Carillion going bust

[SWP's back]

How would it show up accounts?

Would it just appear under debts (or whatever they're called)? It seems inconceivable that the accountant/auditor would lie, so the alternative would be that debts weren't disclosed to the auditors. Are there any other options?

Yes, that the debts were deemed manageable.

 

[Chippy_boy]

How would it show up accounts?

Would it just appear under debts (or whatever they're called)? It seems inconceivable that the accountant/auditor would lie, so the alternative would be that debts weren't disclosed to the auditors. Are there any other options?

I can't be arsed to read their accounts mate, but the debt and the pension shortfall will be in there, guaranteed.

EDIT: SWP beat me to it.

 

[MillionMilesAway]

Yes, that the debts were deemed manageable.

Cheers. At a guess, that judgement of 'manageable' is where the focus of any review should lie.

@Chippy_boy-don't worry, I wasn't expecting you to read them. It was more of a generic question.

 

[SWP's back]

Cheers. At a guess, that judgement of 'manageable' is where the focus of any review should lie.

@Chippy_boy-don't worry, I wasn't expecting you to read them. It was more of a generic question.

I know some of the issues for Carillion stem from Middle East clients not paying on time.

Carillion Qatar is owed hundreds of millions from services rendered two an three years ago for example.

 

[bluethrunthru]

I can't be arsed to read their accounts mate, but the debt and the pension shortfall will be in there, guaranteed.

EDIT: SWP beat me to it.

also the Pension Scheme's own trustee's would produce an annual report which would be sent to all members detailing its financial position so it should have been well known

 

[SWP's back]

also the Pension Scheme's own trustee's would produce an annual report which would be sent to all members detailing its financial position so it should have been well known

It certainly was, I’ve been telling scheme members about it for years.

 

[Chippy_boy]

These situations are never as clear cut as they seem, in my view.

I can well understand the government being persuaded that awarding contracts to a company about which it had reservations, was nevertheless justified. Perhaps on the basis of reassurances from Carillion directors and also that they very act of awarding such contracts, provides more revenues, increases investor confidence and makes the company's failure less likely. Would Carillion have gone under sooner if the government stopped awarding them contracts sooner?

It's all too easy for serial protesters (aka Jeremy Corbyn) to throw mud around, (a) with the benefit of hindsight, (b) without knowing all the facts and (c) having zero responsibility for any of it.

"If I was Roger Federer, I wouldn't have attempted that failed backhand cross court pass".

 

[bluethrunthru]

These situations are never as clear cut as they seem, in my view.

I can well understand the government being persuaded that awarding contracts to a company about which it had reservations, was nevertheless justified. Perhaps on the basis of reassurances from Carillion directors and also that they very act of awarding such contracts, provides more revenues, increases investor confidence and makes the company's failure less likely. Would Carillion have gone under sooner if the government stopped awarding them contracts sooner?

It's all too easy for serial protesters (aka Jeremy Corbyn) to throw mud around, (a) with the benefit of hindsight, (b) without knowing all the facts and (c) having zero responsibility for any of it.

"If I was Roger Federer, I wouldn't have attempted that failed backhand cross court pass".

well.... thats your view. I am not entirely sure that when Carillion goes bust is the main point though. If, instead of trying to prop up a failing private company with public money - our taxes - they let it go bust say this time last year is the suggestion that was somehow worse? Profit warnings were being issued and still Grayling and the like funnelled contracts (money) their way - its not as if the Carillion directors could be telling him something different is it? Like "ignore those profit warnings Chris. We issue them to show how well we are doing". How is it acceptable for a free market thinking government to use public money and intervene in the market totally contrary to their supposed principles?

Think you will find that (a) serial protesters were moaning a long time before Carillion's failure using foresight not hindsight (b) the facts about the pension deficit and the state of the company were well known and (c) I agree they have no responsibility for it - it should lie with the company directors, not our Govt who tried to prop up a failing firm.

Why didn't Boris as foreign secretary have a word in Qatar's shell like and ask them to pay up what they owe Carillion so we didn't have to shovel contracts to them? Why didn't Mayday do likewise if the Gulf States are such staunch allies? And why didn't the government listen to all the siren voices and award contracts elsewhere allowing a controlled manage down of Carillion to a smaller profitable enterprise or to a controlled close down?

 

[Southbanken]

Or transfer it to a SIPP and have control.

Can this be done whilst still working or can it only be done after 55?

 

[Danamy]

Coincidence?

Chris Grayling appointed Justice Secretary in 2012

First job is to be involved in a "Prison benchmarking programme" where staff were reduced from about 23,000 in 2012 to about 18,000 in 2015

After a Prison enquiry it was decdided savings and staffing shortages had made "a significant contribution to the deterioration and safety" in prisons.

Carillion awarded Prison contract in 2015

Grayling gets a sideways move in 2015

Grayling then lands the Transport Secretary's job in July 2016

Carillion awared HS2 contract in July 2017

Like i say, coincidence?