LoneWolf Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 Manx preservation orders are not worth the paper they come on - name one example of a preservation order that worked especially in Douglas ? Dandara + friends have probably pulled down many historic buildings in Douglas. Presumably not without planning consent though ? Its a shame when buildings of particular merit are demolished, but maybe the criteria for what constitutes a historic building or whatever the correct expression is needs to be more focussed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 Come on new elected government, here is your first crisis. I know it is a private concern but this could put alot of people out of work. Brenda Cannell have already voiced her conserns, any more? Watch them all run for cover! If you want to pay for it - go ahead. I don't see why Joe Taxpayer should bale them out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted December 15, 2006 Share Posted December 15, 2006 Is it not the case that it a crime to trade whilst you are knowingly insolvent? If the choice is muddle through for a few more weeks and eventually get locked up for your efforts or shut down immediately then I don't see that the directors have much choice. If the business was continued in an insolvent condition then the situation would probably worsen and the creditors would potentially lose even more money than they have lost already. You are right CW. Trading whilst insolvent (which renders the directors personally liable for debts) and unfair prejudice amongst creditors (i.e. paying one creditor off when you are in an insolvent position thus favouring that creditor in an inevitable liquidation) are two of the most heinous crimes for directors. They have no choice when the writing is on the wall and there is no prospect of trading out of the insolvency but to push the liquidation button. I was also quite surprised at Brenda Cannell saying that there should have been some forewarning and this is not how we do things on the IOM! No, no, no! The directors would have put the company and themselves in an even more precarious position both commercially and legally. All very unfortunate, particularly for the staff to find themselves out on their ears at this time of year. It's a bit inconvenient for customers who have to find another venue for the Xmas do's, but nothing in comparison to the employees' position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stookie Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 I think the government should have been nicer to Sleepwell/Jim Mellon and double Why should the Government prop up ailing businesses...I dont want my taxes spent on loss making hotels and bars...I'd much rather have it spent on patching government scandals elsewhere. You obviously didn't get my point??? Sleepwell were denied a look in on the bus station site in favour of some UK outfit, even though they have invested heavily in other hotels on the Island. Their (understandably petulant) reaction I believe was to say they wouldn't be investing any more money in IOM hotels. Nothing to do with subsidies - get it now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 Maybe in future you should include that sort of information in your first post instead of just assuming everyone knows everything about the business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 The rot sets in when Government starts subsidising something that cannot stand on its own two feet trying to preserve a business that is in failure. Agriculture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 50 less Polish/Czech/Other work permits next year will solve the employment problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 Yes agriculture. I don't mind paying farmers to act as custodians of the country side but they have to cometer like every one else. I'm sure that very few perishables would have been delivered 10 days before Xmas. Dry goods maybe, alcohol. Most suppliers do have a romalpa clause. They should also see if the account is performing, if not, don't deliver. The government will pick up the redundancy assuming a total insolvency. As for Sleepwell They have six (?)hotels on Island. One is shut as it does not comply with fire regulations, one was closed down at end of summer and stripped out. A third closed for the winter amidst cries of foul by Sleepwell about the government not doing enough for the industry. This was a hotel which necver previously opened in the winter. Given that it appears on the face of it that thye alreardy have 200 plus beds they cannot or do not wish to fill what right had they to be considered for the bus station development. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chufty Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 And why do some members of the public and the hotel trade always think its up to the government to attract visitors. Its like any other business it should stand on its own two feet. I don't suppose there were grants and loans to develop the Promenade hotels in the 1880's to 1910 or to develop the horse trams, electric railway, steam railway, Palace and Lido Derby Castle etc The rot sets in when Government starts subsidising something that cannot stand on its own two feet trying to preserve a business that is in failure. Of course that is different to subsidising heritage and the environment, but sometimes its a pretty fine line to draw. We had years of the promenade getting scrappier and seedier as governments refused to allow offices, shops or apartments. I don't know what is next, but I do know what is over, non en suite rooms, tatty decor, poor customer service and inflated prices for an inferior product. No wonder few come. That applies to the entire experience from travel to, arrival at, staying on and going home at end. I hope something is going to happen to retain the gubernatorial palace that is the Castlemona, but if its days as a hotel are over, so be it. I just hope it finds a useful, profitable purpose. Then again we never had http://www.easyjet.com/splash.asp?lang=en and access to the Sun in the 1880s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stookie Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 As for Sleepwell They have six (?)hotels on Island. One is shut as it does not comply with fire regulations, one was closed down at end of summer and stripped out. A third closed for the winter amidst cries of foul by Sleepwell about the government not doing enough for the industry. This was a hotel which necver previously opened in the winter. Given that it appears on the face of it that thye alreardy have 200 plus beds they cannot or do not wish to fill what right had they to be considered for the bus station development. But at least they have a history of investing large sums of money in hotels in the Island and that would be a positive right now for the Castle Mona site and it's reasonable to assume they have an interest in the general wellbeing of the sector. Anyway, this stinks to high heaven closing just before Christmas. All they had to do was talk to their creditors and explain that by staying open over the next few weeks the creditors would have a bigger pie to pick from come January and I think that would have got them off the hook as to their legal obligations. Being closed over this period helps nobody and I can't see the liquidator waiting on tables or pulling a few pints to make up for it. The Isle of Man is pretty backward when it comes to these things - Chapter 11 situations are common in the US and allow companies in difficulty to agree a trading solution to a problem without the hammer of liquidation coming down on them and protecting them from legal action by their creditors - by all accounts it works pretty well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stookie Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 Maybe in future you should include that sort of information in your first post instead of just assuming everyone knows everything about the business. Maybe posters shouldn't put their own spin on things that get said either. Instead of checking before making a comment there seems to have been an assumption the point had to be about subsidies - why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 Anyway, this stinks to high heaven closing just before Christmas. All they had to do was talk to their creditors and explain that by staying open over the next few weeks the creditors would have a bigger pie to pick from come January and I think that would have got them off the hook as to their legal obligations. I'm sure liquidators are always that public spirited! Bet the liquidators of Farepak felt real bastards for runing everyones Christmas, just because the people running the company were muppets who'd spent all the cash causing insolvency. Bah. Humbug. Blame the liquidators for other peoples incompetence. In this case there is little option. once the directors know they are trading insolvent that's it otherwise their liabile for procecution knowingly employing people, buying food and using the electric when they know the company hasn't got the money to pay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 In an insolvent position, the directors cannot negotiate with creditors for fear of favouring one over the others. Guess they had no choice but put the company into liquidation, in an insolvent situation there is little choice and the sooner the better. Apart from the legal, imagine the commercial impact of saying to your creditors when things get a bit tight 'having a bit of a hard time at the mo'. Almost guaranteed insolvency after that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 Maybe posters shouldn't put their own spin on things that get said either. Instead of checking before making a comment there seems to have been an assumption the point had to be about subsidies - why? Easiest thing to do then is to remove the need for people to make assumptions and furnish them with what they need to know to understand your point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Hood Posted December 16, 2006 Share Posted December 16, 2006 The rot sets in when Government starts subsidising something that cannot stand on its own two feet trying to preserve a business that is in failure. Agriculture? no, Manx Radio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.