<a https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=7467335'> Year 12s: what will be the first way you research your future options? >>

Why is there not more anger over Phillip Green?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 20

L i b

Original post by Bornblue

Phillip Green took over BHS with the intention of asset stripping the company. He raided around an estimated 400-600 million from the pension pot.

Well, pension funds are based on investments. The fund's trustees in this case invested unwisely. I've got a pension fund that depends on investments, but ultimately I can hardly get up in arms if the fund managers cock the whole thing up. Usually, an individual is perfectly entitled to put his contributions elsewhere if they think it will bring a higher return.

As I understand it, he didn't take assets out of the pension fund. Indeed, he wouldn't have been able to. He took assets out of the wider company, which some are suggesting could've been otherwise injected into the pension fund to plug its deficit.

Ultimately though, there is a fair argument that he has not made a net benefit from this. An unprofitable BHS was hardly ideal, particularly when the wider group was essentially covering those losses.

Reply 21

Trapz99

It's kind of a boring story though, that's why no one cares

Reply 22

Sarah1778

As someone who was working for the company, I think we're not getting the justice we deserve.
It's fine for me because I was working part-time and a student, but I've seen co-workers panic and breakdown and question their lives because of the whole situation.
I really think Green should face some kind consequences rather than being able to buy fancy yachts and go on expensive holidays without being questioned.

Reply 23

Joep95

Original post by Anti-Jewry

Is Philip Green one of the progressive billionaire Zionists who finances the progressive Left? Maybe I'm thinking of another one...

I think that is George Soros

Reply 24

█▓▒░│۞│░▒▓█

Just the average 'successful' capitalist. Tax avoidance, sweatshops, asset stripping, etc. I am disappointed but not surprised.

Reply 25

Joep95

Original post by Bornblue

Why aren't you angry about it? Why should he get away with it just because he is rich? Why should he get away with blackmailing our elected politicians?

Posted from TSR Mobile

He shouldn't but it's the world we live in some people can get away with anything.

The politicians are in a tough situation if they reject any offer and fail to get any money then they will be crucified in the press and if they accept a offer the same will happen, I believe some of them will be considering what decision is most likely to get them reelected, the days of politicians actually standing for something is long gone now they only care about the paycheque so they will do or say anything to minimise the negative effects of a decision like this.

Reply 26

username878267

Original post by L i b

Well, pension funds are based on investments. The fund's trustees in this case invested unwisely. I've got a pension fund that depends on investments, but ultimately I can hardly get up in arms if the fund managers cock the whole thing up. Usually, an individual is perfectly entitled to put his contributions elsewhere if they think it will bring a higher return.

As I understand it, he didn't take assets out of the pension fund. Indeed, he wouldn't have been able to. He took assets out of the wider company, which some are suggesting could've been otherwise injected into the pension fund to plug its deficit.
.

What? Regardless of investments he took 400 million out of the pension fund to pay himself dividends and then sold the business to a serial bankrupter.

When 22,000 are dependant on that money for a pension it's abhorrent that he would strip so much money from the country to spend on yachts, leaving them without their pensions.

To top it all off he's tried to get MPs he doesn't like taken off Parliamentary committees and tried to bribe us to drop the investigations.

The fact that he's offered to plug some of the gap on the Co diction we drop the investigation very much makes it seem like he has something to hide.

If someone cheats the benefit system people are up in arms. If someone takes £400 million out of a company's pension pot, leaving the company to crash and burn we shrug our shoulders.

Posted from TSR Mobile

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 27

Another

Original post by Bornblue

When an ultra wealthy individual abuses the system, swiping the pensions of thousands and costing them their jobs you don't care at all. Yet no doubt if there was an individual who falsely claimed benefits you'd be all over it.

In a nutshell, this. I don't really know the logic behind it, but this is the way most people think.

Reply 28

Asolare

lol wtf the amount of you who don't care that thousands of workers have had their futures ruined thanks to this ******* is astonishing. I wouldn't be surprised if you were right-wing as I'd expect nothing less from people who always put business before individuals.

Reply 29

niteninja1

Original post by Bornblue

It's not his money though. It was the money of thousands of employees who had been paying into their pension pot which he took.

Posted from TSR Mobile

He didn't actually raid the pension pot he just took so much of the company profits each year that their was a shortfall.

HOWEVER WHY IS IT HIS RESPONSIBILITY he sold the company. It's just business yes he could have taken smaller dividend but he was not required to.

Reply 30

Andy98

Never heard of him

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 31

Fullofsurprises

Original post by L i b

He seems to have been very keen to dump the company and get it off his books, but his choice of purchaser seems to have been designed to ensure that both he and the purchaser got to milk the company in its dying throes, which is hardly in line with the spirit or wording of British company law regarding Director's responsibilities. It's quite clear that they both knew it was going belly up and decided to take out as much money as they could get away with rather than showing the slightest concern for employees or other shareholders.

On the tax thing, people are being pessimistic in the thread, but a simple law that states that profits made here must be taxed here would set the basis of a much improved situation. It's really outrageous that entirely due to manipulating the geographical base of ownership, the historic profits of Arcadia are not taxed here. Effectively, anyone who is rich and a business owner can voluntarily opt out of tax. That can't continue and the only reason our government doesn't act on this is that senior people within the ruling party are in cahoots with these industrial-scale tax dodging creeps and the vile countries they hide in like Monaco, a 'country' that exists only in a fictional sense where depraved people spend their days gambling and bulk-buying Rolls Royces.

Reply 32

Fullofsurprises

Original post by niteninja1

Directors are required to keep shareholders informed of the true factual position of the business (he didn't) and also they are not free to simply download cash from the business to themselves if it is in trouble and there are debts to settle, for example, to the pension scheme.

What Green and the others did is probably illegal, but British company law is poorly enforced and he is rich and we have a Tory government.

Reply 33

KingBradly

Original post by Bornblue

It's less about their closing and more about the taking of their pensions and the blackmail of our politicians.

Typical. When an ultra wealthy individual abuses the system, swiping the pensions of thousands and costing them their jobs you don't care at all. Yet no doubt if there was an individual who falsely claimed benefits you'd be all over it.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I don't really care about people falsely claiming benefits either. Its bad yeh but I find it very difficult to give a damn.

Reply 34

username1533709

Its because he is not muslim.

Reply 35

InnerTemple

He's a perfectly respectable man who has made lots and lots of money. People should be looking to him as a positive example.

Now, if we can move on from this and get back to hurling some vitriol at single mothers or disabled people. Thank you very much.

Reply 36

niteninja1

Original post by Fullofsurprises

Actually the pension scheme is its own company which is funded via employee contributions and employer top ups.

Reply 37

woodchuck

i don't know how, and i'm no pensions expert, but it seems what he did was legal, if morally questionable.

as far as i'm concerned the government should not call off an inquiry in exchange for the £300m but fully investigate what went wrong, if there is any blameworthy behaviour and what can be done in future to prevent this sort of pension raiding happening.

as recently as 2008 the pension fund was in £3.4m of surplus. it was after this that the deficit started ballooning. the £400m of dividends paid to green were paid years before this.

the reality is that this is not as simple as 'green raided the pension fund' to pay himself huge dividends. people like to simplify things they do not understand but that cannot be done here. green has also failed dismally in his PR, in contrast to someone like mike ashley. this fuels further resentment towards him.

Reply 38

L i b

Original post by Bornblue

What? Regardless of investments he took 400 million out of the pension fund to pay himself dividends

No, he didn't. He could not take anything out of the pension fund, and it was controlled independently. That's simply false.

BHS hasn't paid any dividends since 2004. It last made a profit in 2008. When he took dividends, it was not suffering dire problems - which is a perfectly normal thing to do.

The fact that he's offered to plug some of the gap on the Co diction we drop the investigation very much makes it seem like he has something to hide.

So it seems he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

Original post by █▓▒░│۞│░▒▓█

Just the average 'successful' capitalist. Tax avoidance, sweatshops, asset stripping, etc. I am disappointed but not surprised.

Except of course that there's very little suggestion he did well out of this. It would have benefited him to have a successful BHS - but it wasn't. Business ventures sometimes fail and BHS had its day long before he arrived on the scene. Similar stores like C&A, Debenhams and even M&S have all had their share of problems.

Reply 39

L i b

Original post by Fullofsurprises

He seems to have been very keen to dump the company and get it off his books

Strange given that he has given a huge portion of his working life over to BHS, which hasn't been turning a profit for many years - and in fact has been racking up big losses for quite a while. Losses propped up by his other businesses.

If he'd been keen to get rid of it, he could've done it a long time ago. If anything, he left it too late and so got caught in with all this when it failed.

It's quite clear that they both knew it was going belly up and decided to take out as much money as they could get away with rather than showing the slightest concern for employees or other shareholders.

How did he take money out of BHS at the point it was going "belly up"?

Original post by woodchuck

green has also failed dismally in his PR

Yes, from what I understand he saunters around with two pre-Smartphone mobiles and journalists simply have his personal phonenumber. He doesn't have his own PR people - which is really quite extraordinary for a man in his position.