RE: TVR workers call for inquiry
Tuesday 6th March 2007
Closed: TVR's Bristol Avenue plantThe TVR ex-workers' union, the TGWU, has called on the government to conduct an inquiry into last week's sale of TVR by its Russian owner, Nikolai Smolenski, to a pair of US-based businessmen.
TVR workers call for inquiry
Dodgy goings-on in Blackpool, says TGWU
Closed: TVR's Bristol Avenue plant
This followed the fall into administration late last year of the main business, Blackpool Automotive, which owned TVR's intellectual property and its physical assets. The administrators then put the shell of the company, stripped of its debts, up for auction.
Bidders included engine designer Al Melling and the eventual winner, Nikolai Smolenski, who first bought the company in 2004 for an undisclosed amount, but which was thought to be around £15 million. He then pumped more money into the business but car sales were on what seemed to be an irretrievably steep downward curve.
After almost a year of declining economic activity at the company Bristol Avenue plant, the company went under, owing its ex-employees redundancy money.
Then, after winning the auction last month with a bid of about £2 million, Smolenski last week announced that he was selling the company to a pair of US-based business partners, Adam Burdette and Jean Michel Santacreu. The pair first dealt with TVR when they approached Smolenski with a view to importing the cars into the USA. They said there was a big market for British sports cars -- although they have yet to surmount the hurdle of tough US import restrictions, masquerading as emissions and safety legislation.
The new virtual car company will make cars somewhere on the mainland, probably at Bertone in Italy. A deal's due to be struck sometime this month. There will be some British input to the cars, with engines and gearboxes made by Ricardo, while other UK-based concerns will deliver interiors and other components.
Smolenski criticised the UK authorities saying they didn't support British business. But on the workforce, Smolenski was more apologetic, and told Car magazine that he felt for the workforce who had lost their jobs. "The workers have to be mad, they should be mad at me. I accept the blame. I realise it will not be easy for them to find a new job in Blackpool," he said.
Discussion
Ive noticed Smallendski is now trying to show empathy and concern for the workers after he decided to one up the entire workforce leaving them in the shit over a particularly difficult time of the year!
Smarmy little arsehole
I only hope some things are uncovered and Smallendski punished, but it wont happen
Smarmy little arsehole
I only hope some things are uncovered and Smallendski punished, but it wont happen
There is no reason to conduct an enquiry as everything was done legally, just like there was no enquiry after MGR went under and the directors walked away with millions.
In the final year of MGR the directors spent about £1million with Deloitte & Touche, that kind of money buys you a lot of accounting and legal talent and guarantees that nothing will trip you up. These people are always squeaky clean. Smolenski will be the same, an inquiry will find nothing that isn't above board.
Obviously legal duty and moral duties are two different things...
In the final year of MGR the directors spent about £1million with Deloitte & Touche, that kind of money buys you a lot of accounting and legal talent and guarantees that nothing will trip you up. These people are always squeaky clean. Smolenski will be the same, an inquiry will find nothing that isn't above board.
Obviously legal duty and moral duties are two different things...
Al450 is right, Smellyenski has the sort of "bought in" business and legal talent to ensure that he comes out smelling of roses and able to hold his head high. The carving up of companies and the stripping of business assets has gone on for years and will continue to do so.
The TGWU should look into whether they should have been making noises early on and not in hindsight. They may not have made any difference whatsoever but the workers would have been better informed.
The TGWU should look into whether they should have been making noises early on and not in hindsight. They may not have made any difference whatsoever but the workers would have been better informed.
What happened at TVR wasnt nice, wasnt clever, wasnt pretty.
But it wasnt a surprise. TVR was a niche product appealing to enthusiasts who could turn a blind eye to its more eccentric features, now Im not saying theres anything wrong with that, Im an enthusiast with the same weaknesses, unfortunately, TVR tried to move upmarket in a world that had moved on, in a market that expected better design and reliability than they could offer.
The saddest thing of all is that all these 'rescues' (Melling) and people 'fighting for them' after its all gone (TGWU) just prolongs the agony for the poor beggars who lost their jobs.
I agree the way comany finances are run as in MGR and possibly TVR are sinfull, but the government did diddly about MGR, just the same as they did with Maxwell and the pension millions. Old boy network, greasy palms or weak commercial laws? Probably all three.
Lets face it the 'image' of TVR is so tainted now, would it ever sell again??
Time to forget it.
I wish all the TVR ladies and gentlemen a rosier outlook for work in 2007.
But it wasnt a surprise. TVR was a niche product appealing to enthusiasts who could turn a blind eye to its more eccentric features, now Im not saying theres anything wrong with that, Im an enthusiast with the same weaknesses, unfortunately, TVR tried to move upmarket in a world that had moved on, in a market that expected better design and reliability than they could offer.
The saddest thing of all is that all these 'rescues' (Melling) and people 'fighting for them' after its all gone (TGWU) just prolongs the agony for the poor beggars who lost their jobs.
I agree the way comany finances are run as in MGR and possibly TVR are sinfull, but the government did diddly about MGR, just the same as they did with Maxwell and the pension millions. Old boy network, greasy palms or weak commercial laws? Probably all three.
Lets face it the 'image' of TVR is so tainted now, would it ever sell again??
Time to forget it.
I wish all the TVR ladies and gentlemen a rosier outlook for work in 2007.
As far as I can see it Smellyendski did nothing legally wrong. One thing that puzzles me is that I thought that it was the duty of the auditors to attempt to sell the business as a going concern. Surely this should have given more weight to those bids that were concerned with continuing to manufacture cars in Blackpool.
Maybe it's time for a Judicial review, The M.P for Blackpool should get off his backside and make someone in Parliament take notice.
Not only was Smolenski allowed to buy back the company, but to add insult to the whole cack-handed way he handled TVR, he sold it on again within days, no doubt at a profit!!!!
And as for honouring warranties but not redundancy payments, thats just a smack in the teeth for the workers, if he had any sense of honour or any idea what TVR was all about, he would have instigated a clause in the sale contract that TVR manufacturing should stay in Britain.
Not only was Smolenski allowed to buy back the company, but to add insult to the whole cack-handed way he handled TVR, he sold it on again within days, no doubt at a profit!!!!
And as for honouring warranties but not redundancy payments, thats just a smack in the teeth for the workers, if he had any sense of honour or any idea what TVR was all about, he would have instigated a clause in the sale contract that TVR manufacturing should stay in Britain.
Well, as I understand it:
If the business is in administration, the main responsibility of the administrator is to find a means to save the company so it can trade on. So, if Al melling had put in a good business plan, he could have even taken on the debts and paid £1; it happens. You will have to draw your own conclusions as to why he didnt get it.
If the business moves into receivership (often from administration if no buyer/rescue packaeg is found), the duty of the receiver (often the same people that were the administrators) is to raise the most money possible form the proceeds of sale of the company, it's goods or assets, in order to satisfy any creditors. Top bid should get the goods, but it doesn't always as the receiver can use his judgement as to which offer is most likely to produce the money...or just ignore a higher offer.
There are two problems with all this, it fosters a very cosy relationship between the receivers, auctioneers, finance companies, machine movers, factory clearance people, and the receivers can make a very very tidy sum by making sure the business is not sold, and the assets are stripped.
Also, the receiver puts its debt almost at the top of priorities, only pipped by HM Customs and excise (VATMAN).
Of course Im not suggesting this has happened with TVR, but Ive seen it happen enough times to realise its not unusual.
So, if your a struggling company, the last thing you want to do is take advie from an administration specialist, their opinion is far from independant, they will do their level best to roll you into receivership and take the biggest profit.
Alledgedly....of course
If the business is in administration, the main responsibility of the administrator is to find a means to save the company so it can trade on. So, if Al melling had put in a good business plan, he could have even taken on the debts and paid £1; it happens. You will have to draw your own conclusions as to why he didnt get it.
If the business moves into receivership (often from administration if no buyer/rescue packaeg is found), the duty of the receiver (often the same people that were the administrators) is to raise the most money possible form the proceeds of sale of the company, it's goods or assets, in order to satisfy any creditors. Top bid should get the goods, but it doesn't always as the receiver can use his judgement as to which offer is most likely to produce the money...or just ignore a higher offer.
There are two problems with all this, it fosters a very cosy relationship between the receivers, auctioneers, finance companies, machine movers, factory clearance people, and the receivers can make a very very tidy sum by making sure the business is not sold, and the assets are stripped.
Also, the receiver puts its debt almost at the top of priorities, only pipped by HM Customs and excise (VATMAN).
Of course Im not suggesting this has happened with TVR, but Ive seen it happen enough times to realise its not unusual.
So, if your a struggling company, the last thing you want to do is take advie from an administration specialist, their opinion is far from independant, they will do their level best to roll you into receivership and take the biggest profit.
Alledgedly....of course
Edited by dingocooke on Tuesday 6th March 16:29
whose backside is the lady MP for Blackpool on exactly? chedder said:
Maybe it's time for a Judicial review, The M.P for Blackpool should get off his backside and make someone in Parliament take notice.
Not only was Smolenski allowed to buy back the company, but to add insult to the whole cack-handed way he handled TVR, he sold it on again within days, no doubt at a profit!!!!
And as for honouring warranties but not redundancy payments, thats just a smack in the teeth for the workers, if he had any sense of honour or any idea what TVR was all about, he would have instigated a clause in the sale contract that TVR manufacturing should stay in Britain.
Not only was Smolenski allowed to buy back the company, but to add insult to the whole cack-handed way he handled TVR, he sold it on again within days, no doubt at a profit!!!!
And as for honouring warranties but not redundancy payments, thats just a smack in the teeth for the workers, if he had any sense of honour or any idea what TVR was all about, he would have instigated a clause in the sale contract that TVR manufacturing should stay in Britain.
What?
Judicial review? Into what? The legal purchase of a company in administration by the highest bidder?
If he "sold it on in days , no doubt at a profit" then why didn't the "buyers" bid for it with the administrators?
As for "instigating a clause in the sale contract that TVR manufacturing should stay in Britain" - where have you been for the past 6 months? It was him that decided to move the production in the first place! (And he probably still owns it anyway).
And the MP for Blackpool has "got off her backside" because shes got the DTI, the responsible government department, to look into the whole affair, for which she should be applauded.
I have learned via informed sources that it would seem the Melling consortium bid was actually higher than the Russians....however, I have no idea of figures involved. If this is correct makes you wonder what the hell has been going on. I have no idea of how business at this level works, but this whole TVR collapse, retake and sell on affair does have a really bad smell about it.
Alas it would seem TVR as a British Sports car is dead and all but buried, what a crying shame.
Edit to add: $25 million is the implied figure the Yank organisation has paid for TVR.
Alas it would seem TVR as a British Sports car is dead and all but buried, what a crying shame.
Edit to add: $25 million is the implied figure the Yank organisation has paid for TVR.
Edited by yzf1070 on Wednesday 7th March 04:49
yzf1070 said:
I have learned via informed sources that it would seem the Melling consortium bid was actually higher than the Russians....however, I have no idea of figures involved. If this is correct makes you wonder what the hell has been going on. I have no idea of how business at this level works, but this whole TVR collapse, retake and sell on affair does have a really bad smell about it.
That sounds like total horseshit. The administrators are duty bound to take the highest bid. AFAIK There are no other criteria whatsoever, their sole duty is to recover as much as they can for the creditors. To do otherwise would leave them wide open to legal action and they would not do it.
trackcar said:
but if Smolenski himself was the highest creditor would they not take that into consideration?
I'm pretty sure they don't. Because apart from anything else we are told that Smolenski was not a preferential creditor and therefore he will have ranked alongside all other creditors. But even if he was a preferential creditor the administrators have a duty to get the price price for all the creditors as the proceeds are shared. However, with Smolenski being the principal creditor one would assume that he could and would bid more than other bidders on the basis that a good chunk would be coming back to him.
Having said all of the above I'm not an accountant. But I've been to plenty of creditors meetings. Any insolvency practitioners care to shed light?
Gassing Station | General TVR Stuff & Gossip | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff