Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

In the light of Recent events do my fellow Dakkanauts think it appropriate that a company takes money from Gamers without refunding or delivering the goods, then disappears, leaving gamers to claim the money back through Paypal or a Credit Card in their own time? Then said Owner, opens a new store and proceeds as if nothing has happened?

We have to become more demanding as consumers.

This is a tricky one.

Legally they don't have to do squat and have done all that is required of them. I could take a business is business approach to this but....

I think the company in question should do something, If only to selfishly preserve some level of credibility and trust.

As to being more demanding, well, you vote with your wallet.

I don't like 'phoenix' companies where a failing business reappears under a new name but with (basically) the same owner and will avoid them where I realise it.

I also don't like the US chapter 11 situation where a failing company seems to get an age to try and trade their way out of difficulty while not having to pay debts etc. Again I'd try and avoid businesses that have done so

but overall I'm a realist, I can't say I would always do so, and I wouldn't nessesarily expect everybody to either.

It's especially difficult where said businesses provide what might be seen as a nessesary service like the EOTS venue, while clubs, tournaments, shows etc might not approve at what's gone on but finding an aternate site that all participants can get to as easily at short notice might not be possible (especially if they've already paid). Similarly players at these events should not feel bad about attending them

howerver they probably should look for alternatives in the future, and players should concider whether they want to remain associated with events that do not........ but then again if it's your only local option it may come down to go there or stop playing.

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
I don't like 'phoenix' companies where a failing business reappears under a new name but with (basically) the same owner and will avoid them where I realise it.

I also don't like the US chapter 11 situation where a failing company seems to get an age to try and trade their way out of difficulty while not having to pay debts etc. Again I'd try and avoid businesses that have done so

but overall I'm a realist, I can't say I would always do so, and I wouldn't nessesarily expect everybody to either.

It's especially difficult where said businesses provide what might be seen as a nessesary service like the EOTS venue, while clubs, tournaments, shows etc might not approve at what's gone on but finding an aternate site that all participants can get to as easily at short notice might not be possible (especially if they've already paid). Similarly players at these events should not feel bad about attending them

howerver they probably should look for alternatives in the future, and players should concider whether they want to remain associated with events that do not........ but then again if it's your only local option it may come down to go there or stop playing.

I think it is hard choice to make. Though people see realist and read apologist instead. Local players won't have a choice, or have habits that are hard to break.

As for the phoenix thing. I have seen companies do this out of necessity, I have traded with some also. It comes down to what the actual situation is and whats been in it for me. Age and experience have made me a lot more pragmatic I guess.

It happens all the time and in every facet of business and trading; war gaming is not an exception. If you don't like it or agree with it then try and avoid these companies where possible (and I am aware it is not always easy to spot it). If you feel strongly about it, lobby your MP etc etc and wait for a change in the law. Until the bankruptcy rules are changed/amended/tightened, this sort of practice will continue to be fairly commonplace.

I was not aware of the situation with the company. It is very sad.

As a consumer I am fairly cautious. I do business with reputable shops, I do not preorder items, and do not order things that are out of stock. This way, if there is a problem I know about it quite quickly.

The complaint I have with phoneix companies is not so much that they re-start, rather that they re-start under the same owner

If there is a new owner (or part owner who brought in significant money), fair enough, and good for the staff too

If it's the same owner running effectivly the same business then it just smells bad (even if it is legal)

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:
The complaint I have with phoneix companies is not so much that they re-start, rather that they re-start under the same owner

If there is a new owner (or part owner who brought in significant money), fair enough, and good for the staff too

If it's the same owner running effectivly the same business then it just smells bad (even if it is legal)

Yeah, my concern with the phoenix companies that re-appear unchanged in all but name is that they have either been up to something dodgy, either due to practice (I've heard of dodgy car dealers, like that one on Watchdog recently having shut and re-opened a few times with subtle name changes) or as a tax dodge, or just that there is a chance that behave the same (especially if the penalty from dropping huge debts is the name changing hassle), and would be reluctant to risk much with them (be it huge orders or pre-orders etc).

Whilst I'm glad that the staff in the shop still have jobs, I'm disappointed in the way things were handled and the management, and will certainly not be risking using any related companies for a while.

Personally I have a big problem with customers (int he general public) being treated badly by businesses in insolvency. B2B transactions have a risk and due diligence and checking should be done before any credit is offered. They have the tools avalable to make those choices.

In my opinion in the case of bankruptcy two groups should always be treated as preferential creditors:
First, staff should have there wages paid.
Second , all effort should be made to fulfill customer orders.
Then everyone else.

Phoneixing has become a massive problem in some industry's. Construction, it is not unknown for companys to pheonix every few years to avoid paying tax. Factoring companys encourage it knowing there money is safe, due to the way they work.

However, the problem with the company that has started this is that they do not seem to have gone in to liquidation, they do not seem to have appointed an IP and they just seem to have stopped trading and started a new company.

Personally I tend not to trade with companys that phoenix on a professional basis, but I understand that is partly due to the industry I work in I am able to say no to them. I also work in an industry with low margins so need to protect my company from this risk. I have however traded with one or two companys that have phoenixed, where I have know the reasons for this and known that they needed to and have not taken people for a ride over it. This is what the law is there for, to let honest companys and individuals who have honestly run up debt they cannot pay reestablish.

I do not think the days of debtors prisons and debt being inherited need to come back, but I do think the law dose not 100% work as it is.

The question is, do we need new law, or do we need better enforcement of the current law. One of the problems we face is companys trading whilst insolvent. Something that is illegal, but too often credit managers let them get away with it. There are many reasons for this, but I won't go in to it here (partly because it gets in to a complex discussion over the roll of credit managers, and partly because it may turn in to a rant about sales people, which only other credit managers would understand, but already know all about so don't need to read )

Anyway, I will leave it at that now...; Its the end of my lunch brake and I have customers to chase and a pile of journals I really should find an excuse for not doing until Monday.

Personally, as a consumer, I would not continue to fund a company that behaved in this way if at all possible. Obviously, situations can come up that leaved you trapped with one option, which is regrettable, but wherever possible I would remove all of my custom from a company such as this (as I do tend to see it as the same company, in effect).

Business is business, certainly, and companies will often find a way to survive that comes at the expense of the consumer. It is in the power of the consumer to then withdraw any financial support they would give this company - this is often the only thing we can do, and this is what I would do with any company that has policies or have done things that I disapprove of.

As they say, vote with your wallet. It is your most powerful tool as a consumer.

Could someone please explain what happened? Or at least point me to a thread somewhere that does? All this dancing around "the company" makes me feel so lost as to what you guys are really talking about.

 Breotan wrote:
Could someone please explain what happened? Or at least point me to a thread somewhere that does? All this dancing around "the company" makes me feel so lost as to what you guys are really talking about.

All is laid bare here.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/464643.page

Yea, I figured it out almost immediately after I posted.

 Breotan wrote:
Yea, I figured it out almost immediately after I posted.

Ah well, at worst you provided a cautionary tale for others who come later.

 mwnciboo wrote:
In the light of Recent events do my fellow Dakkanauts think it appropriate that a company takes money from Gamers without refunding or delivering the goods, then disappears, leaving gamers to claim the money back through Paypal or a Credit Card in their own time? Then said Owner, opens a new store and proceeds as if nothing has happened?

We have to become more demanding as consumers.

Once bitten, twice shy.

If they behave that way, vote with your dollars and take your business elsewhere. YOU might be the one scammed next time.

Its not just the gaming industry mate, its the life industry. fethers go bankrupt all the time and cut and run. Case in point, it was on the radio today that a childcare place in York just closed down.. They took the monthly fees off everyone on the last day of October, and then when they dropped their kids off last Monday, all locked up, and a sign on the door saying "Sorry Bankrupt"

Its a fethed up thing to do.. I mean, they must have known what was going to happen before they took all that cash off people right? But that's life, its not just gaming by any stretch of the imagination. Personally I think we should reform the "bankrupt" system.

I saw a reality TV show with a teenage girl who sings at Butlins but thinks she is fething Whitney Houston.. she was in 40k of debt, and basically made a token effort of speaking with all these financial advisor's about paying it off, but obviously she just "regretfully" declared bankruptcy in the end.

I know scum-bags at work who have done it as well. They funnel all their stuff to friends, then declare, lose pretty much feth all, and then.. you got all your money for free, and what penalty?

Oh you cant get a mortgage or a credit card. Boo fething hoo.

If we actually hit the source, and put in enormous ramifications for going bankrupt because you are a douche-bag, then it would not just benefit the gaming industry, it would stop scum-bags getting away with robbing people period.

I say, if you go bankrupt, then you get chained to a registered sex offender and forced to work 12 hour days in a government owned sweatshop until your debt is paid off to the tax payers.

 mattyrm wrote:

I know scum-bags at work who have done it as well. They funnel all their stuff to friends, then declare, lose pretty much feth all, and then.. you got all your money for free, and what penalty?

Um, that would be illegal. Yes, people do that, but just because people brake the law to game the system dose not mean the system is broken, just that the law is not being properly enforced.

The effect for most people is massive. Belive me, most people who go bankrupt have had allot of problems, and have allot ahead.

Anyway, the discussion is about companys going in to liquidation, or entering a CVA, not people going bankrupt. They are two vary different issues.

They've made bankruptcy laws in the US a lot tighter in the last decade than they used to be to prevent the type of thing you just described, MattyM. A lot of people have not been left off the hook when they've tried to pull those shenanigans, much to their surprise.

I hope You-Know-Who goes under and their owner gets arrested for theft. I wish nothing but bad things for these guys. They knew they weren't going to send anything out but kept taking money anyway. Disgusting behavior.

Steve steveson wrote:


Um, that would be illegal. Yes, people do that, but just because people brake the law to game the system dose not mean the system is broken, just that the law is not being properly enforced.

The effect for most people is massive. Believe me, most people who go bankrupt have had allot of problems, and have allot ahead.

Of course its illegal! But its almost impossible to police, so is wellfare fraud, so is entering the UK illegally, people dont seem to do to badly out of that either. I know plenty of people who have gone bankrupt, they all did well out of it. One prick who I work with still has his £12,000 car.. feth knows how he managed it, but he is still driving it around, he also brags about how easy it all was. Ergo, I don't believe you, and I don't think they have that many problems ahead.

Steve steveson wrote:
Anyway, the discussion is about company's going in to liquidation, or entering a CVA, not people going bankrupt. They are two vary different issues.

Mate, it isn't two very different issues at all!

If a gaming company owner would suffer enormous consequences if he took peoples money despite knowing full well he was in serious financial gak, then the customer wouldn't get ripped off in the first place!

How is that a separate issue?!

The fact that there isn't a real serious threat to people ripping people off is the very heart and root of the problem, its not only not a separate issue, its the cause of the issue!

Take Maelstrom games... (who also fethed me as well by the way) That guy fething knows for a FACT what's going on with his finances, he still doesn't give much of a gak.. you know why? No danger.

If the bloke knew for every customer he diddled he would have to spend an extra week breaking rocks chained to Jimmy Savilles corpse, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all!

Come now mattyrm, you're being unreasonable. They couldn't possibly all be tied to Jimmy Saville's corpse.

 htj wrote:
Come now mattyrm, you're being unreasonable. They couldn't possibly all be tied to Jimmy Saville's corpse.

Well, we could chop him into little bits and attach small parts of him to the indentured workers, you know.. like how Terminators have little bits of the Emperors armour attached to their crux terminatus?

 mattyrm wrote:

 htj wrote:
Come now mattyrm, you're being unreasonable. They couldn't possibly all be tied to Jimmy Saville's corpse.

Well, we could chop him into little bits and attach small parts of him to the indentured workers, you know.. like how Terminators have little bits of the Emperors armour attached to their crux terminatus?

Now that's a plan!

 htj wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:

 htj wrote:
Come now mattyrm, you're being unreasonable. They couldn't possibly all be tied to Jimmy Saville's corpse.

Well, we could chop him into little bits and attach small parts of him to the indentured workers, you know.. like how Terminators have little bits of the Emperors armour attached to their crux terminatus?

Now that's a plan!

I was on about him at work today, you know they are even saying that some moaning families want his body removing from the cemetery in Scarborough, despite the fact he is now in an unmarked grave?!

What the hell are we supposed to do with him then?!

Its either my plan, or we baste him in Worcestershire sauce and parachute him out over Papua New Guinea!

 mattyrm wrote:

Steve steveson wrote:


Um, that would be illegal. Yes, people do that, but just because people brake the law to game the system dose not mean the system is broken, just that the law is not being properly enforced.

The effect for most people is massive. Believe me, most people who go bankrupt have had allot of problems, and have allot ahead.

Of course its illegal! But its almost impossible to police, so is wellfare fraud, so is entering the UK illegally, people dont seem to do to badly out of that either. I know plenty of people who have gone bankrupt, they all did well out of it. One prick who I work with still has his £12,000 car.. feth knows how he managed it, but he is still driving it around, he also brags about how easy it all was. Ergo, I don't believe you, and I don't think they have that many problems ahead.

Steve steveson wrote:
Anyway, the discussion is about company's going in to liquidation, or entering a CVA, not people going bankrupt. They are two vary different issues.

Mate, it isn't two very different issues at all!

If a gaming company owner would suffer enormous consequences if he took peoples money despite knowing full well he was in serious financial gak, then the customer wouldn't get ripped off in the first place!

How is that a separate issue?!

The fact that there isn't a real serious threat to people ripping people off is the very heart and root of the problem, its not only not a separate issue, its the cause of the issue!

Take Maelstrom games... (who also fethed me as well by the way) That guy fething knows for a FACT what's going on with his finances, he still doesn't give much of a gak.. you know why? No danger.

If the bloke knew for every customer he diddled he would have to spend an extra week breaking rocks chained to Jimmy Savilles corpse, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all!

I'm not going to get in to a long argument over this as I know I won't change your mind. All I am going to say is if you want to know more take a look at these links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_company_law
http://www.bytestart.co.uk/insolvency-liquidation-bankruptcy.html

He ran a limited company and is protected from the losses of the company for a good reason (if they have gone bust).

I'm not even going to go in to the problems with the idea of debtors prison and the reason it was banned, or how wrong you are about welfare fraud. People BS allot. Don't believe everything they tell you about how they tricked the system and got away with it. After 15 years working in credit (including recovery following fraudulent claims for a government agency) I know how often people do get caught and the pain bankruptcy dose cause.

Anyway, I am going to save myself the stress of any more of these rants and ignore your posts.

Steve steveson wrote:

I'm not going to get in to a long argument over this as I know I won't change your mind. All I am going to say is if you want to know more take a look at these links

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_company_law
http://www.bytestart.co.uk/insolvency-liquidation-bankruptcy.html

He ran a limited company and is protected from the losses of the company for a good reason (if they have gone bust).

I'm not even going to go in to the problems with the idea of debtors prison and the reason it was banned, or how wrong you are about welfare fraud. People BS allot. Don't believe everything they tell you about how they tricked the system and got away with it. After 15 years working in credit (including recovery following fraudulent claims for a government agency) I know how often people do get caught and the pain bankruptcy dose cause.

Anyway, I am going to save myself the stress of any more of these rants and ignore your posts.

That was hardly a rant.. and you may well change my mind, having never been in major debt its not like I've got an axe to grind.

I'm also well aware that people talk gak to try and act clever with regards to personal insolvency, and I don't doubt much of what you read in a right wing tabloid or hear from an idiot workmate is conjecture/outright fiction...

Also, If you couldn't tell, I was taking the piss about chaining people to paedophiles... which means I also have to ask, how on earth can a few lines of dialogue on a forum cause you "stress" and why do you bother turning up at all if you instantly ignore people who happen to disagree slightly with you? Is that how you deal with disagreements with people generally, just pretend they didn't happen and therefore you can never be wrong?

I wasn't being rude, I was simply making the perfectly reasonable point, that if there was a more concrete system in place for punishing people that try to cut and run with other peoples money, it will lessen its occurrence. Lopping peoples hands off for theft isn't something I support, but it undeniably effective at preventing shoplifting.

If you intend to bat on putting your opinions on the table in the public forum, I suggest you grow a thicker skin.

Chapter 11 is for the protection of companies suffering a cash flow problem, which have a realistic possibility of trading out of their difficulty if given time to do so.

It is a good system and actually helps creditors as they are likely to recover all or more of their debt than if the company simply goes bankrupt.

In cases of outright fraud, which the play centre sounds like, there is a criminal prosecution process.

In cases where directors do things which are technically legal but immoral in effect, they can be barred from becoming directors of companies. Not that it happens as much as it ought to, perhaps.

Another wrinkle to add to the story

OFFICIAL NOTICE

Maelstrom Games Ltd. has ceased trading and will enter liquidation at some point over the next few months.

A creditor of Maelstrom Games Ltd., Wayland Games Ltd., issued a Statutory Demand under section 123(1)(a) or 221(1)(a) of the Insolvency Act, 1986 on the 17th of October, 2012 for �99,773.61 plus costs of issuing and serving the demand.

This debt was purchased from Simple Miniature Games by Wayland Games Ltd on the 1st of October, 2012 and payment of this debt was demanded in full by Wayland Games after seven days had elapsed. Unfortunately, Maelstrom Games Ltd. could not pay Wayland Games Ltd. this debt in full within those seven days.

Previous to the debt purchase, Maelstrom Games Ltd. was servicing the debt owed to Simple Miniature Games at the rate of �500 per working day, claimed by the creditor when convenient for him by charging a credit card owned by Maelstrom Games Ltd., which had been occurring since mid-June and continued to late September, the last payment being taken on the 25th. Maelstrom Games Ltd. did not cancel these payments and were not aware that this debt was being transferred.

Maelstrom Games Ltd. offered to pay the debt purchased by Wayland Games Ltd. in the same manner as it had paid Simple Miniature Games, but this was not taken up by Wayland Games Ltd.

Maelstrom Games Ltd. can only apologise to those customers whose orders have not been fulfilled as it is now impossible for Maelstrom Games Ltd. to fulfil them, excepting those for Mierce Miniatures products (fulfilled by Mierce Miniatures in November) and Battlefront Miniatures products (fulfilled by Maelstrom Games in partnership with Battlefront Miniatures and Maunsfeld Gaming in November), all of which will be sent by Maelstrom Games Ltd. Other customer orders for certain ranges may be fulfilled in the future and any customers whose orders can be fulfilled will be contacted by Maelstrom Games in due course.

All creditors will be issued the relevant notices by the assigned Insolvency Practitioner when Maelstrom Games Ltd. enters liquidation.



So it looks like maelstrom WERE servicing the debt, but then their major competitor Wayland bought the debt and called it all in.

Now there was cetainly no guarantee that maelstrom could have turned things around or supplied their outstanding orders, but waylands action guaranteed they could not......

Wayland already denounced this statement as being false.

 BrookM wrote:
Thanks for an official reply! Just putting the body of the message here for the work-blocked:

09 Nov 2012

All in the Gaming Community,

As news of our action regarding Maelstrom Games is public we would like to take a moment to explain the steps we have taken, and why.

Some time ago we became aware of discussions at various events where there was a constant chatter about the financial situation that Maelstrom Games found itself in and the significant debts it suffered from. We ignored them to begin with but it seemed that in the events scene in the UK it was being discussed openly. We noticed that tickets were being sold a year in advance for some events. We then see hundreds of thousands of pounds being pushed into a miniatures line whilst Maelstrom Games still owed significant monies to suppliers. Suppliers we (and countless other retailers) share and rely upon for the timely distribution of product to fulfil our customer orders.

This industry is in our opinion, too small and too close for such a situation to occur, as the wider implications would mean hundreds of people - customers - you - potentially losing the money you had paid out for product and event tickets.

It was clear that Maelstrom Games Limited were in significant trouble, yet they continued to invest in other areas despite still owing very significant and growing amounts to suppliers causing a great deal of pressure on the supply chain.

In early May we decided to offer to buy Maelstrom Games, including honouring all liabilities for the business. Our email was ignored. In late May a follow up email was sent and again that was ignored.
We therefore looked to protect our customers by looking to protect the supply chain and also ourselves (as well as any of the other independent retailers who rely on this same supply chain) from the collapse of a major retailer, and managed to purchase the main debt that Maelstrom owe, in an attempt to force a resolution, rather than allow an uncontrolled collapse and all the knock on effects that would unleash on the industry.

The situation is complicated and there is quite a process to move through, but we are undertaking this action with the best of intentions for our customers, customers of Maelstrom Games and our supply chain, and will endeavor to keep all affected notified of developments as they occur.
We will be issuing information Via our Facebook Page: http://www.facebook.com/WaylandGamesLtd
And by email, subscribe here: http://eepurl.com/p-Wg1

The truth is known by MS and Wayland. And the rest of us can only guess (which we will probably do )

I'm not seeing it as a 'moral' issue.

More one of business ethics (or lack thereof. Not that great a surprise, as even today, Ethics is not even compulsory subject in a business degree).
Morals apply to humans, not companies (even though they may be owned and/or run by humans) and even then, only if the humans concerned wish to apply them.

Many companies act as the OP mentioned. Many CEOs and boardmembers are also people of very flexible ethics. They may consider themselves "moral" people (and may indeed be hypocrites as well), but they may not see it as something that can apply to the company.

Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice - shame on me.

Take your money elsewhere, or do research beforehand. I am not an impulse shopper. I had heard about Wayland and Maelstrom for about a year before I ended up using either of them. For me, the GW embargo prevented much loss from them as they were only used for GW products (as other games don't have the same level of markup here and the savings are barely worth it).

 mattyrm wrote:


I wasn't being rude, I was simply making the perfectly reasonable point, that if there was a more concrete system in place for punishing people that try to cut and run with other peoples money, it will lessen its occurrence.

aye and that there is the crux of it for me really, he can say its the law not being enforced, and that is true, but to me, that is a law that cannot be enforced and because of that, it is pointless.

Back on topic, i just let my wallet do the talking, I often change my buying habits for moral reasons and i will be doing the same with this Mealstrom affair too.