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.

It's a shame they took the money in the first place, considering their astounding financial results up to date, taking awway resources intended for companies under financial stress. Just a PR move to brag about.

No resources were "taken away" from anyone. At no point did the UK government declare the furlough scheme "full" and refuse new sign ups.

This is an unapologetically morally excellent thing to do.

The fact that it also strengthens my engagement to the company is a facet of modern PR that I am comfortable with.

As someone who resides in the UK and pays taxes, thanks, GW. This helps a lot.

puig2233 wrote:
It's a shame they took the money in the first place, considering their astounding financial results up to date, taking awway resources intended for companies under financial stress. Just a PR move to brag about.

Again, said with the benefit of hindsight.

COVID-19 was an unknown. The Government had ordered the country to down tools, and offered to help pay wages in the meantime. For all businesses.

How long for? Nobody knew. Literally nobody. Could be a few weeks ( as it turned out), could’ve been significantly longer.

Remember. As a PLC, GW has a legal obligation to its share holders, whether you agree with that or not.

Turns out it didn’t hit them anywhere near as hard as it could have. Hence they’ve decided to do the morally sound but entirely optional act of paying it back.

Contrast and compare with genuine scumbags like Richard ‘Off-Shore’ Branson demanded a government he hasn’t paid tax to in forever shore up his business, despite being a billionaire. Or the owner of Wetherspoons, who refused to pay his staff so much as a penny until the government money came in.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

puig2233 wrote:
It's a shame they took the money in the first place, considering their astounding financial results up to date, taking awway resources intended for companies under financial stress. Just a PR move to brag about.

Again, said with the benefit of hindsight.

COVID-19 was an unknown. The Government had ordered the country to down tools, and offered to help pay wages in the meantime. For all businesses.

How long for? Nobody knew. Literally nobody. Could be a few weeks ( as it turned out), could’ve been significantly longer.

Remember. As a PLC, GW has a legal obligation to its share holders, whether you agree with that or not.

Turns out it didn’t hit them anywhere near as hard as it could have. Hence they’ve decided to do the morally sound but entirely optional act of paying it back.

Contrast and compare with genuine scumbags like Richard ‘Off-Shore’ Branson demanded a government he hasn’t paid tax to in forever shore up his business, despite being a billionaire. Or the owner of Wetherspoons, who refused to pay his staff so much as a penny until the government money came in.

A GW don't have any significant amount of debt, as you said their obligation is to their shareholders. If most of the stock is not "preferred stock" the amout of dividend the company hand out depends on the shareholdr decision on the anual general meeting of the company stockholders (with enough stock to vote).

I'm sorry if my fist message was seen as just a raging "child" atack on GEDUBS, but as a company with a very high amount of assets and equity, as a large treasuy, no debt and easy access on financial markets (remember now is almost or more valuable than British Gas, and being a non strategic producer) i don't thinks it's ethic to ask for goverment help. My opion is the program is ill designed as it does not acount the sate of the company and first and foremost stockholders should dry first before gov funding is pulled in.

My view is that GW and Richard(shame on him) and many many more big companies that have massive acess to financial markets and equity should not have goverment backing and are simply using this lones as free funding. The money should go to entrepeneurs and mom and pop shops who have no treasury excess and very limited equity. Even if the program has still money left it should be saved for times to come as we can expect more economic uproar at the moment.

GW have a stock value of over two billion Pound Sterling.

I don't blame them for taking advantage of a government bailout, but the terms of the bailout meant they had to pay it back before they could pay dividends. This isn't out of the goodness of their hearts, this is just business as usual.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
GW have a stock value of over two billion Pound Sterling.

I don't blame them for taking advantage of a government bailout, but the terms of the bailout meant they had to pay it back before they could pay dividends. This isn't out of the goodness of their hearts, this is just business as usual.

This is literally wrong. Read the full thread for the difference between the furlough scheme and the government bailout loans. Dividends are restricted by the latter, NOT the former.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

I don't blame them for taking advantage of a government bailout, but the terms of the bailout meant they had to pay it back before they could pay dividends.

This isn't true though. There's no dividend restrictions on bailout money.

puig2233 wrote:


My view is that GW and Richard(shame on him) and many many more big companies that have massive acess to financial markets and equity should not have goverment backing and are simply using this lones as free funding. The money should go to entrepeneurs and mom and pop shops who have no treasury excess and very limited equity. Even if the program has still money left it should be saved for times to come as we can expect more economic uproar at the moment.

This scheme was for money that could be used for employee payroll only, it wasn't loans to businesses to do with what they liked. It was open to every business in the UK and is currently in place until October. There are separate schemes for self employed people and small businesses. Could you please elaborate on how GW claiming this money to pay their staff is having an impact on 'Mom & Pop' businesses?

 OPULENCE wrote:

puig2233 wrote:


My view is that GW and Richard(shame on him) and many many more big companies that have massive acess to financial markets and equity should not have goverment backing and are simply using this lones as free funding. The money should go to entrepeneurs and mom and pop shops who have no treasury excess and very limited equity. Even if the program has still money left it should be saved for times to come as we can expect more economic uproar at the moment.

This scheme was for money that could be used for employee payroll only, it wasn't loans to businesses to do with what they liked. It was open to every business in the UK and is currently in place until October. There are separate schemes for self employed people and small businesses. Could you please elaborate on how GW claiming this money to pay their staff is having an impact on 'Mom & Pop' businesses?

By redirecting the gov budget to payrolls, the program funds up to 80% of the payroll plus national inshurance, sutch a high % of payroll funding should not be suported by the treasury, being my humble opinion. It would be far better to claim a % in a bracket depending on the company teasury exess, the most clear case is financial companies with have have mostly liquid assets that could sell to get through payrolls.

GB is far from the economic situation in other european countries but these masive loan programs, with a great decrease in goods and services production will lead to stagflation. As far as i am concerned i would gladly see a partial paycut and lower relief loans on boats that will clearly stay afloat.

I think the government chose a blanket 80% because the scale of the operation and the speed at which it was needed were both too great to be effective at a level where they have to review every single case in depth to give viable variable percentages. Keeping in mind that a company who can afford to pay their employees in month 1 of lockdown might not have funds to continue to month 3. So not only would it need a vast amount of review for the first payment, but it would need continual adjustment through the length of the lockdown - a period that was totally unknown at the time lockdowns started.

All this alongside the fact that the government offices had to work from time and socially isolate etc... so you've got increased workload and a reduced efficiency of staff (accounting for the fact that you have to take on a LOT more staff to make it work).




In the end 80% was a far more simplistic system that was more practical to put into effect. Some smaller businesses might have wanted more; some bigger could have afforded less. But its much more practical to just approve and roll out en-mass. Furthermore its a value that is more sustainable in the mid to long term without needing continual review.





I do agree that the mega-rich should be made accountable; they should have to payback and suchlike. When it comes to firms who have skirted tax for years and also own vast sums of money its hard because those individuals/firms are so rich that if you say no to them all they do is fire/close their companies and put all those workers out of business (that's a lot of people suddenly redundant and not getting furlough payments). They can afford to just shut down and re-open again later; esp if they think that's cheaper than paying their staff whilst taking no income. It's cold and cruel, but its how they would approach it.

So the government ends up in a catch 22. If they don't pay all the employees get fired and have nothing. If they do pay they get hit with bad reputation for supporting a mega-rich firm that isnt' paying back and doesn't "need" the money to survive.

The read issue is that the tax dodges have been both allowed to exist and allowed to be such vast swings to the tune of avoiding all tax.

puig2233 wrote:
The money should go to entrepeneurs and mom and pop shops who have no treasury excess and very limited equity.

Money is going there - my mother has a sole trader dog-sitting business (don't laugh!) and is getting aid because she's always done the correct tax / government paperwork.

One also needs to consider how the business world works in reality.

As an employee, I’m paid in arrears on the 23rd of each month, or the preceding Friday if the 23rd lands on a weekend or holiday. That’s what my contract says, so that’s what happens.

But....businesses? They do the work, then issue an invoice. The invoice will have a ‘due by’ date, and may specify interest based penalties for late payment.

And because few businesses exist in a vacuum, the same is for the supply chain up and down from their specific link.

If another business, anywhere in that chain bails on their payments, or worse, goes out of business? Those down the line are unlikely to get paid, like, at all.

The net result is that in a given quarter you could do say, for arguments sake, £1,000,000 of business. On paper, you’re solvent provided your overheads are less than the £1,000,000 of work you’ve done. But that’s only on paper. If one of your customers/clients can’t or won’t pay, for whatever reason, that leaves you in a sticky position. Especially if they were a large client.

Your worst case scenario is that any such missing payments were meant to buy the raw materials for your next job (this is not uncommon by any means). In that position, and unless you’ve some kind of credit facility, you’re well and truly buggered, as you can no longer carry out your business or seek alternative income. In turn, that buggers anyone you were meant to pay with the funds you never received. So on and so forth down the chain.

That is why we see recessions. Businesses of all sizes come and go with regularity. But, when two or three Big Boys all go belly up at the same time? The impact is far more severe.

Not only do other businesses in that specific chain suffer, but it puts more people on the dole. If it happens in a given region (coal, steel, that sort of thing) that whole region suffers. After all, if 10,000 jobs at a Steel company go away, that’s 10,000 people not buying take away, or lunches, or going to the cinema, buying a car, visiting the pub. The job losses can become exponential.

Here, the Furlough Scheme is intended to reduce that risk as much as possible, by temporarily relieving the wage burden on companies up and down the country. And the business loan scheme is meant to keep some kind of financial flow going, again in an attempt to minimise the usual domino effect of big players going down the pan.

Yes, some companies have absolutely taken the mick. And Richard ‘Tax Free’ Branson in particular can eff right off. But that doesn’t make the system itself flawed in totality. Because sadly, each and every system will be open to abuse, that’s just how things are and always will be sadly,

Don’t get me wrong. I’m no economist, but this is info I’ve picked up by listening to far more knowledgable sources. So apologies if I’ve massively oversimplified. But the core is still there. The economy is essentially a Jenga Tower. Lose the wrong block, and you risk the whole stack.

puig2233 wrote:
The money should go to entrepeneurs and mom and pop shops who have no treasury excess and very limited equity. Even if the program has still money left it should be saved for times to come as we can expect more economic uproar at the moment.

Funny thing. It is going. Gw is paying taxes fair and square and invests plenty to uk unlike some companies that load up on tax heavens. Why deny gw when it's not away from those mom and pop shops?

You are pretending it's binary one or other way...

If they would be arbitary denied then one could reasonably ask why not just move profits to tax heaven cutting uk of tax income...