I'm losing my will to live...

[Vertigo]

It's a chemical photographic printer.

We're a digital photographic lab specialising in event photography - that mostly means school photos. The essence of the business is that it requires production of professional quality portraits at (relatively) low prices and to achieve this we have to have serious automation. So I wrote software to completely automate the workflow from order received on the internet to order being packed for postage. When we demonstrated this to the printer manufacturers (well partly demonstration and partly us making sure the idea was workable before we forked out all that money) they stated they had never seen anything driving their printer with the degree of flexibility that our software showed. Nearly all the other labs in the country use one (very expensive) software package for controlling the printer and frankly it is pants, which gives us a nice edge over our competitors!

[mosaix]

Banks and finance houses are aware of all the points that you make, Gary.

When I arranged a business loan with Lloyds Bank back in the 80's, all three directors and their partners (they weren't directors or employees) had to sign on a joint and several basis. In other words it matters not a jot who owns the house or even who has the most valuable assets - they will come after all of you to the maximum extent that they can.

[Vertigo]

Unfortuantely that's very much the impression I got too

[Gary Compton]

Originally Posted by mosaix

Banks and finance houses are aware of all the points that you make, Gary.

When I arranged a business loan with Lloyds Bank back in the 80's, all three directors and their partners (they weren't directors or employees) had to sign on a joint and several basis. In other words it matters not a jot who owns the house or even who has the most valuable assets - they will come after all of you to the maximum extent that they can.

I've never had my wife sign anything even when they asked. Keep her out of it, its a negotiation and they used to want your business. Not anymore though cos they have a sugar daddy called T Axpayer

Also when I started in 1983, I got an overdraft with Lloyds. My Dad introduced me to the manager and there were no guarantees or charges on property. (that did chnge as my borrowings went up) Currently I have a few friends with massive borrowings and their wives are not inc in any agreements so I will have to respectfully disagree with you on that one Mosaix

Regarding the Lloyds loan above I built a very successful business over 4 years in 83 but cos I was young I kept pushing so hard that I over-traded and ran out of money even though we were profitable.

Company went skint and I sat in front of the area manager owing him 43K, I was 30 and perhaps a little arrogant. I told him that he better get a deal together for me to buy their charge on my house, he said 43K and smirked. I said if the bank decided to play hard to get I would go to the papers and tell them that "Lloyds Bank were going to throw "a soon to be a mother," and husband (me) out of their home. I also said I would tell them how they threw money at me like there was no tomorrow (which they did) The little fat guy swallowed nervously and said he'd get back to me.

They did with a request for 7.5K which my Dad paid. I made sure that the charge got transferred to him and that protected me from my creditors. Even my Official Receiver in Bankruptcy couldn't get at the house. They tried in a court case but dropped it, my solicitor said it was because I was a formidable witness and they thought it was a waste of time.

Gary Compton 1 Lloyds Bank 0

[mosaix]

So Lloyds' approach to subsequent loan agreements were all your fault, Gary.

[Gary Compton]

Yes, I am quite proud of that little spat.

Richard Burton and Peter Andre f****d Elizabeth Taylor and Katy Price respectively and I did it to Lloyds Bank

Sits back and lights Castella cigar, comb-over drops across my brow but a big cheesy smile develops on my face.

[Ursa major]

Originally Posted by Gary Compton

Regarding the Lloyds loan above I built a very successful business over 4 years in 83 but cos I was young I kept pushing so hard that I over-traded and ran out of money even though we were profitable.

I recall** an accountant, most of whose clients were small to medium sized businesses, saying that three quarters of companies that go bust were in profit at the time of their bankruptcy. What they lacked was cash. Profit is just a number in a spreadsheet or on a piece of paper; you can't pay bills or wages with it.

He also said that when you're checking the assets of a company, there's no substitute for getting out of the office and seeing that the assets actually exist; you can't rely just on the paperwork.

(If there's anything the government ought to learn from business - not how to manage IT contracts, by the way: companies aren't necessarily that good at this - it's that a tick in a box is no substitute for having a look at what's going on. A target supposedly met is meaningless if no-one has checked that the tick represents any sort of reality.)



** - This was in about 1990.

[Gary Compton]

That's spot on Ursa. At the time if my memory serves me well, where am I by the way, we were owed 100K. Bellway the builder owed 50K of that. I went to see the MD and more or less begged him to pay early.

He wouldn't and 20 people lost their jobs and I started the biggest battle of my life. The Lloyds Bank episode was a chapter in that book.

Because, I wasn't a toff with connections, or a politician, or a banker - the vultures hovered over me for the next few years.

But as my father once said, "Gary you're like a bull with tits," he was right and I never gave up. Liquidation one day - a few pints with my brother and business partner that night - next day a new business was started with some of the old staff and contracts.

And one thing is, you learn far more from failure than you ever will with success

[J-WO]

Originally Posted by Gary Compton

Richard Burton and Peter Andre f****d Elizabeth Taylor and Katy Price respectively and I did it to Lloyds Bank

Though I wish you many, many years to come, I can't help thinking this would make one heckuva headstone.

[Venusian Broon]

It was fascinating seeing Jimmy Carr on the telly on Friday - 8 out of 10 cats. Another Angus Deayton moment. He genuinely looked shell-shocked. Obviously, for those that didn't see it, he was harpooned by everyone.

I think he'll survive though. Although I have to hold up my hand and state that I went to the same Cambridge College as him when I did my PhD, so I've got a tiny little bit of sympathy for him. Definitely not for his actions and not solely because of my connection, but really because he's got the balls to stand up, say sorry and take it all on the chin. And to do that in the Bearpit that is his profession.

Thinking about celebs from Uni, I unfortunately missed bumping into Rachel Weisz (Swoon) on the streets of Cambridge by a matter of months I think. . And her college was right next to mine - surely we could have bumped into each other and true love blossom...

[Ursa major]

I might think better of him when he's paid back the tax he should have paid, plus interest (at the rate we'd pay if we withheld tax).

Originally Posted by Venusian Broon

...but really because he's got the balls to stand up, say sorry and take it all on the chin. And to do that in the Bearpit that is his profession.

So he should. Yes, it's a bear pit, but the he's one of the more aggressive bears, isn't he? (I know this sounds harsh, but is having a thick skin really such a virtue?) To be fair, he didn't try to be clever and "ironic" about it, which is a good thing, and something I wasn't expecting. (I'll be generous and offer him 1% of a brownie point for this. )

But really, he only stands out because most people caught doing something dubious do anything and everything they can to avoid facing up to their behaviour. I recall hearing a story about a presenter on a Radio Four quiz. It's said that when it emerged that he'd been having an affair (probably not at the same time as a certain Home Secretary, but with the same woman), he arranged to have his family sitting in the front row during the recording of the show, to persuade the panellists to avoid the subject (or, at least, his involvement in the business). We, as the radio audience, were not aware of this ploy, and some may have thought the person involved was being brave to stay at the microphone. (All in all, a nasty piece of work, in my opinion, as was what he did.)

[Venusian Broon]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

So he should. Yes, it's a bear pit, but the he's one of the more aggressive bears, isn't he? (I know this sounds harsh, but is having a thick skin really such a virtue?) To be fair, he didn't try to be clever and "ironic" about it, which is a good thing, and something I wasn't expecting. (I'll be generous and offer him 1% of a brownie point for this. )

But really, he only stands out because most people caught doing something dubious do anything and everything they can to avoid facing up to their behaviour

I did say only a tiny little bit of sympathy, say 1% .

And I think because of where he is in public life and his reputation it was practically the only route he could go to rescue his career. Like I said I think he'll probably weather the storm because of it. (Concievably he could just take the money and run - I see on the Wikipedia page about him it states that he owns "an £8.5 million (unmortgaged) home in North London" !!! so he's got plenty for the rest of his life)

It will be interesting to see if others named do anything, say a certain Mr Barlow. Or will he just dissappear off the radar and wait till the public have forgotten about this?

And as for Cameron, a man who's father kept the family wealth off-shore, I am led to believe by certain reports in the press, (and where I assume they would have used similar scams to this to avoid tax payment) to talk about the morality of the issue....

[StormFeather]

I too saw the 8 Out of 10 Cats episode last night - really enjoyed it. Jimmy was squirming, and the panelists didn't let up on him, asking some pertinent and pointed questions.

I certainly don't condone what he's done, but I also can't speak from a moral high-ground in that if I was offered a legal way to reduce my taxes, despite it being tricky and immoral, I can't honestly promise that I wouldn't be tempted. Right now, I'd like to think that I wouldn't be, but if the situation presented itself . . .

One thing going round FB that made me think was the following - if the facts as presented below are true (it is FB, so am open minded about that, and don't have time right now to read into the ins and outs of the cases) then it does make for astonishing reading:

[Ursa major]

That is only one of the many reasons I said the following earlier in the thread:

Originally Posted by Ursa major

...HMRC - some of whose upper echelons haven't always smelt as rosy as they perhaps could have done (at least in my opinion, based on what I've read in, say, Private Eye)....

Their behaviour in selling off their own buildings to a company based in a tax haven and renting space in them is another. Private Eye claimed that even with no need to pay tax, the off-shore company was losing money. HMRC (or whatever it was called back then: this was some years ago) decided to pay the company more money in rent, thus covering the losses.


This prompts two questions:

1. Why should HMRC be concerned that their landlord is losing money?
2. Would you believe a company based in a tax haven when it claimed to be losing money? HMRC seemed to. (The whole point of putting company functions in a tax haven is to create unlikely losses in places where corporation tax has to be paid and creating profits where no tax is due. These companies are experts in creating losses on paper.)

[Venusian Broon]

Originally Posted by Ursa major

This prompts two questions:

1. Why should HMRC be concerned that their landlord is losing money?

My first guess would be that if the landlord has told HMRC that there is a possibilty that they are going bankrupt - then if this did happen there might have been a possibilty that HMRC would be turfed out of their buildings? Who knows what a future landlord would do. Better the devil you know?

But then the thought arises that 1) wouldn't a new landlord want something secure like a government department paying the rent 2) If no-one wanted it, couldn't the HMRC buy back the freehold or whatever it was for virtually nothing during the bankruptcy?

Originally Posted by Ursa major

2. Would you believe a company based in a tax haven when it claimed to be losing money? HMRC seemed to. (The whole point of putting company functions in a tax haven is to create unlikely losses in places where corporation tax has to be paid and creating profits where no tax is due. These companies are experts in creating losses on paper.)

Not knowing exactly what the company does, other than make property investments, who knows. I would assume that there had to be some form of regulation at the tax haven to ensure that you can indeed believe what they are saying (and chase them up if their lying).

Despite paying no cash, but making a loss, suggests to me that they have over-invested in properties, probably mostly unoccupied and on top of that I'd not be surprised at all if they have been completely unable to raise any money in the market (Markets have been nervous and quiet since 2008, so at least since then). So therefore they have assets which they have to maintain, and which they can't sell - hence I'd imagine that their cashflow (even for basic operational needs) is completly f**ked.