far_north Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 ..... wonder why the private retailers cannot afford Strand St but the MEA can ! Actually its not the MEA - it's "us" the consumers who're paying. Are there sufficiently detailed accounts published to confirm whether the MEA Showrooms genuinely made a positive contribution, or is it just a shiny distraction and financial overhead which increases our costs? And, as a separate question - is it really right for government funds to be used to run a business which competes with the private sector? (and no, I don't own an electrical shop in Castletown or anywhere else) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 Actually its not the MEA - it's "us" the consumers who're paying. Are there sufficiently detailed accounts published to confirm whether the MEA Showrooms genuinely made a positive contribution, or is it just a shiny distraction and financial overhead which increases our costs? And, as a separate question - is it really right for government funds to be used to run a business which competes with the private sector? (and no, I don't own an electrical shop in Castletown or anywhere else) i) Yes the annual accounts are available online. 2007-08 MEA Retail made a loss. ii) Same could be said about the Post Office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 Given that it is cheaper to buy online, why don't the MEA do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinkydevil Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 Given that it is cheaper to buy online, why don't the MEA do that? They should get in touch with the DTI - I hear they have an ecommerce solution and will subsidise some of the cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gazza Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 well theres allways a choice if u dont like the supply, get them to cut u off and buy a gen set, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 MEA = Mega Expensive Apparatus Morons Extorting Assets We need a 'won't pay' campaign. This is state legalised robbery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Voice of Reason Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 MEA = Mega Expensive Apparatus Morons Extorting Assets We need a 'won't pay' campaign. This is state legalised robbery. Not really. Prices rise over time. Dogs shit on pavements, etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted August 2, 2009 Share Posted August 2, 2009 MEA = Mega Expensive Apparatus Morons Extorting Assets We need a 'won't pay' campaign. This is state legalised robbery. Not really. Prices rise over time. Dogs shit on pavements, etc etc. Sure, but they are they falling elsewhere at present and going up here. Maybe it is because MEA management behaved like the dogs you mentioned, with their 'unauthorised expenditure'? Except it was their clients not the pavement they dumped on...A shame the company is not privately owned as the Board would be reaching for their indemnity insurance. PS good to see a post from you Albert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 ..and how much did it cost to produce the glossy leaflet that arrived with the Courier this week? I would have thought that the cost off producing the leaflet will be taken out off running cost or advertising. These, i would think, are Tax Deductable so it won't be coming out off any profits or can be passed on to the customer. Sorry Celt, there is only one way this could have been funded and that is out of revenue and so out of profits. How does a tax deductible expense not get passed on to the consumer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 A shame the company is not privately owned as the Board would be reaching for their indemnity insurance. Which probably wouldn't pay out in these circumstances. How else are the loans to be repaid, other than the electrcity consumers paying for it? Unpalatable, but true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Sell those responsible into slavery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 LOL, who would pay very much for these older-middle aged, spread-bellied chappies? Although, I like the sentiment! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 A shame the company is not privately owned as the Board would be reaching for their indemnity insurance. Which probably wouldn't pay out in these circumstances. How else are the loans to be repaid, other than the electrcity consumers paying for it? Unpalatable, but true. Gladys I think that there are a number of quite rational things that should be done to try and improve the situation caused by past mismanagement and lack of proper corporate governance. If the loans were unauthorised the first recourse should be to the former Board Members whose apparent corporate governance failures allowed this to happen to recover what one can from them (Board members have liabiities in return for their remuneration). You may be right to use the word 'probably' in regard to insurance payments but it should be tested and the ex-Directors' cages rattled! The second should be to identify all assets in order to sell off those such as the shops that are not central to electricity generation to pay off a further amount of any debt, the third step should be to review the effectiveness of operations to try and further reduce operating expenses, the fourth step should be to see if it is possible to privatise the business (though of course this may depend on the debts outstanding). Recourse to taxpayers and electricity users to pay for incompetence should be the last step of the process. There are steps ahead of this. An additional more radical step might be to calculate out how much could be saved by closing all generation here and importing all our electricity needs from the UK. On the pamphlet this is again a case of asking 'what value does this add to the consumer or what additional revenue will it generate" if the answer to both of these is 'none' this sort of unecessary spending should be curtailed until debts are paid. In a monopoly company why is this 'corporate mirror gazing' needed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Haven't all those options now been exhausted which is why we are onto the 'consumer pays' part of the rescue package? As for suing the former directors, firstly you have to able to show they had failed in the exercise of their responsibilities, which no-one has been able to clearly show to date, and if there has been a failing then you have to recover from their assets. Cost-effective? Some expenses have been recovered. Attention has been given to the operations, but again, there is probably very little scope to make a meaningful contribution to the loan repayment. But they have turned off the pretty lights round the stack (in a rather crass way of introducing some humility or signs of contrition on the part of the MEA, I guess) Selling off the retail function would not make serious inroads and, I suppose, is seen as an opportunity to generate another revenue stream to contribute. As for closing the power station and importing power, I am sure that would be as welcome, politically, as Dr Beeching at a railway supporters meeting. As I say, it is unpalatable, but the ones who will be paying for this mess are you and I in one way or another. There was never really any other source of funds to meet that gigantic liaibility. That is not to say I am complacent, just realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manshimajin Posted August 3, 2009 Share Posted August 3, 2009 Haven't all those options now been exhausted which is why we are onto the 'consumer pays' part of the rescue package? As for suing the former directors, firstly you have to able to show they had failed in the exercise of their responsibilities, which no-one has been able to clearly show to date, and if there has been a failing then you have to recover from their assets. Cost-effective? Some expenses have been recovered. Attention has been given to the operations, but again, there is probably very little scope to make a meaningful contribution to the loan repayment. But they have turned off the pretty lights round the stack (in a rather crass way of introducing some humility or signs of contrition on the part of the MEA, I guess) Selling off the retail function would not make serious inroads and, I suppose, is seen as an opportunity to generate another revenue stream to contribute. As for closing the power station and importing power, I am sure that would be as welcome, politically, as Dr Beeching at a railway supporters meeting. As I say, it is unpalatable, but the ones who will be paying for this mess are you and I in one way or another. There was never really any other source of funds to meet that gigantic liaibility. That is not to say I am complacent, just realistic. I don't know that they have been exhausted. Do you know that they have? It is in part about trying to reduce the debt and in part about creating an effective business culture in the MEA. The Directors seem to have been very slack - even if they did not directly authorise a loan that they should not have done they were paid to amongst other things monitor the accounts. Was the loan kept off the accounts (criminal?) or did they not notice it or not question it when it was included (negligent?). One wonders how much cashflow the shops generate - I have never seen them busy in Douglas or Castletown. I suspect that closing them would perhaps generate a little money upfront and stop a drain on revenue. I remember in the days before privatisation that the energy companies ran shops in the UK but closed them pdq post privatisiation. Frankly even if it only generated say £250,000 it is better coming off the loan. Equally I have not actually seen anything to indicate that they have tightened staffing right down in view of their financial mess. Do you know if they have? You say that I would be as popular as Lord Beeching at a railway supporters meeting if I suggested importing power - I think that depends on who was at the meeting tbh - if it was consumers there could be quite a positive reaction - if it was MEA staff or politicians they might not like it. From your wording about the suggestion not being welcome 'politically' it sounds like what maybe helpful to the taxpayers is not as important to the 'powers that be' as their own political considerations. As a consumer I would like to see a public discussion of Manx power generation versus cheaper energy! At the end of the day surely it is sensible if electricity is half the cost in the UK, as has been reported, not to dismiss this option solely on 'political' grounds - very PS thinking. Certainly a public company that can waste money putting out pamphlets about itself when it owes millions does not send out a signal that it has a 'fix-it' culture and is unlikely to ask hard questions - only the public can do that it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.