Tomahawk - to avoid after lockdown

Andy you can't have it both ways, your argument cannot be that the directors do not need to contribute but the employees do.
I'm not having it both ways, everyone's losing out, in those sort of businesses, which I've said all along.

You're assuming the directors have not put anything in already, and you're also assuming that the financial loss internal to the business does not impact on a shareholder, which is absolutely ludicrous.
 
I'm not having it both ways, everyone's losing out, in those sort of businesses, which I've said all along.

You're assuming the directors have not put anything in already, and you're also assuming that the financial loss internal to the business does not impact on a shareholder, which is absolutely ludicrous.
No the one whose argument is ludicrous is you.
 
Is it though. I told you at the beginning of the thread that I personally know two people who work there who have both told me the reports in the paper are correct and that the official statement is wrong.
The restaurants are franchised are they not?

You claim my friend doesn't know the actual detaila, you don't even know who she is or who she works for or how she knows these details. Let's just say hospitality circles ar close circles.
Also someone earlier in the thread mentioned a connection with a place in Stokesley, I know what that place is now and I'm not at all surprised they would be linked to this fella.
I don't know, is it? What level are the staff you know that work there, I assume they're not one of the many directors? Which one do they work for, seemingly there's quite a few.

I'm intrigued by this like (y) I sort of want you to be right by the way, but more so I want the staff to have a job in 6 months.

My point is, I just don't think the detail is anywhere near the public domain, I don't even think the staff will know, to be honest, I bet the accountants don't know in full and even the directors don't even know fully, especially if it's across multiple businesses and they have other interests.

If they're franchised, then why is one guy who is seemingly a minor shareholder on the one that had the majority of the cash (albeit 1.5 years ago) being asked to bail them all out?

Why would your friend in a restaurant you won't name, at a level you won't describe, which is seemingly a competitor, know everything? I appreciate people talk, but things also get exaggerated, misunderstood, assumed etc.
Jees, there are directors of some companies that I'm heavily involved, that don't know as much as me about their own business, and they have more shares than me, if they don't know, the staff certainly don't know, and they all work alongside each other!!

What people claim they know, what you assume they know and what the facts are, are very different things.
 
No the one whose argument is ludicrous is you.
You won't even acknowledge my points, you've got 0.5% of the info, and are making decisions like you think it's 100% :ROFLMAO:

So, just to confirm, you do think the directors have not put anything in already, and you're also assuming that the financial loss internal to the business does not impact on a shareholder?

You might want to tell that to the entire stock market, as they say otherwise.
 
You won't even acknowledge my points, you've got 0.5% of the info, and are making decisions like you think it's 100% :ROFLMAO:

So, just to confirm, you do think the directors have not put anything in already, and you're also assuming that the financial loss internal to the business does not impact on a shareholder?

You might want to tell that to the entire stock market, as they say otherwise.
Christ you’re unreal. Randy has told you several times he has the info and you refuse to believe him. It’s like banging your head against a brick wall with you.
 
Andy, I give up. It's obvious you are trying to defend the way they are treating their employees, that's fine that's your opinion.
Judging by the rest of the comments on this thread it's not an opinion shared by anybody else.
I'm not, at all, I've said 20 times it's crap! But I've said it may be necessary if they want the business and jobs to exist.

Lefty understood what I was saying and a couple of others did too, again you've selectively ignored that.
 
How does this look to most people? It looks like very wealthy people are trying to take money out the pockets of those who are much less well off. What would be the reason for this? People become accustomed to a certain type of lifestyle and existence, i.e. big houses, fancy cars and generally spending vast amounts of money on pretty much everything. If they fear they possibly might not be able to maintain things moving forward, they will often take disproportionate measures. This is one of those measures. Most people would know it would likely result in a public relations disaster. But that mindset of self entitlement comes to the fore and takes over. And of course, we know that entitlement is a delusion built on self-centeredness and laziness.

Another aspect of it is personal relationships and how people perceive someone will start to disintegrate. If you're not in that Ferrari anymore, well, will the 'good friend' who drives the Bentley still want to speak? If top dollar can't be paid for everything, will the wife or gf still want to hang around? These things will be the underlying fear factor that is behind this mess which has seen an attempt to offset some of the problem onto employees. And once employees start taking a 10% hit, why not 20% or 30% next month?
 
You won't even acknowledge my points, you've got 0.5% of the info, and are making decisions like you think it's 100% :ROFLMAO:

So, just to confirm, you do think the directors have not put anything in already, and you're also assuming that the financial loss internal to the business does not impact on a shareholder?

You might want to tell that to the entire stock market, as they say otherwise.
And if the investors that make up that particular world thought this was a well run venture the employees wouldn't be getting bullied.
 
I'm not, at all, I've said 20 times it's crap! But I've said it may be necessary if they want the business and jobs to exist.

Lefty understood what I was saying and a couple of others did too, again you've selectively ignored that.
It isn't necessary either.

But like I said, I'm done with the convo now. Chickens will hopefully come home to roost and hopefully those employed will be treated better or find opportunities with other employers who see their skills for what they are and not just another number on the payroll.
 
Christ you’re unreal. Randy has told you several times he has the info and you refuse to believe him. It’s like banging your head against a brick wall with you.
No, he hasn't, you're assuming 5 guys down the chain and four to the left or whatever have the same info as the business owners, which is ludicrous. If Randy said he knew the director and had been told in detail, then I would give that credit, but at the minute it's just conjecture.

The statement might be balls, I wouldn't be surprised if it was, I wouldn't be surprised if it was misunderstood either, but that's not the point, as it's largely irrelevant as it's just words up to now. The most important thing is could the company survive on it's own without the injection, which nobody knows, and is it "worth it" to the staff, which seemingly most of them think it is.

I haven't once said it was "right", it just could be the least $hit outcome. The best outcome is the one that keeps the most jobs, and ensures the staff are not at a net loss by the end of the year.

You could speak to every single one of my staff, and they would have zero idea of the financial security of the company they work for, zero.
 
No, he hasn't, you're assuming 5 guys down the chain and four to the left or whatever have the same info as the business owners, which is ludicrous. If Randy said he knew the director and had been told in detail, then I would give that credit, but at the minute it's just conjecture.

The statement might be balls, I wouldn't be surprised if it was, I wouldn't be surprised if it was misunderstood either, but that's not the point, as it's largely irrelevant as it's just words up to now. The most important thing is could the company survive on it's own without the injection, which nobody knows, and is it "worth it" to the staff, which seemingly most of them think it is.

I haven't once said it was "right", it just could be the least $hit outcome. The best outcome is the one that keeps the most jobs, and ensures the staff are not at a net loss by the end of the year.

You could speak to every single one of my staff, and they would have zero idea of the financial security of the company they work for, zero.
Ok Andy, clearly you think you're right.

I won't be replying further, you're massively out of touch with normality no matter how much you think you're not.
 
And if the investors that make up that particular world thought this was a well run venture the employees wouldn't be getting bullied.
They don't have to stay, nobody is forcing them to? I've said they should take the offer and then leave once they had been paid back, or once they had found another job. If they get "sacked" or made redundant there are laws to help protect that (albeit poor ones). Businesses failing is not bullying, not after it's been taking on water for a year. It's just $hit situation that is going to hurt everyone.
 
Ok Andy, clearly you think you're right.

I won't be replying further, you're massively out of touch with normality no matter how much you think you're not.
I don't think any of us are right, as I don't think any of us know the details, certainly not in enough detail to be judge, jury and executioner.

All I know is there's a pandemic, and the industry it has hit the most is hospitality, and that is going to hurt the directors and the staff.
 
It isn't necessary either.

But like I said, I'm done with the convo now. Chickens will hopefully come home to roost and hopefully those employed will be treated better or find opportunities with other employers who see their skills for what they are and not just another number on the payroll.
You don't know it's not necessary, you're not a director and neither is your mate or their mates, and neither am I so I don't know either.

Yeah, I've had enough now :ROFLMAO:
But I too hope they all do get what they deserve, if they've (whoever they are) bailed the business out or spent and/or exhausted all reasonable options of funding, then I hope they survive. If they've been pocketing cash more than the same degree as what the staff have got (80% of normal pay) then I hope they go broke, and someone else takes the 500 on quickly.
If the staff do the loans I hope they get their money back and then go elsewhere, if they don't like it, or think it was unfair.
 
You don't know it's not necessary, you're not a director and neither is your mate or their mates, and neither am I so I don't know either.

Yeah, I've had enough now :ROFLMAO:
If you actually mean that it's 93 (so far) from you out of a total 297 (before this) posts on this thread. Pretty impressive.
 
How does this look to most people? It looks like very wealthy people are trying to take money out the pockets of those who are much less well off. What would be the reason for this? People become accustomed to a certain type of lifestyle and existence, i.e. big houses, fancy cars and generally spending vast amounts of money

There's an awful lot of supposition here. Does anyone know the financial position of the directors? They could be suffering financial hardship too. The amount of money they'd have to put into the company to cover NI and tax commitments might be more than they can afford. Do they live lavish lifestyles? Did they try to grow the business too quickly?

It's been badly handled but I know that for a lot of the employees keeping a job might be worth more than whatever they are being expected to give the company. If it's on a knife edge then I hope someone can find a way to keep the company going. There is an end in sight, it would be a shame to lose it now.
 
Back
Top