Manx Gas MEGA Price Rise

[Numbnuts]

4 hours ago, Banker said:

That’s your opinion as a very wealthy person! I just don’t think all pensioners should get free prescriptions, winter fuel allowances, heating allowances when there’s lots more deserving cases including single people in rented housing 

I'm a pensioner now who unfortunately had to rely on Incapacity for 8 years  starting at around £85wk and then increasing to long term at approx £112wk plus around laterly approx £15 income support . Living on my own throughout that time was a real struggle and meant no heating and relying on friends often for food. Luckily I owned my flat but no assistance was given for your rates so that time would be a massive struggle. Free Prescriptions where a godsend as was the winter bonus before Teare removed it . Now while my health is stable and receive my pension those years without being able to maintain my property due to limited income have made it still a sttruggle as I attempt to bring my flat to a acceptable standard again. Yes I eat okay now but still no heating as now the additional income from my pension mostly goes on trying to upgrade my property. 

Also , while I received credits for most of the time when ill I still paid in to the system without ever a night in hospital or any claim on benefits the rest of the years. Total of 53 years so what I receive now is I feel earned and justified and with all the cost of living increases it should be increased currently . Single people in rented accommodation on benefits  , as they get their rent/rates paid , are far better off than independant people like me. I am incredibly grateful though for what I have received in those dark 8 years and me still here is testament to that !!!   

Edited April 26, 2022 by Numbnuts

[Bandits]

4 hours ago, Non-Believer said:

This is exactly the sort of conduct that has given MG the reputation they have. No wonder MUA and CURA to their credit are having none of it.

At the end of the day if you’re in business and a supplier is daft enough to give you free credit terms what are you going to do? Go to the bank and get an overdraft to fund your cash flow or use your free credit terms to manage your cash flow? 

[Gladys]

1 hour ago, Andy Onchan said:

Fully aware of that.

My point is that PE Partners see only $ signs. If they can get cheap finance, or better still, someone else to cough up for the cashflow (in this case the GMT via MUA) then they will. 

I've had dealings with a group PEP and they are ruthless and will get their pound of flesh one way or another.

Indeed, but that isn't the same as demanding the directors commit fraud, which is what paying the PE when they are not entitled and the company is insolvent would be.

I am not defending anyone in this, but there is a reality.  If I remember correctly, there were posters who said MUA/CURA/IOMG were not entitled to see MG's accounts.  However, if I was a very substantial creditor and the customer was stretching credit terms to more than 3 times the agreed payment term AND had declined a routine DD I think I would want to see the accounts, and management accounts at that, regardless of any regulatory requirement.  Of course, they could say no  (depending on the terms of the supply agreement) and did, but then the supplier could go for a creditors' liquidation. Quite where that would leave consumers who knows, and what contingency plans are in place for a failure is anyone's guess. 

 

 

[Banker]

1 hour ago, Gladys said:

Indeed, but that isn't the same as demanding the directors commit fraud, which is what paying the PE when they are not entitled and the company is insolvent would be.

I am not defending anyone in this, but there is a reality.  If I remember correctly, there were posters who said MUA/CURA/IOMG were not entitled to see MG's accounts.  However, if I was a very substantial creditor and the customer was stretching credit terms to more than 3 times the agreed payment term AND had declined a routine DD I think I would want to see the accounts, and management accounts at that, regardless of any regulatory requirement.  Of course, they could say no  (depending on the terms of the supply agreement) and did, but then the supplier could go for a creditors' liquidation. Quite where that would leave consumers who knows, and what contingency plans are in place for a failure is anyone's guess. 

 

 

CURA are provided with all financial information in order that they can monitor the agreed return.

MUA requested financials to assess request for forward purchase request. A trade creditor eg MUA would not normally be supplied with financial information 

[Gladys]

3 minutes ago, Banker said:

CURA are provided with all financial information in order that they can monitor the agreed return.

MUA requested financials to assess request for forward purchase request. A trade creditor eg MUA would not normally be supplied with financial information 

Not sure about that really.  If a substantial supplier wanted to run a credit check, part of that would include financials, particularly if they were the only supplier and the amounts involved were substantial.  

MUA were not supplying the bog roll for the offices of MG. 

[Bazza Smurf]

7 hours ago, Len Trench said:

Me too - today.

You had half of what was originally promised or half promised because of terms set on the refund. You have had nothing however from Manx Gas. This is the main reason the EPRC are currently sitting and investigating why everything went so wrong between 2015 up to 2021. 

In fact it was because of my petition and continuous fight for fairness, but that is a different story. 

Edited April 26, 2022 by Bazza Smurf

[Holte End]

Could somebody explain why Mr Callister release of the MUA press statement of what Manx Gas owed the MUA  on his own political site a good two hours before any of the islands wonderful press. Also why does the statement  refer to the FOI 'Manx Gas' where no amounts of the monies is published of Manx Gas debts to the MUA. 

 

Edited April 26, 2022 by Holte End

[Bandits]

Jo Cox sucks 

[finlo]

1 minute ago, Bandits said:

Jo Cox sucks 

Yes Yoda.

[Kopek]

Would MUA have refused to supply MG with the gas it required?

That would leave MG customers without cooking and heating? Would the MUA have really put MG in that position? A govt takeovedr would have been the only alternative? Would the Treasury have allowed such a situation?

I think not!

That leaves us with 'mind games' between MUA, the Treasury and MG?

Rather seems that MG have come out of that OK?

Love 'em or loath 'em, MG are required by US until some other arrangement  is put in place? Nationalisation???

[Banker]

5 minutes ago, Kopek said:

Would MUA have refused to supply MG with the gas it required?

That would leave MG customers without cooking and heating? Would the MUA have really put MG in that position? A govt takeovedr would have been the only alternative? Would the Treasury have allowed such a situation?

I think not!

That leaves us with 'mind games' between MUA, the Treasury and MG?

Rather seems that MG have come out of that OK?

Love 'em or loath 'em, MG are required by US until some other arrangement  is put in place? Nationalisation???

If we nationalize MG then we are left with all the risks of market fluctuations & potentially massive losses unless IOMG just put prices up to market prices constantly.

[0bserver]

11 minutes ago, Kopek said:

 

Love 'em or loath 'em, MG are required by US until some other arrangement  is put in place? Nationalisation???

That time has passed. The time to nationalise them was when they were begging Tynwald/Comin for help. 

Comin handed Manx Gas a get out of jail free card. 

[Kopek]

35 minutes ago, Banker said:

If we nationalize MG then we are left with all the risks of market fluctuations & potentially massive losses unless IOMG just put prices up to market prices constantly.

....but they would only be the same risks that we face from MG as a private company, unless, by some miracle a National industry could reduce the price of World Gas prices?

[John Wright]

9 hours ago, Banker said:

CURA are provided with all financial information in order that they can monitor the agreed return.

MUA requested financials to assess request for forward purchase request. A trade creditor eg MUA would not normally be supplied with financial information 

But MG weren’t just a trade creditor. They were asking MUA to place forward trades on their behalf. Requiring information about financial viability in such circumstances, when you aren’t trading to terms, and when you’ve run up a substantial debt and bounced a direct debit, wouldn’t be out of the ordinary.

[Andy Onchan]

13 hours ago, Gladys said:

Indeed, but that isn't the same as demanding the directors commit fraud, which is what paying the PE when they are not entitled and the company is insolvent would be.

I am not defending anyone in this, but there is a reality.  If I remember correctly, there were posters who said MUA/CURA/IOMG were not entitled to see MG's accounts.  However, if I was a very substantial creditor and the customer was stretching credit terms to more than 3 times the agreed payment term AND had declined a routine DD I think I would want to see the accounts, and management accounts at that, regardless of any regulatory requirement.  Of course, they could say no  (depending on the terms of the supply agreement) and did, but then the supplier could go for a creditors' liquidation. Quite where that would leave consumers who knows, and what contingency plans are in place for a failure is anyone's guess. 

 

 

https://www.manxradio.com/news/isle-of-man-news/manx-gas-says-plea-for-change-of-payment-terms-was-to-aid-cash-flow/

In the private sector (which MG is) where additional funding is required (especially cashflow) the first people you should look to are, or should be, the shareholders. Did that happen?