SKYTREX - former ownership

[ZiderHead]

I think if the new business had been well advised they would have been better starting with a new name and a clean sheet to rectify the issues with the old product. I do not think there is much goodwill left in fact the name and high debts of the old company should be ringing big alarm bells with any new creditor. The new business should be at pains to avoid all association and that should start with a completely new name.

 

Agreed, any goodwill would be with respect to customers, there is certainly none from the suppliers' perspective. Even that seems rather hopeful given comments about the product/pricing on this and other forums. Creating a new brand from scratch would seem the sensible option here which makes me wonder what exactly is worth reviving from the old company. The business model was plainly disastrous which pretty much just leaves staff and plant. Management buyouts to keep failed businesses running don't have a great record for good reasons. Anyone here bought a new Rover recently? 

[Kenton]

I think we also have to be careful in terms of receivers and the various asset classes available to be disposed of. HMRC will have something to say if fully or partially depreciated assets are sold off at a profit or if stock is sold at higher than book price. The receivers are not there to run a business. On the other hand administrators have a duty to try to operate a business as a going concern to sell the business as a whole (or part). So there is a difference. So there could be a fair distinction between a new business purchasing the factory and its debts as opposed to someone purchasing the written off machinery to start a new business elsewhere.

 

It has been quite common for one business to take over a failing business and to dispose of all its liabilities (staff, factory, out dated creditor contracts) and cherry pick the products, assets and customers.

 

One of the reasons why management buyouts fail is although they may be good at the production and even sales side of the business they invariably do not have the complete overall business knowledge or financial acumen.

[CME and Bottlewasher]

  and share capital of £2 ? :evil:

 

On the subject of shares - whatever happened to my GWR shares when they were nationalised ?? Risk of political interference in business or business conditions is simply another one of the risks that need to be analysed by any investor (anything from additional red tape or taxation changes to direct interference in the business such as price fixing (limiting rail ticket price increases) or controlling the market (environmental subscription).

 

In the RT case twas nigh on impossible.

 

The main issue is that, sadly, we, as a nation seem to allow injustice and capitalism to run riot. Although I am not politically minded capitalism has become like a serpent swallowing its own tail - and not in the alchemical sense - in that the beast is feeding off of itself and we are all caught up in its coils.

 

Whilst I agree that basic tools such as SWOT and PEST can and should be used by potential investors, what has gone on in terms of RT et al. was immoral and no one - joe public in particular - could have legistlated for such. Our 'elected' government is there to serve not the other way around, in the case of RT they, in effect stole shares and then, when challenged in court, side-stepped the issue and changed laws etc. I dont think that most businesses would get away with such behaviour/would be allowed to be, but the then govt. did.

 

Could you have predicted that? I doubt it, no one could, unless they had a crystal ball. The only thing that anyone, with second sight may see, is that we are all being hoodwinked by big business.

 

The UK population sits, unknowing, whilst industry cosys up to senior civil servents/govt. The Banks, the oligopoly that is/are the utility industry (sic), the insurance industry, the water supply/treatment industry (another oligopoly cartel), the communications industry et al. all have there multiple tendrills in/on the govt and in the meantime we are all being royaly ripped off. Add to that other organisationss such as The Crown Estate et al. and we will soon find that we dont own the land under any freeholds that we may have...

 

The fundimental flaw in all of this is human ego (greed) and how such often runs unchecked to the detriment of us all.

 

Kind regards,

 

CME

[CME and Bottlewasher]

The whole thing requires further investigation, IMO

 This is no trifling sum and is very high for an individual.

 

Also, bankruptcy is not what it used to be and there are ways of starting and even running a company in this state. Without the shame that it used to be, it is now used by many as a mechanism to get-out of a financial mess.

 

I think if the new business had been well advised they would have been better starting with a new name and a clean sheet to rectify the issues with the old product. I do not think there is much goodwill left in fact the name and high debts of the old company should be ringing big alarm bells with any new creditor. The new business should be at pains to avoid all association and that should start with a completely new name.

 

I agree.

 

If I were the new owners I would certainly want to re-brand (more than appropriate in this case) and distance myself from SKYTREX, perhaps using a new name that was more appropriate Traintrex maybe <sniggers> - I'll get me coat!

 

ATB

 

CME

[Barnaby]

CME, hello
 

The old name at least tells you what the product range is.  Changing the name completely would only cause people to say " oh that was SKYTREX" so best to embrace the old name but sufficiently changed to announce new ownership then emphasise the new owners.

IMO

I for one would like to see them continue and as such have already placed a small order.

 

Regards

[CME and Bottlewasher]

CME, hello

 

The old name at least tells you what the product range is.  Changing the name completely would only cause people to say " oh that was SKYTREX" so best to embrace the old name but sufficiently changed to announce new ownership then emphasise the new owners.

IMO

I for one would like to see them continue and as such have already placed a small order.

 

Regards

Hi Barnaby,

 

Only time will tell - yet to my mind the word/name Skytrex is slightly tainted now.

 

I agree though that keeping the name the same makes for an almost seamless continuity for those customers who havent read this Thread - LOL!

 

Kind regards,

 

CME

[bennyboy]

I agree.

 

If I were the new owners I would certainly want to re-brand (more than appropriate in this case) and distance myself from SKYTREX, perhaps using a new name that was more appropriate Traintrex maybe <sniggers> - I'll get me coat!

 

ATB

 

CME

 

How about Skytrain?

[Barnaby]

Bennyboy . . . . .   and so the wheel turns and with the name Skytrain we're back to the rocket. 

 

I like it.

 

Regards

[trisonic]

Maybe Skytrex "failed" simply because they produced not very good locomotive models at very good prices.....

 

Best , Pete

[CME and Bottlewasher]

Maybe Skytrex "failed" simply because they produced not very good locomotive models at very good prices.....

 

Best , Pete

 

No doubt this is also an issue, yet what was behind the poor models? Skill, attitude, aptitude etc etc. (or lack thereof)??

BTW, PM me if you would like me to go through Post #107 rather than me replying in open forum.

 

Kind regards,

 

CME

[hmrspaul]

Maybe Skytrex "failed" simply because they produced not very good locomotive models at very good prices.....

 

Best , Pete

 

And also seemed to be producing new stuff at an incredible rate. It always fascinated me to see their stand at GoG exhibitions, considerable area, immense stock and few punters. It surprised me they lasted so long. Even if the rolling stock had been to a better more accurate standard I find it hard to believe they could make it profitable.

 

I wish them well, the lineside models of various types that they supply are very nice.

 

Paul

[CME and Bottlewasher]

Hi All,

 

In great haste, whilst waiting for a contractor to call for a quote, I switched on the TV and the 'The Sheriffs are Coming' was on, I was casually listening whilst doing some paperwork - and a dentist who owed lots of money to lots of people was mentioned, then I heard the name John Hammond was mentioned, my ears pricked up!

 

Evidently when the Sheriffs arrived at Hammond's home, Hammond's wife stated that he had sought an IVA (due within the week) and that no property or funds were available for seizure/payment and that in an Interim Order was also in place so as to protect Hammond and his family in the meantime. An IVA, means, that debt recovery is unenforceable.

 

The IVA was not in place when the Sheriffs called at Hammond's home, so 'peaceful entry' was taken by the Sherrifs, to the home, when Hammond's wife left the front door open (when she went to phone her husband). I believe that the Sheriff's seized items in the home 'on paper' etc. until Hammond could prove his excemptions.

 

The Sheriffs then went off to Hammond's Dental Surgery and his Jaguar was also seized 'on paper' etc. by the Sheriffs.

 

Hammond locked himself in his Dental Surgery (when he spied the cameras and the Sheriffs) - as he had locked himself in such was a first for the Sheriffs in question - Hammond, after quite some time, then sent an employee downstairs to the Sheriffs (who are waiting in the surgery's waiting-room with patients!)...Hammond proves that the paperwork (that his employee hands - over) means that due to his bankrupcy and the management thereof, Hammond does not have to pay a penny to any of the people he owes the money too.

 

I think that, as I started watching the programme part way through, 1-2 people were involved with chasing Hammond for money on the programme.

 

One chap (Andrew) was approached by his long term, friendly local dentist (John Hammond) for the opportunity to invest £100k in 'warehousing'. Hammond told the chap that his dental practice had a turnover £200k pa and that any investments were sound etc etc. This chap 'Andrew' is owed over £87k inc costs etc.- that's when he called in the 'Sheriffs'. Andrew never thought that his money was at risk as Hammond had a good dental business and Hammond promised regular interest payments etc with a personal guarantee. 'Andrew received two interest payments and was awaiting his third when Hammond approached him with another request for a short term loan - over 60 days - so Andrew then purchased shares in a vehicle which was to be very productive and rewarding' Andrew then loaned Hammond £35k for 60 days. The money never came back, when chased Hammond said that he 'had forgotten about the loan'! Hammond then explained that he needed more time to pay the loan back as he was struggling to pay, at that time all interest payments on a £10k loan had also stopped. Andrew, after further, later, conversations with Hammond, was told, by Hammond, that the money was not ever going to be coming back. Andrew than approached an IFA, who informed him that Hammond owed many, many people money. Andrew lost £45k in total of his own money.

 

Judging by the programme, Andrew looked to be a jewellery maker (not sure if that was his work or a hobby).

 

According to the programme John Hammond owes in excess of £7million!

 

Evidently many peoples' retirements have been ruined by Hammond with life savings etc now gone.

 

When Andrew took Hammond to Court, Hammond didnt contest the case (Andrew is now owed over £87k with costs and fees).

 

During the filming Hammond was spied dashing into his dental surgery - and to my eyes, he did look like the John Hammond.

 

I can remember one cottage industry model manufacturer telling me that, when Hammond started up in the model railway business, Hammond told the manufacturer in question that Skytrex would put him out of business! Charming!!

 

(All in precis and not verbatim).

 

I hope that adds some meat to the bone.

 

I would like to know, why, in this country, management is so poor and why, people, such as Hammond can get away with such things, so easliy. If his Dental Practice turns-over £200k pa, regardless of SBU's and Ltd. companies etc etc. he should be made to pay every last penny back. If Hammond was ill or injured a lost his ability to earn - thus pay back - such is a different matter. Sadly "takers get the honey and givers sing the blues".

 

When one see's how Hammond has behaved and what he has done to real people, it really brings it all home, I can't work out if Hammond was a fool or just arrogant, - perhaps both!

 

I have crashed this all down - apologies if any of this has been coverd before.

 

ATVB

 

CME

[cromptonnut]

Was it today's show?  If so, it'll be on Iplayer later and on BBC2 tomorrow morning repeated.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03qkjf4

[CME and Bottlewasher]

Was it today's show?  If so, it'll be on Iplayer later and on BBC2 tomorrow morning repeated.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b03qkjf4

Hi CN,

 

Yes it was.

 

I guess that I was in the right place at the the right time - weird.

 

ATVB

 

CME

[trisonic]

CME, That guy has certainly run out of Karma!

 

Thanks for the post.

 

Best, Pete.

[CME and Bottlewasher]

CME, That guy has certainly run out of Karma!

 

Thanks for the post.

 

Best, Pete.

Hi Pete,

 

Yes those were my thoughts too.

 

He will either come back as a pauper hounded by loan sharks (like gets like) or a lender who looses all of his money (retribution/learning) then...

 

Kindest,

 

CME

[Kenton]

 

I would like to know, why, in this country, management is so poor and why, people, such as Hammond can get away with such things, so easliy. If his Dental Practice turns-over £200k pa, regardless of SBU's and Ltd. companies etc etc. he should be made to pay every last penny back. If Hammond was ill or injured a lost his ability to earn - thus pay back - such is a different matter. Sadly "takers get the honey and givers sing the blues".

 

Simply a total lack of education of business practice and the stupidity of gullible 'public' who have money and no investment sense.

 

I came across many such "businessmen" in my days as a tax advisor who simply didn't have a clue about operating a business and often would not accept constructive advice. It is a very dangerous game mixing different businesses and business models and requires a great deal of expertise. Forming a Ltd company is so simple to do and very low cost. It requires no skills in finance, stock management, or the many other skill sets required to run a good business.

 

However, not all the blame should lie with the businessman. Investing perhaps life's savings on the basis of greed (some promise of quick money) rather than performing due diligence checks is just stupid. I can have no sympathy with investors in this case or any similar. You risk all if you also do not fully understand the business and frankly in such cases deserve what happens.

 

My sympathies (some) lie with the supply side creditors who may have lost out. I doubt if much of the amount quoted is actually owed to them though. It sounds as if most of that large figure is going to be the fools that "invested" and loaned without cast-iron guarantees. A fair proportion may also be tax owed to HMRC - VAT and Employment/Income taxes, often the prime instigator of "recovery" action.

 

The Bailiffs really only are called once a CCJ has been issued and to me, the businesses in this case seem to have delayed application for Bankruptcy or IVA (which I am very surprised that the conditions would have been met).

 

It is a sorry tale, but not that uncommon.

[CME and Bottlewasher]

 Simply a total lack of education of business practice and the stupidity of gullible 'public' who have money and no investment sense.

 

I came across many such "businessmen" in my days as a tax advisor who simply didn't have a clue about operating a business and often would not accept constructive advice. It is a very dangerous game mixing different businesses and business models and requires a great deal of expertise. Forming a Ltd company is so simple to do and very low cost. It requires no skills in finance, stock management, or the many other skill sets required to run a good business.

 

However, not all the blame should lie with the businessman. Investing perhaps life's savings on the basis of greed (some promise of quick money) rather than performing due diligence checks is just stupid. I can have no sympathy with investors in this case or any similar. You risk all if you also do not fully understand the business and frankly in such cases deserve what happens.

 

My sympathies (some) lie with the supply side creditors who may have lost out. I doubt if much of the amount quoted is actually owed to them though. It sounds as if most of that large figure is going to be the fools that "invested" and loaned without cast-iron guarantees. A fair proportion may also be tax owed to HMRC - VAT and Employment/Income taxes, often the prime instigator of "recovery" action.

 

The Bailiffs really only are called once a CCJ has been issued and to me, the businesses in this case seem to have delayed application for Bankruptcy or IVA (which I am very surprised that the conditions would have been met).

 

It is a sorry tale, but not that uncommon.

Hi,

 

By and large I agree.

 

I have been brought up in a family business environment, worked for blue-chips et al, studied business at post-grad level (taught a little) and there are times when I look at people and their businesses and think that they have gone where I would fear to tread!

 

I think that some empathy - as I said before - must also be given to the investors too, as they were hoodwinked and knew no better.

 

Sadly 'UK PLC' doesnt train up it's 'staff' very well - better business acumen can - and should - be taught in schools et al (then I would agree with you on the aspect of the investors being fools).

 

J. Clarkson et al were banging on about how much we manufacture in the UK - and I agree we manufacture a lot - sad part is that we dont own it and our debt is owned by others (China et al.). This shows that the UK continually drops the - business - ball. Our manufacturing base/IT is being targeted by certain developing nations' secret services with industrial espionage well and truley in mind.

 

Successive - myopic - UK governments have thrown the baby out with the bathwater and continue to do so as far as business and the education thereof is concerned as well as letting various industries fail (as they misquote/fail to understand Adam Smith), as they are only self interested short term contractors themselves (with a goodly level of incompetence thrown in too).

 

Who cares if the VAT/Tax departments get their share - we are already over-taxed in the UK.

 

Sadly as the Banks continue to get away with murder and interest rates et al are so poor - due to change if the 7% unemployment figure is reached - then 'foolish' investors will continue to try and improve their chances and pensions (sadly pension companies have been fleecing us all for years too) by investing in 'opportunities'.

 

Kindest,

 

CME

[trisonic]

Surely you can have "cast-Iron guarantees" and still be ripped off? An IVA (whatever that stands for) application seems to imply his non-Skytrex assets are protected at the expense of creditors.

 

However I agree that "buyer beware" still rules...

 

Best, Pete.

[Kenton]

&nbsp;

Who cares if the VAT/Tax departments get their share - we are already over-taxed in the UK.

 

I am a tax payer - so I object strongly to anyone fiddling their tax and evading paying what they are legally required to do (not I do not object to tax avoidance - as I see that it is the responsibility of government to design a tax system without such loopholes - principally that means simple - if anyone cares to look at the many thousands of pages of tax law it is pretty obvious it is far from simple) Most of tax law has been messed around and added to over the last 15 years. All the tax not collected has to be collected elsewhere usually by direct income or purchase tax increases or by reducing what we spend the taxes on.

 

&nbsp;

Surely you can have "cast-Iron guarantees" and still be ripped off? An IVA (whatever that stands for) application seems to imply his non-Skytrex assets are protected at the expense of creditors.

 

No, a "cast-iron" guarantee would be the physical transfer of assets. Consider it the same as pawn-broking or the way a bank takes a mortgage against a loan. An example could be I loan a business £10K in cash but take ownership of your car (valued at £10K) I may then lease the car back to you for use at a rate to cover interest on the loan and depreciation of the asset. You default I sell the car - it cannot be taken from you by a bailiff as it is mine. Similarly a mortgage on your home, just like the bank I can foreclose if you fail to make payments. In all cases you would buy the asset back/pay off the debt.

 

IVA (link) is a fairly new instrument to "get out" of paying back debts in full. They sound simple but are not easy to set up - it is an agreement between debtor and all creditors. The debtor has to have continuing income to be able to meet the agreed payments. It should only be obtained with legal and accountancy advice, there are situations where bankruptcy is a much better option (especially as the social stigma of such action is no longer an issue). The threat of bankruptcy is often used as part of IVA negotiation and creditors see IA as a way of cutting their loss. The debtor has to also realise that if the loss is cut too much they may be black listed and never be able to do business with that creditor again (eg utility company).

[daifly]

An example could be I loan a business £10K in cash but take ownership of your car (valued at £10)

 

I assume that you mean the car is valued at £10K?

Dave

[Kenton]

 

I assume that you mean the car is valued at £10K?

Dave

Thanks, yes - corrected silly typo - I need a proof reader (or new specs) ... for most of my posts

[Nimbus]

Successive - myopic - UK governments have thrown the baby out with the bathwater and continue to do so as far as business and the education thereof is concerned as well as letting various industries fail (as they misquote/fail to understand Adam Smith), as they are only self interested short term contractors themselves (with a goodly level of incompetence thrown in too).

 

[...]

 

Sadly as the Banks continue to get away with murder and interest rates et al are so poor - due to change if the 7% unemployment figure is reached - then 'foolish' investors will continue to try and improve their chances and pensions (sadly pension companies have been fleecing us all for years too) by investing in 'opportunities'.

 

We'll soon need to start a 'Max Keizer' thread!

 

The Nim.

[Kenton]

 

We'll soon need to start a 'Max Keizer' thread!

 

Let's at least try to keep it non-political and keep the bash the bankers, elected representatives and estate agents for the rest of the moronic media

[Jonboy]

 

IVA (link) is a fairly new instrument to "get out" of paying back debts in full. They sound simple but are not easy to set up - it is an agreement between debtor and all creditors.

 

I personally would change to "it is an agreement between debtor and the majority of creditors".

 

This is because if the majority of creditors (in terms of percentage owed - normally HMRC and whichever bank are involved) agree then many smaller creditors have the simple choice of write it off or face repayments over a silly amount of time. A typical case is a repayment of £1.50 a month over 17 years with no interest accruing.

 

This is because the debtor goes through a process of producing a statement of affairs(based as Kenton says on stable income) and works out the spare cash available. This is then divided up amongst creditors by: debt to that creditor/by percentage of total debt owed to all creditors. e.g. if you are owed £1K and debtors owes £100K to all creditors you receive 1% of their monthly payment...

 

There are also a bunch of parasites company's out who do all the arrangements for the debtors for a nice cut of each months spare cash, further increasing the time it takes to pay the debt...