SKYTREX - former ownership

[hmrspaul]

What has any of this to do with Skytrex?

[Kenton]

 

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

technically, yes, but usually most creditors will agree under negotiation - they may not like it but as I indicated often something is better than nothing.

 

 

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...

Remember the agreement is time-limited. Most companies that did this do charge a fee and like most accountants and tax advisers they get theirs up-front (after all who would trust such a debtor?) It is a complicated thing to get right and as with all skills comes at a price. The debtor could do everything for themselves but they clearly do not have the skill to run their business.

 

 

What has any of this to do with Skytrex?

Perhaps you need to read the whole topic along with the newspaper links and then particularly the post#122 to appreciate the connection. But I guess any business advice and information is relevant to any other business that may be going "In administration" as per the title.

[CME and Bottlewasher]

Hi all,

 

The whole of this case is an interesting case/subject study relative to business and the business of model railways (and how much the original Skytrex thought that they would make from the hobby etc etc.). In short it aint easy and I admire anyone who sets up a successful business in this particular market place.

 

It could be argued that private investors should be looked after rather than the company's suppliers because the suppliers - as 'experts' in business - should have known better. Yet it is sad for anyone to loose money in this way, not to mention, morally wrong.

 

IMHO though there appears to be too many businesses in the UK that go bust one day and eg start up as a very similar company the next (eg. in a relations' name etc.) - something needs to be done about that.

 

'Max Keizer' or no, it is useful for many of us to understand how challenging business is and perhaps, more importantly, how challenging running a company supplying and/or manufacturing model railway products is.

 

There are specific key issues that are required to run a model railway business successfully.

 

I cant agree that the subject matter has to be kept 'non political' (after all this isnt a lodge meeting) as one has to be aware that big business controls governments and governments control us, it used to be religion, it is now big business (perhaps the two are the same for some?). In addition, when assessing a business/market place and it's 'health', one of the - basic/useful - tools used is P.E.S.T (Political, Economic, Social, Technological). PEST is a useful - and basic - litmus test and the clue, re. our world's interconnectedness, is in the phrase. LOL!!

 

I hoped, with my Post yesterday, to bring to a close some of the speculation. I believe that the BBC were being factual (and the info is now fully in the public domain) so I thought that a Post on the subject would help. Having mentioned this I have seen the BBC being skewed in their reporting of a subject and in doing so serving the establishment (in documentaries), but in this case I dont think that there was an 'axe to grind' as far as the BBC were concerned.

 

Kind regards,

 

CME

[Kenton]

 

IMHO though there appears to be too many businesses in the UK that go bust one day and eg start up as a very similar company the next (eg. in a relations' name etc.) - something needs to be done about that.

I am not sure what? There have been many very successful business where the entrepreneur behind them has followed on from a business failure. Indeed, it could be said that learning from a failure and overcoming that is a key to business success. But that is to separate the Alan Sugars of this world from those that run a scam of repeatedly ripping individuals off.

 

 

I cant agree that the subject matter has to be kept 'non political' (after all this isn't a lodge meeting)

But it is a forum where there are rules on content. Politics (particularly hard inter politic part squabbles) often lead to topic closure and "heat" between members.

[jamie92208]

Goingb back to a previous post about people being asked to put money into the business by hammond, something similar happenned a few years ago in the O gauge world.  Janick kits had been acquired by Oldbury models and traded for a few months but then I got a rather strange request from Oldbury offerring me the chance to invest in the business.   A few months later Oldbury went under and from what I can gather many of the aptterns and nmoulds were put ina skip outside the premises.   I'm glad that I didn't invest but was also saddenned that a good range of models had dissappeared.  fortunately some things were salvaged from the business and many of the coach and loco kits are still available from other suppliers.  however teh tale of Janick and Oldbury pointed up the problem which occurs quite often of poor business skills in the trade.

 

 

Jamie

[Jonboy]

  I am not sure what? There have been many very successful business where the entrepreneur behind them has followed on from a business failure. Indeed, it could be said that learning from a failure and overcoming that is a key to business success. But that is to separate the Alan Sugars of this world from those that run a scam of repeatedly ripping individuals off.

 

 

The real improvement I would like to see would be a compulsory period where creditors should be able to exercise their retention of title clauses before a pre-pack administration can occur.

[Barnaby]

Hello Jamie, seeing your post above reminds me to ask about the Lincs coupling a friend of yours took over and was going to make them available again.

As you know those promises of soon have never materialised despite having the etches redrawn and samples made.

Any update or is this another business that has failed.

 

Regards

[jamie92208]

Hello Jamie, seeing your post above reminds me to ask about the Lincs coupling a friend of yours took over and was going to make them available again.

As you know those promises of soon have never materialised despite having the etches redrawn and samples made.

Any update or is this another business that has failed.

 

Regards

I saw Richard at Warley in November.  he is still progressing with them.. I tink he said that he was trying to redesign the assembly jig but the project is not dead.

 

Jamie

[Barnaby]

Thanks Jamie I remain hopeful.   I have the jig in fact more than one scattered about, it is a simple plate with a slot and a bend in it.  I'll be interested in what the redesign consists of, maybe change the initials?

[CME and Bottlewasher]

 

 

  I am not sure what? There have been many very successful business where the entrepreneur behind them has followed on from a business failure. Indeed, it could be said that learning from a failure and overcoming that is a key to business success. But that is to separate the Alan Sugars of this world from those that run a scam of repeatedly ripping individuals off.

 

 But it is a forum where there are rules on content. Politics (particularly hard inter politic part squabbles) often lead to topic closure and "heat" between members.

 

Change the legistlation for such - a business that is poorly run and then goes bust, whilst taking others' money with it, is not really appropriate in terms of trial and error as you imply.

 

Alan Sugar appears to be the exception to the rule (or is he), I am beginning to wonder - in this capitalist society - if selling rubbish whether it is TV programming or products seems to be the accepted norm, rather like the 'emperor's new clothes', with all of us being hoodwinked, yet being like Sugar et al seems to secure a Knighthood...so who am I to say, or are the priorities skewed?

 

There is no 'heat' between members - from my point-of-view - and it must be realised that, when, discussing business there is a link betweeen business and politics etc.we dont have to be 'political' about such though!

 

Kindest,

 

CME

[Mike Bellamy]

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS POSTING IS ABOUT THE ORIGINAL SKYTREX BUSINESS AND DOES NOT AFFECT THE CURRENT OWNERSHIP WHICH CONTINUED TO TRADE USING THE SAME NAME

 

 

BBC news report that John Hammond has been sentenced to 6 years for Fraud

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-36464141

 

Also local newspaper

 

http://www.loughboroughecho.net/news/local-news/former-loughborough-dentist-john-hammond-11435006

 

 

 

EDIT to add Loughborough Echo link

 

.

[CME and Bottlewasher]

PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS POSTING IS ABOUT THE ORIGINAL SKYTREX BUSINESS AND DOES NOT AFFECT THE CURRENT OWNERSHIP WHICH CONTINUED TO TRADE USING THE SAME NAME

 

 

BBC news report that John Hammond has been sentenced to 6 years for Fraud

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leicestershire-36464141

 

Also local newspaper

 

http://www.loughboroughecho.net/news/local-news/former-loughborough-dentist-john-hammond-11435006

 

 

 

EDIT to add Loughborough Echo link

 

.

Hi Mike,

 

Thanks for Posting - a sad, sad situation all around. One or two have tried to declare that Hammond was merely misguided, but I always had my doubts. Eg. him Hoodwinking a 93 yr old lady pensioner out of £60k is not misguided, it's immoral.

 

I see that JH has grown his beard and changed his hair-style, let us hope that he has learned empathy and repentance and thus changed his morality and his ways. I agree it is easy for someone to make mistakes in business and the UK seems to be very poor in educating youngsters in the ways of finance let alone turning out good managers, yet a man with a degree in dentistry should be of a certain intelligence and thus realise what he was doing/did do was wrong. Sadly it has become very apparent, especially since 2008, that many businesses and the individuals behind them are 'sociopathic/psychopathic businesses' with greed overcoming honour and empathy.

 

Lets hope justice has been served.

 

ATVB

 

CME

[polybear]

Perhaps this thread would now be better re-named to something along the lines of "Skytrex - under new ownership".  Anyone seeing the thread heading but not bothering to read the content may be under the incorrect illusion that Skytrex has gone under, which could have an adverse effect on the new owner's business.  Just a thought.

[Mike Bellamy]

As I am the one who resurrected this topic, I have now reported it to Andy and the team to see if it can be done.

 

.

[Andy Y]

Now retitled; thanks Mike.

[CME and Bottlewasher]

Perhaps this thread would now be better re-named to something along the lines of "Skytrex - under new ownership".  Anyone seeing the thread heading but not bothering to read the content may be under the incorrect illusion that Skytrex has gone under, which could have an adverse effect on the new owner's business.  Just a thought.

 

 

As I am the one who resurrected this topic, I have now reported it to Andy and the team to see if it can be done.

 

.

 

 

Now retitled; thanks Mike.

Hi All,

 

Im not sure that the new title is appropriate? Why? because it refers to the new Skytrex and they, apart from being ex-employees and subsequently successful and honest in their endeavours have nothing to do with the issues that surround the infamous John Hammond. Im not sure what it should be named though....

 

I will alert Andy Y.

 

Kindest,

 

CME

[North Eastern]

Hi All,

 

Im not sure that the new title is appropriate? Why? because it refers to the new Skytrex and they, apart from being ex-employees and subsequently successful and honest in their endeavours have nothing to do with the issues that surround the infamous John Hammond. Im not sure what it should be named though....

 

I will alert Andy Y.

 

Kindest,

 

CME

Better still now the title has been changed to reflect the previous ownership it should be locked, and a new thread started with the correct name of 'Skytrex (2013) Ltd'. This would ensure the new business can have a page for themselves and not get confused with the previous business.

 

Regards

Chris

[CME and Bottlewasher]

Better still now the title has been changed to reflect the previous ownership it should be locked, and a new thread started with the correct name of 'Skytrex (2013) Ltd'. This would ensure the new business can have a page for themselves and not get confused with the previous business.

 

Regards

Chris

Hi Chris,

 

Yes, I pondered that too.

 

As long as the new company is differentiated on here as Skytrex 3013 do a good job.......perhaps now's the time for a re-brand if the new company can afford it?

 

Kindest,

 

CME

[ELTEL]

Surely it is rebranded as Skytrex (2013 Ltd)

 

Terry

[Barnaby]

Yes it is Terry.

[CME and Bottlewasher]

Surely it is rebranded as Skytrex (2013 Ltd)

 

Terry

It is Terry, but what does that have to do with the price of eggs??

 

I have to assume that your all too brief reply is in regard to my comments about a possible FULL re-brand at this time for SKYTREX (2013)? 'SKYTREX 2013' seems like, IMHHO, a stopgap measure of a company name- ie to let customers/potential customers, back in 2013, know that the company is still trading in the same products, under new, reputable, management, with all the good links to the past and none of the bad. But from a student of management's POV, that no longer, so it would seem, appears to be serving the company as well as it could.

 

Im not a fan of re-brands, per se, as they are usually performed to hide shoddy/slipshod behaviour of big businesses - but in this case the clue is in the title (of this thread and the company name) the fact that the new owners had to place '2013' at the end of the company name signifies that they obviously wish to emphasise that it was, three years ago, a different company from JH's ponziesque organisation. Having '2013' on the end of the company name doesn't, IMHHO, scan right and the fact that there has been mild confusion on this Thread indicates to me that with the new company being three years down the road, and established as a reputable company, it could be time for a change of name - so as to establish its own, reputable brand, thus standing on its own two feet as it were.

 

I hope that clarifies your brief one-liner?

 

CME

[polybear]

I'm no lawyer, but the change of name (and all that goes with it) I suspect separates the current company from the previous from a legal aspect.  It doesn't necessarily mean that the staff and management are different though (as in Skytrex, it seems that some staff are the same, though tricky dickie is no longer involved).  Some companies use the tactic of changing names etc. in order to avoid liabilities such as warranties (building, double, glazing, damp proofing spring to mind here).

 

Calling Skytrex something completely different may not be such a good idea.  For example, if you were to browse an old copy of RM etc. and see an ad for a Skytrex XYZ you may wish to purchase one.  A Google will quickly find the Skytrex 2013 website; a completely different company name selling the same (rebranded) product may well cause confusion and perhaps a lost sale.

HTH

Brian

[CME and Bottlewasher]

I'm no lawyer, but the change of name (and all that goes with it) I suspect separates the current company from the previous from a legal aspect.  It doesn't necessarily mean that the staff and management are different though (as in Skytrex, it seems that some staff are the same, though tricky dickie is no longer involved).  Some companies use the tactic of changing names etc. in order to avoid liabilities such as warranties (building, double, glazing, damp proofing spring to mind here).

 

Calling Skytrex something completely different may not be such a good idea.  For example, if you were to browse an old copy of RM etc. and see an ad for a Skytrex XYZ you may wish to purchase one.  A Google will quickly find the Skytrex 2013 website; a completely different company name selling the same (rebranded) product may well cause confusion and perhaps a lost sale.

HTH

Brian

Hi Brian,

 

Yes it is a tricky one and not a decision to be taken lightly, but the damage of not changing the name/re-branding would have to be weighed against keeping the name the same, or similar, and thus being mistakenly associated with the old company.

 

A change of name/re-branding needs to be done in such a way as to connect, in the most positive way possible, with eg. SKYTREX (2013), whilst leaving the name behind.

 

But hey, its not our/my company so.......I merely mention these things because of some of the confusion with this Thread, if one perhaps multiplied said confusion across the market then, a name change and re-brand could be a good option, cost also comes into it of course.

 

ATVB

 

CME

[daifly]

Tell that to Rolls Royce. They weren't a 'shoddy or slipshod' company. In 1971, Rolls-Royce was crippled by the costs of developing the advanced RB211 jet engine, resulting in the nationalisation of the company as Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited. In 1973, the car division was separated from the parent company as Rolls-Royce Motors. Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited continued as a nationalised company until it was privatised in 1987 as Rolls-Royce plc. They are still the makers of some of the finest aeroengines in the world. I've been using them for 44 years.

Dave

[ELTEL]

Tell that to Rolls Royce. They weren't a 'shoddy or slipshod' company. In 1971, Rolls-Royce was crippled by the costs of developing the advanced RB211 jet engine, resulting in the nationalisation of the company as Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited. In 1973, the car division was separated from the parent company as Rolls-Royce Motors. Rolls-Royce (1971) Limited continued as a nationalised company until it was privatised in 1987 as Rolls-Royce plc. They are still the makers of some of the finest aeroengines in the world. I've been using them for 44 years.

Dave

Dead right, I really don't know or care what all the fuss is about.

 

Long live Skytex 2013