]

Alan, I am fully aware that some companies appear to rise like a Phoenix from the ashes, but let us not confuse that with pious pontificating about the value of Wilson's assets on a liquidation, and pretend we can infer from that very limited information that the Directors have misbehaved.

 

Robin 2, all businesses are always valued on a going-concern basis because, unless and until they fail, that is the most accurate valuation. Why, incidentally, do you think it is so right to acquire assets at less than their value, and thus further disadvantage the creditors?

 

I have no idea what Cotswoldman's business experience is, but he didn't seem to learn a lot along the way. He sees no irony in gloating over having purchased trucks at a knock-down price in a liquidation sale, and then waxing indignant about Wilsons not having many assets left upon liquidation. Can he really not see the connection?

 

I suggest we get Messrs Brooks and Gibbo to examine his wiring.

[dor]

There seem to be some posters who wish to defend the Wilsons. Some of the points made in their defence might have some validity.

 

EXCEPT

 

The Wilsons, both in their covering businesses and in their former Dawncraft businesses, are serial defaulters.

 

To paraphrase Mae West (I think), to lose one business is unfortunate, to lose several sounds like carelessness.

[alan_fincher]

Alan, I am fully aware that some companies appear to rise like a Phoenix from the ashes, but let us not confuse that with pious pontificating about the value of Wilson's assets on a liquidation, and pretend we can infer from that very limited information that the Directors have misbehaved.

See post 60 immediately following your post 59.............

[RLWP]

<snip>

 

To paraphrase Mae West (I think), to lose one business is unfortunate, to lose several sounds like carelessness.

 

Not even close. Lady Bracknell, "The Importance of being Earnest", Oscar Wilde, 1895

 

Richard

[sebrof]

Again the figures tell you this Debtors are £30,274 and the liquidators expects to recover £22,706 of this so no big bad debtor there.

 

 

Yes, but maybe there WAS a massive bad debt one month earlier, which had been written off - perhaps because another company went under.

 

You just don't know, and it is disgraceful that you pretend that you can infer anything from the liquidators' figures.

 

You know NOTHING about this, so please desist from your almost fraudulent speculations. Fraudulent, in that you are pretending to have knowledge and expertise that in fact you don't.

 

By all means talk generally about failed companies starting up again, but leave Wilsons out of it until and unless some real facts emerge.

 

See post 60 immediately following your post 59.............

 

Thank you.

 

It doesn't in the slightest alter what I have said. You can infer nothing from the liquidators' figures.

 

Not even close. Lady Bracknell, "The Importance of being Earnest", Oscar Wilde, 1895

 

Richard

 

Roll over, Shakespeare. Rather have Wilde any day.