Mezeron & Steam Packet Master Thread

[Stu Peters]

How so? If the OFT/Government published a factually inaccurate report, and/or one that prejudiced us against the IOMSPC, they would be in the serious mire. Just because they've asked for comments doesn't mean that the SPC can change anything else.

[BaldyBoy]

I think that what Boo Gay'n is suggesting is that the OFT can only act upon the info provided by IOMSPC and if they themselves chose to be economical with the truth in the first place (not for one minute suggesting they'd tell porkies hehe) and then get a chance to offer a plea to the OFT that certain aspects of the information are not for public consumption - then what's the point of the investigation? Unless a warts-n-all 'ram-raid' of the premises is conducted by an independent investigative body with more clout than David Haye then we have to, well, rely on the premise that what the IOMSTP are actually telling the OFT is nothing less than the absolute truth )

Edited November 19, 2010 by BaldyBoy

[P.K.]

It clearly states "factual amendments" but does anyone challenge the SP version? This made me smile "identify any items within the report that they consider to be commercially sensitive and that should not be made public" which is to say ALL OF THEM. With a business rival snapping at their heels the last thing the SP would want is to broadcast their P&L to all and sundry. But again, who makes the call on what should or should not be in the public domain?

 

What auspicious timing for the SP...

[jack bauer's brother]

Or maybe it's getting changed to a word with the new CEO

[P.K.]

Directors' guarantees are personal guarantees so the creditor has a direct call on your personal assets if the subject company should fail to meet its obligations and, usually, these are only given when the company is also owned by the directors. If what you are really talking about is directors giving warranties, they are doing so in their capacity as directors of the company. However, they could still find themselves personally exposed if the warranties are untrue. Again, you should be seeking independent advice.

 

Well exactly. I'm not talking about Dogs Bollocks Ltd (Total Exemption) here where some nerd has purchased a company and promptly bores the arse off everyone in the pub with how he "owns his own company" and is desperate to give out his vastly over-priced business card with "Managing Director" emblazoned on it and at the same time running down the NHS whilst keeping quiet about how he uses his "company" to avoid his social obligations by giving the NHS / pension fund a paltry £12 per month.

 

I've mostly worked for US multi-nationals. That's the US that is the most litigious nation on earth. Bearing in mind the shareholders could sue your arse if you fuck-up their investment what US director is EVER going to make a decision? So of course the company has to financially cover their directors otherwise NOTHING would ever get done. It's a bit subjective as well. When does "sharp practice" become fraud? When does "incompetence" become criminally negligent?

 

Everyone knows about Enron but the real story for me is Xerox Corp, not least for the fact that amazingly it's still trading! Probably like Hoover and Google it's down to the strength of the brand.

 

A French colleague of mine purchased 1000 XRX shares in 1997 I think it was for $38 per share. Two years later in 1999 they were trading at $62 per share and Patrick was a very happy boy. A year later they were at $4 per share, had been rated as "junk", $millions had been wiped off the value and he couldn't even give the bloody things away. Patrick was a very unhappy boy indeed (and the subject of some mockery I can tell you).

 

The cause was that the directors had been somewhat "overstating" the business. With the result that one of them trousered over $20m in one year alone just on his share options. The SEC came down hard on Xerox. It made them restate their figures for the last 3 years (iirc) and handed down a record penalty of $10 million for the way the director's had "presented" the business results.

 

To the disgust of many shareholders, like my colleague who had lost 90% of his investment, this was paid by the company thus reducing the (by then negligible) divvy still further. It was paid by the company because they contractually covered the directors, see here for the SEC ruling.

 

There was a little footnote. Probably because of shareholder pressure the SEC eventually grew a pair and took a pop at some of the directors. For some reason the SEC are happy for payments to be made without admitting liability. The penalties were laughable compared to how much they had taken out of the company but they made them cheerfully in order to "get on with the rest of our lives" - the point being that not having been found guilty of any wrongdoing they can still hold company office.

 

So when a director of a failed IOM bank stated that "not being told what was going on was like being on a pedestrian crossing and being run down by a lorry" I had to smile. Whatever happened to "due diligence" I wonder? Oh well, never mind eh...

[Tugger]

Oh God what a desperate attempt to cover up your woeful lack of knowledge and experience. What has any part of your dreary anecdote got to do with a director giving a personal guarantee. Let me spell it out for you once again, you stupid, dreary man:

DIRECTORS' PERSONAL GUARANTEES ARE CALLED WHEN A COMPANY IS INSOLVENT. DIRECTORS WHO GIVE THEM WILL NOT BE COVERED BY THE COMPANY

[Sean South]

Oh God what a desperate attempt to cover up your woeful lack of knowledge and experience. What has any part of your dreary anecdote got to do with a director giving a personal guarantee. Let me spell it out for you once again, you stupid, dreary man:

There's no need to be such a twat...

[Gladys]

Oh God what a desperate attempt to cover up your woeful lack of knowledge and experience. What has any part of your dreary anecdote got to do with a director giving a personal guarantee. Let me spell it out for you once again, you stupid, dreary man:

There's no need to be such a twat...

'Fraid there is, because PK is really missing the point, which is a little arcane in this debate but salient. He is also quoting cases that stimulated a complete re-think of attitudes towards directors' obligations and if any director treads down the same road now, they will be hung out to dry.

 

I worry for PK, because from his posts he has made incorrect judgements, but seems unwilling to take the reality and cover his own behind.

 

Aw well, you can lead a horse to water etc.

[theambo]

Union leader Bob Crow of tube / rail strike fame is flying over tommorrow for talks with the Government according to the Examiner.

 

Winter of discontent on the way ?

[gazza]

Union leader Bob Crow of tube / rail strike fame is flying over tommorrow for talks with the Government according to the Examiner.

 

Winter of discontent on the way ?

 

lets home the plane crashers then

 

what is he coming over to do. make the SP strike intill the gov give in.

i some how dowt the SP could afford that some how.

Edited November 22, 2010 by gazza

[asitis]

Union leader Bob Crow of tube / rail strike fame is flying over tommorrow for talks with the Government according to the Examiner.

 

Winter of discontent on the way ?

 

lets home the plane crashers then

 

what is he coming over to do. make the SP strike intill the gov give in.

i some how dowt the SP could afford that some how.

 

Just what the island needs a throw back to the 70's buffoon, hope our buffoons are strong enough not to take note !!

[acorn]

Union leader Bob Crow of tube / rail strike fame is flying over tommorrow for talks with the Government according to the Examiner.

 

Winter of discontent on the way ?

 

lets home the plane crashers then

 

what is he coming over to do. make the SP strike intill the gov give in.

i some how dowt the SP could afford that some how.

 

Just what the island needs a throw back to the 70's buffoon, hope our buffoons are strong enough not to take note !!

 

 

There's plenty of buffoons already involved in the affair that is for sure, I could name one or two contributing to this thread come to think about it.

 

What do you envisage then? Some form of incisive and brilliant intercedence from Mr Woodward? Or maybe Mr Brown?

Edited November 22, 2010 by acorn

[Dave Hedgehog]

You'd think he would set an example and get the boat over.

[Amadeus]

Unions representing hundreds of workers at the Steam Packet are stepping up their campaign to defend ferry operations, with a demonstration in Liverpool today (Tuesday).

 

Protesters want the Manx government to come up with a contingency plan if the company has to cut back its services, following the introdiction, by Ramsey-based Mezeron, of a rival daily freight service between Douglas and the city.

 

http://www.manxradio.com/newsread.aspx?id=48745

 

Can someone PLEASE enlighten me or at least give me ONE point what the government has to do with this? It was the Racket that messed up - no strategic planning, bad management, caught with their pants down. THEIR problem.

[spook]

To me this has a background stench of blackmail.

 

I just hope that someone has had the sense to put a contingency plan in place in case the need arises for a car and passenger service to be brought into operation at short notice.

 

We should keep in mind that strikes can be used in many ways, and by various players, not just the workers. In the past there have been cases of employers imposing conditions onto a workforce with the deliberate intent of fomenting strike action where that would be of benefit to the employer.

 

Maybe the short term pain of a slight disruption to car and passenger services would be a price well worth paying in order to get a cost effective and affordable sea link finally put in place, a thing that our government have been singularly remiss in not having done YEARS ago.