Share Transfers Agreed/Cooling off period

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

Every single solution put forward by Hearts fans or prospective buyers involves avoiding paying debt. Every insolvency event from the Pars, Dundee, Motherwell right through to Rangers involves the shedding of large amounts of debt.

Football debts are so worthless it is a wonder any companies want to do business with a football club.

Hibs for instance want to be seen as a model football club but in truth the way it is being run is to avoid Farmer and Petrie ending up losing a lot of money not to safeguard Hibs. Nothing at all wrong with that and admirable but If Hibs were to play the game, splash the cash, enjoy some good times then have an insolvency event it is the owners that suffer not the fans. We'd no doubt end up run by the next set of mugs, starting debt free until they'd racked up enough debt for the next insolvency event.

Administration is the way forward in football, the cheats charter , the pre packed way to success on the field.

Imagine if administration rules were actually tough and genuinely designed to recover creditors money. Imagine Rangers with no faux punishments, carrying on as they were but hamstrung by having to pay back ALL the debt to creditors they racked up over athe period of a payment plan with sanctions for non payment. Now that would be justice.

---

Well said, i like the "cheats charter" bit. :top marks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

Every single solution put forward by Hearts fans or prospective buyers involves avoiding paying debt. Every insolvency event from the Pars, Dundee, Motherwell right through to Rangers involves the shedding of large amounts of debt.

Football debts are so worthless it is a wonder any companies want to do business with a football club.

Hibs for instance want to be seen as a model football club but in truth the way it is being run is to avoid Farmer and Petrie ending up losing a lot of money not to safeguard Hibs. Nothing at all wrong with that and admirable but If Hibs were to play the game, splash the cash, enjoy some good times then have an insolvency event it is the owners that suffer not the fans. We'd no doubt end up run by the next set of mugs, starting debt free until they'd racked up enough debt for the next insolvency event.

Administration is the way forward in football, the cheats charter , the pre packed way to success on the field.

Imagine if administration rules were actually tough and genuinely designed to recover creditors money. Imagine Rangers with no faux punishments, carrying on as they were but hamstrung by having to pay back ALL the debt to creditors they racked up over athe period of a payment plan with sanctions for non payment. Now that would be justice.

---

The administration rules are, in part, designed to allow businesses to re-start, thus saving the State in benefits and maximising tax take. That is what happened in Rangers' case and in many other businesses every day.

Where would you expect the money for the creditors to come from? If that was to come from the phoenix company in every case, there would be no point in any administration.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

The administration rules are, in part, designed to allow businesses to re-start, thus saving the State in benefits and maximising tax take. That is what happened in Rangers' case and in many other businesses every day.

Where would you expect the money for the creditors to come from? If that was to come from the phoenix company in every case, there would be no point in any administration.

---

But its got to the stage were football clubs are just going down the administration route to avoid paying debts while well run clubs are suffering due to a lack of success on the pitch. There's nothing we can do about the law's of this country but the football authorities need to make going into administration an option that clubs would fear

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

The administration rules are, in part, designed to allow businesses to re-start, thus saving the State in benefits and maximising tax take. That is what happened in Rangers' case and in many other businesses every day.

Where would you expect the money for the creditors to come from? If that was to come from the phoenix company in every case, there would be no point in any administration.

---

Did Rangers not just have a share issue and raise £22m? Could Rangers not pay lower wages and pay off their debt? Are they not playing in a multimillion pound property which could have been given to creditors as collateral?Yes club onfield would suffer but it's their own fault , isn't it. If any business is worth anything as a going concern it should be used to pay off creditors first before investing large sums , in this case, on players wages.

Saving the state in benefits and maximising tax take? Come on CWG you are having a laugh HMRC are getting shafted right left and centre and I hardly think the amount in benefits to Rangers or Hearts employees is going to cripple the government.

No doubt administration is a lucrative business for the financial types among us but is nothing but a businessman's tool of last resort to avoid debt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lord bunberry

But its got to the stage were football clubs are just going down the administration route to avoid paying debts while well run clubs are suffering due to a lack of success on the pitch. There's nothing we can do about the law's of this country but the football authorities need to make going into administration an option that clubs would fear

---

Hence the re-vamp of the rules to hit clubs with the 1/3 penalty.

Renting out your spare room to a pal for £25 a week would have Joe Public up in court feaster than a bank boss passing the buck. But screw the state, other companies and your creditors for zillions....Murray, White, The Wonga Dome Boys and hey lads try again next week but just change the names to Murrays, Whyte or maybe Pink Dome and its all fun and games again in the boardroom.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

Did Rangers not just have a share issue and raise £22m? Could Rangers not pay lower wages and pay off their debt? Are they not playing in a multimillion pund property which could have been given to creditors as collateral?Yes club onfield would suffer but it's their own fault , isn't it. If any business is worth anything as a going concern it should be used to pay off creditors first before investing large sums , in this case, on players wages.

Saving the state in benefits and maximising tax take? Come on CWG you are having a laugh HMRC are getting shafted right left and centre and I hardly think the amount in benefits to Rangers or Hearts employees is going to cripple the government.

No doubt administration is a lucrative business for the financial types among us but is nothing but a businessman's tool of last resort to avoid debt.

---

1. the company that took over Rangers are a different company from the one that racked up the debt. Why should they be responsible for that debt? If you took over, for example, HMV, would you want to take on the debt?

2. the question of the property has still to be sorted out, as you know.

3. HMRC have been shafted, but the administration route allows them the chance to recoup some of that by keeping people in jobs. Again, if you took over HMV, you would keep most of the staff. That is a plus for the taxpayer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

Every single solution put forward by Hearts fans or prospective buyers involves avoiding paying debt. Every insolvency event from the Pars, Dundee, Motherwell right through to Rangers involves the shedding of large amounts of debt.

Football debts are so worthless it is a wonder any companies want to do business with a football club.

Hibs for instance want to be seen as a model football club but in truth the way it is being run is to avoid Farmer and Petrie ending up losing a lot of money not to safeguard Hibs. Nothing at all wrong with that and admirable but If Hibs were to play the game, splash the cash, enjoy some good times then have an insolvency event it is the owners that suffer not the fans. We'd no doubt end up run by the next set of mugs, starting debt free until they'd racked up enough debt for the next insolvency event.

Administration is the way forward in football, the cheats charter , the pre packed way to success on the field.

Imagine if administration rules were actually tough and genuinely designed to recover creditors money. Imagine Rangers with no faux punishments, carrying on as they were but hamstrung by having to pay back ALL the debt to creditors they racked up over athe period of a payment plan with sanctions for non payment. Now that would be justice.

---

Excellently put Spike, the hibs model isn't worth a sook, were all still waiting for the day where we will be pumping all these debt ridden clubs.. Simply never going to happen, the rest will get away with murder while we balance the books all in the name of sporting integrity..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by southsider

Renting out your spare room to a pal for £25 a week would have Joe Public up in court feaster than a bank boss passing the buck. But screw the state, other companies and your creditors for zillions....Murray, White, The Wonga Dome Boys and hey lads try again next week but just change the names to Murrays, Whyte or maybe Pink Dome and its all fun and games again in the boardroom.

---

Not quite accurate. You can rent out rooms in your house/flat up to a total of £4250/year tax free, under the HMRC rent-a-room scheme.
But I agree with the point you are making. :greengrin

As far as I can see we have great difficulties in seperating the law from emotions. Of course The Rangers are going to claim that all the trophies etc belong to them and their history is continuous, so would we, lets be honest. Problem is of course that by law they are a different company and not liable for the debts Rangers FC amassed. It is time to let it go in my opinion. That does not mean that I don't argue with every hun I meet (a lot) that they have a moral and in my view social responsibility to repay the small businesses that the Oldco owed money to. Neither does this mean that I have any sympathy with them by the way and that.:greengrin

The new rules brought in by the SFA have to be swingeing enough to punish. That is the bit that remains to be seen if they will or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucius Apuleius

As far as I can see we have great difficulties in seperating the law from emotions. Of course The Rangers are going to claim that all the trophies etc belong to them and their history is continuous, so would we, lets be honest. Problem is of course that by law they are a different company and not liable for the debts Rangers FC amassed. It is time to let it go in my opinion. That does not mean that I don't argue with every hun I meet (a lot) that they have a moral and in my view social responsibility to repay the small businesses that the Oldco owed money to. Neither does this mean that I have any sympathy with them by the way and that.:greengrin

The new rules brought in by the SFA have to be swingeing enough to punish. That is the bit that remains to be seen if they will or not.

---

Indeed. The longer this season goes with no action from the UKIO administrator, the less likely HMFC's punishment will be "swingeing".

Had they had the 18-point penalty, and faced relegation, that would have been morally just. However, if administration takes place after the end of the season, the penalty is likely to be about a dozen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Hence the re-vamp of the rules to hit clubs with the 1/3 penalty.

---

Its not enough of a deterrent though. If hearts had made the top 6 they could have went into administration and the worse they would finish is 6th. Administration should mean automatic relegation that season. For the vast majority of clubs in financial trouble its because they have overspent trying to gain an advantage on the pitch

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

1. the company that took over Rangers are a different company from the one that racked up the debt. Why should they be responsible for that debt? If you took over, for example, HMV, would you want to take on the debt?

2. the question of the property has still to be sorted out, as you know.

3. HMRC have been shafted, but the administration route allows them the chance to recoup some of that by keeping people in jobs. Again, if you took over HMV, you would keep most of the staff. That is a plus for the taxpayer.

---

1 . My original post was talking about the original 'company' continuing as Rangers paying back the debt it accrued and none of this newco, pre pack con trick. As for the new 'company' and all that phoenix club nonsense if they aren't responsible for the debt why should they get the assets on the cheap. Reason we all know is because it is another big business con but far too complex for us plebs to understand of course.

2. i will be long dead before any question is raised over the value of the property bought and Charles Green won't be losing any sleep over paying any more. Just ain't going to happen.

3. HMRC preferred to choose liquidation in Rangers case to try to set an example but it will be years before they recoup any money they have lost by relying on the continuing taxes from Sevco. Another piss poor reason for letting them off with buckets of debt.

If they can't pay their debt shut them down till they can, that would lead to financial fair play suddenly being important but of course isn't an revenue stream for administrators, lawyers and accountants.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

1 . My original post was talking about the original 'company' continuing as Rangers paying back the debt it accrued and none of this newco, pre pack con trick. As for the new 'company' and all that phoenix club nonsense if they aren't responsible for the debt why should they get the assets on the cheap. Reason we all know is because it is another big business con but far too complex for us plebs to understand of course. As I say, that will be investigated by BDO. It's their job.

2. i will be long dead before any question is raised over the value of the property bought and Charles Green won't be losing any sleep over paying any more. Just ain't going to happen. It is. See above. Sorry to hear of your imminent demise.:greengrin

3. HMRC preferred to choose liquidation in Rangers case to try to set an example but it will be years before they recoup any money they have lost by relying on the continuing taxes from Sevco. Another piss poor reason for letting them off with buckets of debt. In your scenario, ie shutting them down, HMRC would get nothing.

If they can't pay their debt shut them down till they can, that would lead to financial fair play suddenly being important but of course isn't an revenue stream for administrators, lawyers and accountants.

---

Would that be the case for all companies, or just for those you have particular loathing for? And are you happy to pick up the tab for the lost taxes and increased benefits?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Would that be the case for all companies, or just for those you have particular loathing for? And are you happy to pick up the tab for the lost taxes and increased benefits?

---

We have already haven't we? We were paying whilst others weren't.

Why not make companies pay their debt CWG or do administrators only care about them and not their creditors? I know the official answer to that but would be hard pressed to believe Duff and Phelps gave the creditors anything but the necessary lip service.

I guess we are not going to see eye to eye on this CWG and respect your informed opinions over my more laymans emotive opinions but I truly rank football administration scandals up there with the scandals of politicians expenses and bankers bonuses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spike Mandela

We have already haven't we? We were paying whilst others weren't.

Why not make companies pay their debt CWG or do administrators only care about them and not their creditors? I know the official answer to that but would be hard pressed to believe Duff and Phelps gave the creditors anything but the necessary lip service.

I guess we are not going to see eye to eye on this CWG and respect your informed opinions over my more laymans emotive opinions but I truly rank football administration scandals up there with the scandals of politicians expenses and bankers bonuses.

---

Spike, I feel your pain. I've had to tell the same story to many a client who has suffered at the hands of incompetent or rogue customers, and I have been there myself. The emotion is worse here because it's about football, which most of us have a greater emotional investment in than our work.

To answer your question, how can you make companies pay when there is no money? It's as simple as that. If there have been shady dealings by the directors then, yes, they can be made to pay. And that may happen with RFC yet. But, the phrase "blood out of a stone" is one I have used many times, and that's, sadly, the most common situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Would that be the case for all companies, or just for those you have particular loathing for? And are you happy to pick up the tab for the lost taxes and increased benefits?

---

CWG, I admire your commitment to the cause but here is an example of why most people think the current system isn't working. I've quoted the relevant parts below.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"FORMER Celtic star Pierce O'Leary has been declared bankrupt with debts of more than £200,000.
The former Republic of Ireland international, who now runs a cleaning business in Glasgow, was declared insolvent after failing to settle large bills."

"He is thought to have applied for bankruptcy after running up debts of £214,378. It was approved by Scotland's insolvency service, the Accountant In Bankruptcy, last week."

"Mr O'Leary lives with his family in a luxury home in Thorntonhall, South Lanarkshire, one of Scotland's most exclusive areas."

"Company accounts show the company changed its name to McWiggan Services in January. A new company, called Safehands Cleaning, has been set up, with Mr O'Leary's wife appointed as a director."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

So, to summarise, his company goes mammaries skyward owing over 200k. He changes the name of the company and puts it into administration. He then starts a new company with the same name as the old one and carries on working from the same offices (sound familiar?).

But it's OK, his new company will be paying tax to HMRC.......

I can understand why everyone thinks admin is an easy option but it really is not. Especially for Hearts.
I imagine that any attempt to borrow by any Scottish football club will be rejected for the foreseeable future. The new Rangers struggled to even get a Bank account. They had to raise their working capital through a share issue.
A new Hearts is going to need lots of money fairly quickly as they need a new stadium. Borrowing from a bank will not be an option and another share issue will not raise the required amount.
They will come back in some form but it won't be pretty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keekaboo

CWG, I admire your commitment to the cause but here is an example of why most people think the current system isn't working. I've quoted the relevant parts below.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"FORMER Celtic star Pierce O'Leary has been declared bankrupt with debts of more than £200,000.
The former Republic of Ireland international, who now runs a cleaning business in Glasgow, was declared insolvent after failing to settle large bills."

"He is thought to have applied for bankruptcy after running up debts of £214,378. It was approved by Scotland's insolvency service, the Accountant In Bankruptcy, last week."

"Mr O'Leary lives with his family in a luxury home in Thorntonhall, South Lanarkshire, one of Scotland's most exclusive areas."

"Company accounts show the company changed its name to McWiggan Services in January. A new company, called Safehands Cleaning, has been set up, with Mr O'Leary's wife appointed as a director."

-------------------------------------------------------------------

So, to summarise, his company goes mammaries skyward owing over 200k. He changes the name of the company and puts it into administration. He then starts a new company with the same name as the old one and carries on working from the same offices (sound familiar?).

But it's OK, his new company will be paying tax to HMRC.......

---

I have never said the current system is perfect. However, it's what we have at the moment, and it has its good points and, obviously, its bad ones. I have yet to hear of anything that is better.

A few practical points from the O'Leary story:-

1. HMRC will be aware that a new company has been set up in the name of Mrs. O'L. They will be watching closely. The VAT office, in particular, have a procedure whereby anyone associated with a company that is insolvent have to declare that fact. Mrs.O'L will have to do that. In some cases I have known, they ask for monthly returns to start with (rather than quarterly ones), to protect their position. I have also heard of bonds having to be put up.

2. suppliers, it they are diligent, will either refuse to deal with the new company or get money up front. That will hurt.

3. the company's bank should have a personal guarantee from Mrs. P, and a charge over the house.

4. given 1 and 2 and, particularly, Mr P's record in business, it won't be long before the company is in trouble again.

Point 1 protects us. 2 and 3 protects the major creditors. Point 4 satisfies those of us who believe in karma.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I have never said the current system is perfect. However, it's what we have at the moment, and it has its good points and, obviously, its bad ones. I have yet to hear of anything that is better.

A few practical points from the O'Leary story:-

1. HMRC will be aware that a new company has been set up in the name of Mrs. O'L. They will be watching closely. The VAT office, in particular, have a procedure whereby anyone associated with a company that is insolvent have to declare that fact. Mrs.O'L will have to do that. In some cases I have known, they ask for monthly returns to start with (rather than quarterly ones), to protect their position. I have also heard of bonds having to be put up.

2. suppliers, it they are diligent, will either refuse to deal with the new company or get money up front. That will hurt.

3. the company's bank should have a personal guarantee from Mrs. P, and a charge over the house.

4. given 1 and 2 and, particularly, Mr P's record in business, it won't be long before the company is in trouble again.

Point 1 protects us. 2 and 3 protects the major creditors. Point 4 satisfies those of us who believe in karma.

---

Accountants have a strange idea of what pain is.

Monthly returns rather than quarterly? Please!

I appreciate what you're saying is correct, but imo your defence of the existing position is only exacerbating the annoyance which laypeeps feel, with total justification, at these cons.

Peeps like O'Leary who are quite clearly at it, no doubt with the full assistance of an accounting professional or two, should be thrown in the workhouse. I'll quite happily cough up the extra share of my tax to ensure this happens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

Accountants have a strange idea of what pain is.

Monthly returns rather than quarterly? Please!

I appreciate what you're saying is correct, but imo your defence of the existing position is only exacerbating the annoyance which laypeeps feel, with total justification, at these cons.

Peeps like O'Leary who are quite clearly at it, no doubt with the full assistance of an accounting professional or two, should be thrown in the workhouse. I'll quite happily cough up the extra share of my tax to ensure this happens.

---

The pain comment was on the need to pay suppliers up front. To a bad businessman like PO'L, that will hurt. As will paying his VAT monthly.

If PO'L is "at it", as you put it, then he can be prosecuted. Wrongful trading is a crime, not a con.

And, again.... I am not defending the existing position. Merely telling it like it is. If anyone can come up with a better way,....... etc etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

The pain comment was on the need to pay suppliers up front. To a bad businessman like PO'L, that will hurt. As will paying his VAT monthly.

If PO'L is "at it", as you put it, then he can be prosecuted. Wrongful trading is a crime, not a con.

---

He is at it, but can't be prosecuted, because the current law allows him to be at it. That (I think) is what Spike was objecting to. And I don't know why you're not too! :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I have never said the current system is perfect. However, it's what we have at the moment, and it has its good points and, obviously, its bad ones. I have yet to hear of anything that is better.

A few practical points from the O'Leary story:-

1. HMRC will be aware that a new company has been set up in the name of Mrs. O'L. They will be watching closely. The VAT office, in particular, have a procedure whereby anyone associated with a company that is insolvent have to declare that fact. Mrs.O'L will have to do that. In some cases I have known, they ask for monthly returns to start with (rather than quarterly ones), to protect their position. I have also heard of bonds having to be put up.

2. suppliers, it they are diligent, will either refuse to deal with the new company or get money up front. That will hurt.

3. the company's bank should have a personal guarantee from Mrs. P, and a charge over the house.

4. given 1 and 2 and, particularly, Mr P's record in business, it won't be long before the company is in trouble again.

Point 1 protects us. 2 and 3 protects the major creditors. Point 4 satisfies those of us who believe in karma.

---

What is not clear to me is whether this was a company put into administration or similar. The articles says he declared himself bankrupt, that is not a company procedure. It is more than possible that this was a private business which he funded himself. If there were any assets which could be realised for his creditors and these have been transferred while he was insolvent then the creditors through the insovency administrator have a right to challenge the alienation.

Many people seem to have an 18th century view of insolvency processes. They are no longer meant to be a punishment, we don't send people to jail for trying to do well in a business but failing - we do though send them to jail for fraudulent practice. In america they encourage entrepreneurs because that is how you grow an economy and in a recession it is blooming difficult to keep a business afloat and sometimes even with all the best will in the world businesses go under owing money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

He is at it, but can't be prosecuted, because the current law allows him to be at it. That (I think) is what Spike was objecting to. And I don't know why you're not too! :wink:

---

Yes he can be prosecuted.

If he took on debt after the company can be held to have been insolvent, then that's against the law. It's wrongful trading, for which he can be prosecuted. Moreover, he can be held personally liable for any debts incurred after that date.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

A few practical points from the O'Leary story:-

1. HMRC will be aware that a new company has been set up in the name of Mrs. O'L. They will be watching closely. The VAT office, in particular, have a procedure whereby anyone associated with a company that is insolvent have to declare that fact. Mrs.O'L will have to do that. In some cases I have known, they ask for monthly returns to start with (rather than quarterly ones), to protect their position. I have also heard of bonds having to be put up.

2. suppliers, it they are diligent, will either refuse to deal with the new company or get money up front. That will hurt.

3. the company's bank should have a personal guarantee from Mrs. P, and a charge over the house.

4. given 1 and 2 and, particularly, Mr P's record in business, it won't be long before the company is in trouble again.

Point 1 protects us. 2 and 3 protects the major creditors. Point 4 satisfies those of us who believe in karma.

---

I'm sorry, but that's all 'ifs, buts and maybes'. There is nothing substantive whatsoever in that to ensure that what is right and just will be done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

I have never said the current system is perfect. However, it's what we have at the moment, and it has its good points and, obviously, its bad ones. I have yet to hear of anything that is better.

---

To be honest, that is pathetic.

I normally enjoy what you write but you appear to me to be trying to defend the indefensible. You've failed miserably

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by proud_and_green

What is not clear to me is whether this was a company put into administration or similar. The articles says he declared himself bankrupt, that is not a company procedure. It is more than possible that this was a private business which he funded himself. If there were any assets which could be realised for his creditors and these have been transferred while he was insolvent then the creditors through the insovency administrator have a right to challenge the alienation.

Many people seem to have an 18th century view of insolvency processes. They are no longer meant to be a punishment, we don't send people to jail for trying to do well in a business but failing - we do though send them to jail for fraudulent practice. In america they encourage entrepreneurs because that is how you grow an economy and in a recession it is blooming difficult to keep a business afloat and sometimes even with all the best will in the world businesses go under owing money.

---

That's a fair point. I actually just assumed that it was poor journalism, equating bankruptcy with administration.

Your last paragraph is very true. What hasn't been considered is that it may not have been O'Leary's fault. We (me included) are assuming that he was either "at it" or just a crap businessman. Sometimes, though, it's out of one's hands. If, for example, a big housebuilder goes under, then there is a domino effect. Materials suppliers, utility companies, subbies, cleaning contractors.... they all suffer. It's often the case that one insolvency leads to many others. Without the full facts of this case, it's probably wrong to judge him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by keekaboo

I'm sorry, but that's all 'ifs, buts and maybes'. There is nothing substantive whatsoever in that to ensure that what is right and just will be done.




To be honest, that is pathetic.

I normally enjoy what you write but you appear to me to be trying to defend the indefensible. You've failed miserably

---

Once again, I am not defending it. I am saying how it is. As I said to Spike, I have been on the receiving end of many a client who has the same complaints about the system, and I am always on their side.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

Yes he can be prosecuted.

If he took on debt after the company can be held to have been insolvent, then that's against the law. It's wrongful trading, for which he can be prosecuted. Moreover, he can be held personally liable for any debts incurred after that date.

---

How many peeps who run up huge debts like him actually are prosecuted? Presumably in most cases there would have been a point beyond which they shouldn't have run up any more, but do. Many prosecuted?

There's a widespread perception that peeps do get away with things they shouldn't. The the huns is just a particularly flagrant example.

On the question of whether throwing peeps in workhouses would dampen the country's entrepreneurial spirit, it might well. So what? How much worse off would the country be with Murray, Whyte, Goodwin (and many, many others) sewing mailbags? :dunno:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

How many peeps who run up huge debts like him actually are prosecuted? Presumably in most cases there would have been a point beyond which they shouldn't have run up any more, but do. Many prosecuted?

There's a widespread perception that peeps do get away with things they shouldn't. The the huns is just a particularly flagrant example.

On the question of whether throwing peeps in workhouses would dampen the country's entrepreunerial spirit, it might well. So what? How much worse off would the country be with Murray, Whyte, Goodwin (and many, many others) sewing mailbags? :dunno:

---

On your first question, I have no idea. At a guess, probably not enough.

On the last point, that's a 10-pager. I reckon that, with the economy the way it is and with jobs for young people at a premium, that generation will increasingly turn to self-employment as the way forward. Discouraging that would have serious social and economic costs.

Entrepreneuralism (is that a word?) is not just about those characters you mention. It's also about the guy who paints your house, your corner-shop, your IFA. I wouldn't fancy a society without them, where we are reliant on Tesco and the likes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CropleyWasGod

On your first question, I have no idea. At a guess, probably not enough.

On the last point, that's a 10-pager. I reckon that, with the economy the way it is and with jobs for young people at a premium, that generation will increasingly turn to self-employment as the way forward. Discouraging that would have serious social and economic costs.

Entrepreneuralism (is that a word?) is not just about those characters you mention. It's also about the guy who paints your house, your corner-shop, your IFA. I wouldn't fancy a society without them, where we are reliant on Tesco and the likes.

---

There's plenty incentives for self-employment and running a business - for example, if you do it right you make money and you're your own boss. Entirely unnecessary to foster an atmosphere where it is widely believed that if you get into financial difficulties you can wave bye bye to all the peeps to whom you owe money and start again under a different trading name.

I have come across a few peeps who have got into such difficulties and gone bankrupt. Only one that I know of has made a point of repaying his old debts after a restart. Great credit to him for doing that voluntarily - but that attitude should be the norm, not an isolated, eccentric instance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lapsedhibee

There's plenty incentives for self-employment and running a business - for example, if you do it right you make money and you're your own boss. Entirely unnecessary to foster an atmosphere where it is widely believed that if you get into financial difficulties you can wave bye bye to all the peeps to whom you owe money and start again under a different trading name.

I have come across a few peeps who have got into such difficulties and gone bankrupt. Only one that I know of has made a point of repaying his old debts after a restart. Great credit to him for doing that voluntarily - but that attitude should be the norm, not an isolated, eccentric instance.

---

Agreed on your general point.

I don't know of anyone, personally, who has ever gone into business with the attitude of "oh well, if it fails, sod the suppliers, I'll start again". The kind of people I deal with normally have their house and family life on the line. And, yes, generally those are the type of people who would pay back their creditors if they could. Playing Devil's Advocate (again:greengrin), those are the type of people who perhaps should have some protection if things don't work out, whether by their own fault or otherwise.