Tomahawk - to avoid after lockdown

If they can’t get finance elsewhere then they clearly have a sh*t business model
How did you come to that conclusion? There are about 100 things that could impact why they couldn't get finance.

Who has "survive a pandemic" in their business model, within the first three years of trading?

Have you ever run a business requiring the number of funds they may need or had many dealings with business finance and CBILS?

Mine got turned down for a loan which was 1/10th of our yearly profits! The loan was actually less than our corporation tax bill. The funny thing is, had we just went bust they wouldn't have got a penny of that corp tax bill.

why lend them your wages that you very unlikely to get back!

70% pay for 3 months of furlough and say 90% for 6 months after furlough and a good chance of getting that 9 x 10% loan repayments back sounds a lot better to me than 80% for one month and then finding yourself on the dole or working for a small business that no longer exists.

The 10% is a lot lesser risk of a bad return than not doing it. If I was in that position I would be snapping their hands off, if it gave more job security at a time when loads are likely just about to be laid off when furlough ends. I would also be looking at alternate employment whilst doing this, but likely wouldn't be hopeful, in that sector.
 
Labour MP for York Central Rachael Maskell ....
.....
In a response to a written question tabled by Ms Maskell, Treasury Minister Jesse Norman said employers are required to pay staff "all the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) grant they receive from HMRC to cover 80% of wages" and "cannot enter into any transaction with the worker which reduces the wages below the amount claimed".

On the face of it looks like they may need Plan 'B'

 
Exactly. Just greed. They’ve been expanding throughout lockdown when everyone else has been tightening their belts and weathering the storm. Now it’s bitten them on the backside.

Assuming they survive till May they’ll be absolutely fine given the prices they charge.

Have they been expanding during lockdown?

If the expansion was pre covid then it is not an excuse, it is a reason.

'My bosses haven't asked me to 'loan' them money and we are much much smaller than Tomahawk'


Well, this is the very point. They are most likely in cash flow trouble having expanded so quickly that although staff costs are covered largely by the government, they have premises overheads and pre covid loans to finance with very little income for a much longer period than expected. A smaller employer with fewer loans to repay can perhaps better survive that than a larger one with multiple premises and loans, especially when it has such a recent expansion. Their expansion model will have been based on some reasonable expected revenue which was shot out of the water and for a much longer period than expected. A lot of payment holidays, such as the HMRC VAT one are about to end, but their sector will be the last to return to normal, apart from some of the arts.
 
Last edited:
Wow. So they literally were opening new restaurants during lockdown in December 2020 - whilst at the same time blackmailing their own staff for cash.

Nice.

Should be illegal, surely?
 
How did you come to that conclusion? There are about 100 things that could impact why they couldn't get finance.

Who has "survive a pandemic" in their business model, within the first three years of trading?

Have you ever run a business requiring the number of funds they may need or had many dealings with business finance and CBILS?

Mine got turned down for a loan which was 1/10th of our yearly profits! The loan was actually less than our corporation tax bill. The funny thing is, had we just went bust they wouldn't have got a penny of that corp tax bill.



70% pay for 3 months of furlough and say 90% for 6 months after furlough and a good chance of getting that 9 x 10% loan repayments back sounds a lot better to me than 80% for one month and then finding yourself on the dole or working for a small business that no longer exists.

The 10% is a lot lesser risk of a bad return than not doing it. If I was in that position I would be snapping their hands off, if it gave more job security at a time when loads are likely just about to be laid off when furlough ends. I would also be looking at alternate employment whilst doing this, but likely wouldn't be hopeful, in that sector.
Actually there is a “surviving a pandemic business model” it’s called saving something for a rainy day or not spreading yourself too thinly or even not to be a greedy get!
I would imagine for the people who work there 70,80 or 90% of the pittance they probably earn is a big deal already
How did you come to that conclusion? There are about 100 things that could impact why they couldn't get finance.

Who has "survive a pandemic" in their business model, within the first three years of trading?

Have you ever run a business requiring the number of funds they may need or had many dealings with business finance and CBILS?

Mine got turned down for a loan which was 1/10th of our yearly profits! The loan was actually less than our corporation tax bill. The funny thing is, had we just went bust they wouldn't have got a penny of that corp tax bill.



70% pay for 3 months of furlough and say 90% for 6 months after furlough and a good chance of getting that 9 x 10% loan repayments back sounds a lot better to me than 80% for one month and then finding yourself on the dole or working for a small business that no longer exists.

The 10% is a lot lesser risk of a bad return than not doing it. If I was in that position I would be snapping their hands off, if it gave more job security at a time when loads are likely just about to be laid off when furlough ends. I would also be looking at alternate employment whilst doing this, but likely wouldn't be hopeful, in that sector.
Actually there Is a “survive a pandemic” business model it’s called saving something for a rainy day, don’t spread yourself too thinly or even don’t be a greedy get!
I would imagine for the staff who work there 70, 80 or 90% of the pittance they probably earn is difficult enough to get buy on in the first place! To then be threatened with the sack if you don’t lend them money to keep up lease payments on Range Rovers......sorry to pay the staff members massive NI contributions is just adding insult to injury!
 
Perhaps not strictly in full lockdown but they have expanded rapidly (and in my opinion, recklessly) before and during the pandemic, including opening a new Steakhouse venue in London in December 2020, the old French place in Boro in November 2020, Acklam Hall in September 2020, a Tomahawk chicken place in Yarm in May 2020, a steak house in Beverley also in May 2020. As the pandemic was unfolding, they opened a Rio steakhouse in Jesmond, and the York Tomahawk was agreed in February 2020. The company owner was also bragging on his Facebook on the 7th February 2021 about how Xscape Castleford will be the third new venue opened since November 2020, and that’s just for the Tomahawk chicken takeaway side venture.

So all this about increased overheads and business expenses on their part are due to a very risky expansion strategy, and completely avoidable. Its a gamble that didn’t pay off for them, and their (likely minimum wage) waiting staff absolutely should not be expected to shoulder responsibility for the stupidity of their bosses. Of course, not many companies will have had “survive a pandemic” in their business model, but I also didn’t see too many other hospitality chains with “expanding rapidly over the course of a global pandemic“ in their business models either. Most seemed to do the sensible thing and reduce their ongoing costs as much as possible to limit the impacts in a time of severe uncertainty.

I wonder if the company director could sell his Ferrari 488 weekend car to solve his little cash flow issue rather than threaten his wait staff with redundancy for not illegally loaning the company their wages 🤔
 
This is a blatant attempt to defraud the government's Job Retention Scheme. The way the scheme works is that the employer is required to pay at least 80% of 'normal' wages to their staff out of company funds and they then reclaim that amount (up to the 80% figure) from the government. You cannot claim more than you paid out, nor can you pay your staff less than the 80% figure, as those are the rules of the scheme.

So, for those saying it's better than a 10% pay cut, it's nothing of the sort. There is no ability to cut pay below the 80% figure if you want to use the Job Retention Scheme.

This is an out and out hustle designed to circumvent the rules of the scheme and redirect public funding (i.e from the taxpayer) away from those it is supposed to benefit.
 
Actually there is a “surviving a pandemic business model” it’s called saving something for a rainy day or not spreading yourself too thinly or even not to be a greedy get!
I would imagine for the people who work there 70,80 or 90% of the pittance they probably earn is a big deal already

Actually there Is a “survive a pandemic” business model it’s called saving something for a rainy day, don’t spread yourself too thinly or even don’t be a greedy get!
I would imagine for the staff who work there 70, 80 or 90% of the pittance they probably earn is difficult enough to get buy on in the first place! To then be threatened with the sack if you don’t lend them money to keep up lease payments on Range Rovers......sorry to pay the staff members massive NI contributions is just adding insult to injury!
You think pubs and restaurants will still have savings for a rainy day nearly a year after they were first told to close? I would be very surprised if any businesses on our field have made any sort of profit these last 12 months.

Businesses behave been burning through savings to pay rents and utilities and tax and NI contributions.
 
Perhaps not strictly in full lockdown but they have expanded rapidly (and in my opinion, recklessly) before and during the pandemic, including opening a new Steakhouse venue in London in December 2020, the old French place in Boro in November 2020, Acklam Hall in September 2020, a Tomahawk chicken place in Yarm in May 2020, a steak house in Beverley also in May 2020. As the pandemic was unfolding, they opened a Rio steakhouse in Jesmond, and the York Tomahawk was agreed in February 2020. The company owner was also bragging on his Facebook on the 7th February 2021 about how Xscape Castleford will be the third new venue opened since November 2020, and that’s just for the Tomahawk chicken takeaway side venture.

So all this about increased overheads and business expenses on their part are due to a very risky expansion strategy, and completely avoidable. Its a gamble that didn’t pay off for them, and their (likely minimum wage) waiting staff absolutely should not be expected to shoulder responsibility for the stupidity of their bosses. Of course, not many companies will have had “survive a pandemic” in their business model, but I also didn’t see too many other hospitality chains with “expanding rapidly over the course of a global pandemic“ in their business models either. Most seemed to do the sensible thing and reduce their ongoing costs as much as possible to limit the impacts in a time of severe uncertainty.

I wonder if the company director could sell his Ferrari 488 weekend car to solve his little cash flow issue rather than threaten his wait staff with redundancy for not illegally loaning the company their wages 🤔
There’s a glut of restaurants especially in London that’s why they were failing perfore Covid. It does seem a bit ironic that they’re taking over a Jamie’s Italian site which went bust for exactly the reason of over expansion. Steakhouses and posh burger joints are ten a penny in central London.
 
You think pubs and restaurants will still have savings for a rainy day nearly a year after they were first told to close? I would be very surprised if any businesses on our field have made any sort of profit these last 12 months.

Businesses behave been burning through savings to pay rents and utilities and tax and NI contributions.
Tomahawk might still have some rainy day savings if they hadn’t blown the lot opening ten new venues in a pandemic though...
 
Just make your own

five houses farm shop sells a 1kg tomahawk for £25. Take out of fridge and hour before, Season with salt and pepper, put it in the oven until Internal temp is 50c then sear it in a frying pan (I use a Cast iron one) with oil. Add butter, rosemary and garlic, baste it as its searing - one minute each side in a very hot pan - then flip it to the fat side to render the fat then leave it to rest for 10 minutes. Alice off the bone and cut it into slices.

View attachment 14477
I can almost hear that steak.
 
Tomahawk might still have some rainy day savings if they hadn’t blown the lot opening ten new venues in a pandemic though...
The funds for those ventures would already be in place.

Moving away from the point though. They (or any other business for that matter) should not be blackmailing staff like this.
 
Actually there is a “surviving a pandemic business model” it’s called saving something for a rainy day or not spreading yourself too thinly or even not to be a greedy get!
I would imagine for the people who work there 70,80 or 90% of the pittance they probably earn is a big deal already

"rainy day"? They've been pretty much shut for about 6 months of the last year, and probably on 50% takings the other 6 months, and shut for the next however long, that's a lot of rainy days.

Most startup businesses have to spread thin, they lose masses of money the first few years (some up to 10 years), which is expected, you have to do this to get started in the vast majority of cases. This mass expense would be part of the business model, plus allowing some extra I expect, but they've probably exceeded this by 1000%.

Staff losing 20% is a big deal, but they didn't have to stay on furlough, they could have quit and tried to get another job. The reason they have not done this is there were no other jobs to get, or they were happy at home on 80%.

To then be threatened with the sack if you don’t lend them money to keep up lease payments on Range Rovers......sorry to pay the staff members massive NI contributions is just adding insult to injury!

It's probably more along the lines of we're pretty desperate, we need some help, but if you can't there's probably 1000 others who will. It's brutal, but business is, especially when you could be going to the wall.

Look, it's not ideal, but we're in a pandemic FFS, if staff think they can have half a year sat on 80% pay at home, and that's going to be the worst of it then they need to wake up, it could be 1000% worse, and likely will for the directors with their "rangerovers".
 
Been to the one in Darlo a couple of times. Avearage. But another one that'll never ever darken their door again.
Dickensian asking people to pay to keep their job.
Even if they reverse the decision I'll never go back........ loepards don't change their spots.
 
"rainy day"? They've been pretty much shut for about 6 months of the last year, and probably on 50% takings the other 6 months, and shut for the next however long, that's a lot of rainy days.

Most startup businesses have to spread thin, they lose masses of money the first few years (some up to 10 years), which is expected, you have to do this to get started in the vast majority of cases. This mass expense would be part of the business model, plus allowing some extra I expect, but they've probably exceeded this by 1000%.

Staff losing 20% is a big deal, but they didn't have to stay on furlough, they could have quit and tried to get another job. The reason they have not done this is there were no other jobs to get, or they were happy at home on 80%.



It's probably more along the lines of we're pretty desperate, we need some help, but if you can't there's probably 1000 others who will. It's brutal, but business is, especially when you could be going to the wall.

Look, it's not ideal, but we're in a pandemic FFS, if staff think they can have half a year sat on 80% pay at home, and that's going to be the worst of it then they need to wake up, it could be 1000% worse, and likely will for the directors with their "rangerovers".
It’s not really a startup business - the guy that runs them has vast experience in retail and hospitality and should know better than this. And yes, FFS we are in a pandemic, now is not the time to be expanding in the worst hit sector and threatening your minimum wage staff with redundancy when your ambitious (but stupid) plan goes belly up.

Don’t forget that a 20% loss to someone on £8.72 an hour will be felt far more than a similar loss to a company director - particularly this fella who goes way beyond Range Rover territory - he daily drives a Mercedes G63 AMG and has a Ferrari 488 for a bit of weekend fun. Trading those in for a nice Ford Focus could easily free up a few quid. But no, sure, the minimum wage staff should give up their wages that are keeping their heads above water to support his business and lifestyle 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
 
I'm only playing devils, advocate here by the way, but a lot of people seem to be making some wild assumptions, and that this is all somehow extremely easy. It's not easy for any business, we've had a nightmare and I'm not even in one of those affected sectors it's desperate times for hospitality, so people are resorting to desperate measures.

Wait until this all kicks in properly, as it hasn't yet, this debt noose will cripple companies for the next 1,3,5,10 years, and that will take employment with it.

This will backfire for Tomohawk too mind, as now all they've done is made themselves look like ****., and loads will boycott it. They should have released some sort of statement, and quickly.
 
The Tomahawk chicken outlets have a connection to a certain public house in Stokesley that has attracted a lot of publicity/notoriety during lockdown...
 
Could expanding into failing restaurants during a pandemic actually be a good idea? Perhaps picking up places like Bistrot Pierre for a song, without the need to do much other than redecorate may actually pay off in the long run.
 
Back
Top