Why? Is there something tyrannical about a company seeking to ensure the viability and cost of its supply chain?
Printable View
All existing contracts will remain in UK until end of life, last one 2023, all replacement contracts starting in 2022 commence in EE. The factory will now close regardless of whatever the future Brexit course takes.
We moved the major contract from Japan to UK in 2017 due to the "must be made in EU clause", we now have to move that into an EU country.
It's soul destroying, I spent the last 18 years pulling in manufacturing contracts from Czech, Hungary, Thailand, China, Japan & Mexico, quadrupled the size of the business, employed 300 extra staff and it will all be gone in a few years time.
Nope, I disagree and I think you are completely wrong.
I think you over-estimate the ability of management teams who proved to be failures; the drag that massive (rising) rental costs have on retailers with declining revenues; and the weight that a massive debt puts on a company's balance sheet.
There will always be a straw that breaks the camel's back but that doesn't add any credence to the argument that Brexit caused an outdated, poorly run travel agent to go bust because it simply didn't. I think you are suggesting that people held off booking foreign holidays; and/or fewer foreign holidays were booked, because of the devaluation of Sterling and/or tightening of discretionary spend by UK consumers in light of general Brexit uncertainty. That may have some impact on immediate cashflow and possibly turnover, but other companies I can think of are significantly increasing their package holiday offering so clearly there is confidence out there that Brits still want and will pay for their foreign trips, it's just that they don't want to do that with Thomas Cook any more. When you last thought of booking a flight or a holiday, did you think to yourself "I'd better pop into town to speak to Thomas Cook"? And even if you did, what do you think that the 18-30 year olds do when they want to book a holiday?
There is a place for travel agents, but mid-market is not it. It's not fair to blame Brexit for this one.
The company decided to put the EU clause in. Presumably because it helped them in some way and being in the EU is 'better'.
You appear to be saying that we shouldn't have a situation where one place is better than the other, but because we do then we should leave the better place.
It may appear to you that that is what I’m saying, but actually what I’m saying is that the EU is like the worse kind of loan shark out there.
Come and tie yourself up in knots with us, doesn’t matter if your up to your balls in debt, and it will be all candy floss and marshmallows.
That is until the day you actually have the audacity to want to leave!!
On a football related note, tough times ahead for Wolves?
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sp...ky-escape.html
One of the major German automotive companies.
I don’t know the exact number as they were able to backfill with a new Japanese contract, whereas we’re unable to do that.
We have received zero from the EU to build on EE. We’ve obviously gone through a competitive tendering process and the decision was made on a multitude of criteria but we’ve not asked for or received any EU money.
Having a quick look of TCG a few months ago and losing out after buying shares, I would say they were always destined to fail when their assets weren’t worth what they thought.
They are just a brand and put too high a value on something intangible. The debts would have never been cleared.
Watch out for a negative Jaguar Landrover announcement today.
No one is forcing companies to work inside the EU. They do it because it's cheaper, it's convenient, it opens up a huge market.
It's a piece of piss to leave the EU. The problem is doing it without crashing the economy because so many businesses have prospered under it. They don't have a gun to our head, we could leave any time. Thankfully most MPs know that a no deal would be catastrophic.
It’s been widely reported that market uncertainty has had a significant effect on Thomas Cook due to Brexit.
It’s also well know that currency devaluation has played a large part in their problems, again due to Brexit.
I totally agree that Thomas Cook were still relying on an outdated business model, but the I believe spending the £200m was a risk worth taking to buy the company some time to reorganise itself, maybe by selling off the airline.
The difference between them and TUI is that they were more reliant on the UK market, which is exposed... because of Brexit.
There are far greater differences between the two than just markets. TUI has changed quite a bit to differentiate itself by essentially taking over hotels to generate brand loyalty (eg Holiday Village). Which was good management. TUI also has a lot less debt.
And your two arguments don't really hang together anyway ( being i) Brexit caused the failure; and ii) Govt should have stumped up £200m to tide them over until they sort out their business model). Brexit isn't going away so if that's a significant reason for failure why would giving them time to sort out their business model help?
Government not allowed to bail out companies like TC, EU RULES........
Now if we were not in the EU we could do what we wanted......
Yes it is.....the fact that other countries choose to sometimes ignore the EU rules is another matter.
Well...you can read:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stat...uropean_Union)
and
https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-la...n-to-state-aid
As for RBS......ask Mr Blair.....