Swiss company INEOS rips off UK,wages war against its UK employees

[chalga]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-24580313

 

QUOTE:

 

I got confirmation that the £579m four-year "loss" claim is not a loss in conventional terms. Most of it is capital expenditure, and £110m is negative earnings. Put together they're better described as cash flow loss, or put more simply, money going out the door.

Capital expenditure, or investment, is only sensibly committed if you've got profits flowing from it in future. That's where Ineos says its accounts look odd, because they don't anticipate making profits at Grangemouth in the next five years. Hence, the write-down in the petro-chemical plant's valuation, from nearly £400m to zero.

 

So INEOS has spent 469m on capital expenditure,but doesn't expect to make a profit in the next 5 years?.........which fools spend all that money and don't expect to make profit from the investment of all that money.

This shows that it is not the workforce being overpaid or pension schemes that are responsible for the loss over the years,the company has invested the money and can't profit from this investment......so why invest it in the first place,and why write down the plant valuation to zero after investing 469m?

 

 

 

QUOTE:

 

The story goes that Ineos had been based in England, before it hit a very rocky place with the credit crunch and downturn. It broke a bank covenant and was facing difficulty in paying a large VAT bill. It asked for a year's postponement in the bill, and when that wasn't forthcoming, the company headed for the Alps, and a rather more attractive tax regime.

 

 

 

Can't be responsible for your bills or banking obligations?...........then head for Switzerland,and all your problems are magically solved........sod everybody else.This is a millionaire owner,just to remind you,but he can't pay his bills.

 

 

 

QUOTE:

 

However, the Unite analysis, compiled by accountant and tax campaigner Richard Murphy, argued that a tax deferral of £117m in the most recent accounts implied half a billion in profits over several years.

The response: such is the structure of Ineos operations that those profits can be made in other Ineos plants around Britain. Even if the subsidiary is called Ineos Chemicals Grangemouth Ltd, its tax deferrals can be applied to any one of another 20-plus subsidiaries of Ineos.

 

So INEOS say they will make a profit somewhere,they will just pick one of the 20 plus subsidiaries for its tax deferrals.................eeny meeny miny mo,......to which bit shall the profit go????...................err,not Grangemouth I guess........LOL.Then I suppose,if the natives are kicking off a bit in one of the other 20 plus subsidiaries,they can claim that is loss making and one of the others is making the profit,the one where they hold the gun to the heads of the workforce,and they back down.

[Stan Tamudo]

That would be a bit like telling Arthur Scargill that the Coal Industry couldn't afford to keep digging coal that no one could afford to buy. But what do you expect the idiots leading INEOS to do, go out and tell the members that the stupidity of their leadership has cost them all their jobs? I know best kick up a smoke screen about taxes.

 

Hello eckerslike, The ragged trousered cap doffer returns.

[Uptowngirl]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-24580313

 

QUOTE:

 

I got confirmation that the £579m four-year "loss" claim is not a loss in conventional terms. Most of it is capital expenditure, and £110m is negative earnings. Put together they're better described as cash flow loss, or put more simply, money going out the door.

Capital expenditure, or investment, is only sensibly committed if you've got profits flowing from it in future. That's where Ineos says its accounts look odd, because they don't anticipate making profits at Grangemouth in the next five years. Hence, the write-down in the petro-chemical plant's valuation, from nearly £400m to zero.

 

So INEOS has spent 469m on capital expenditure,but doesn't expect to make a profit in the next 5 years?.........which fools spend all that money and don't expect to make profit from the investment of all that money.

This shows that it is not the workforce being overpaid or pension schemes that are responsible for the loss over the years,the company has invested the money and can't profit from this investment......so why invest it in the first place,and why write down the plant valuation to zero after investing 469m?

 

 

 

QUOTE:

 

The story goes that Ineos had been based in England, before it hit a very rocky place with the credit crunch and downturn. It broke a bank covenant and was facing difficulty in paying a large VAT bill. It asked for a year's postponement in the bill, and when that wasn't forthcoming, the company headed for the Alps, and a rather more attractive tax regime.

 

 

 

Can't be responsible for your bills or banking obligations?...........then head for Switzerland,and all your problems are magically solved........sod everybody else.This is a millionaire owner,just to remind you,but he can't pay his bills.

 

 

 

QUOTE:

 

However, the Unite analysis, compiled by accountant and tax campaigner Richard Murphy, argued that a tax deferral of £117m in the most recent accounts implied half a billion in profits over several years.

The response: such is the structure of Ineos operations that those profits can be made in other Ineos plants around Britain. Even if the subsidiary is called Ineos Chemicals Grangemouth Ltd, its tax deferrals can be applied to any one of another 20-plus subsidiaries of Ineos.

 

So INEOS say they will make a profit somewhere,they will just pick one of the 20 plus subsidiaries for its tax deferrals.................eeny meeny miny mo,......to which bit shall the profit go????...................err,not Grangemouth I guess........LOL.Then I suppose,if the natives are kicking off a bit in one of the other 20 plus subsidiaries,they can claim that is loss making and one of the others is making the profit,the one where they hold the gun to the heads of the workforce,and they back down.

 

Ah yes that old chestnut; Capital expenditure. Your cut and paste wasn't worth your effort.

 

Well you wouldn't want a petro-chemical works the size of a small town to actually replace anything worn out or obsolete would you? I think you will find that just about the whole plant will be replaced over a 20 year period. But if the union tells you that's bad, no doubt they won't shout when a worn out part of the plant blows up and kills a few of its members.

 

This does sound like a trade union that has messed up big time, lost its members their jobs and is desperately digging in the vain hope that the hole it has dug won't get any deeper.

[SpikeMac]

Ah yes that old chestnut; Capital expenditure. Your cut and paste wasn't worth your effort.

 

Well you wouldn't want a petro-chemical works the size of a small town to actually replace anything worn out or obsolete would you? I think you will find that just about the whole plant will be replaced over a 20 year period. But if the union tells you that's bad, no doubt they won't shout when a worn out part of the plant blows up and kills a few of its members.

 

You wouldn't, I agree.

 

But this is part of the poison that Amazon, Starbucks et al have begun to transmit to modern society.

 

We all know the aggressive tax avoidance schemes that multinationals use. We now assume the worst, because we've been lied to and cheated on for so long.

 

Maybe INEOS have a reason for paying no UK tax for the last 6 years. Maybe they don't.

 

In the light of recent revelations, you can hardly blame folks for suspecting the worst.

[Obelix]

Ah yes that old chestnut; Capital expenditure. Your cut and paste wasn't worth your effort.

 

Well you wouldn't want a petro-chemical works the size of a small town to actually replace anything worn out or obsolete would you? .

 

I can't imagine why you'd want to fix things properly now. They bodged repairs at Flixborough and that worked out just fine...... waitaminute....

[Uptowngirl]

You wouldn't, I agree.

 

But this is part of the poison that Amazon, Starbucks et al have begun to transmit to modern society.

 

We all know the aggressive tax avoidance schemes that multinationals use. We now assume the worst, because we've been lied to and cheated on for so long.

 

Maybe INEOS have a reason for paying no UK tax for the last 6 years. Maybe they don't.

 

In the light of recent revelations, you can hardly blame folks for suspecting the worst.

 

Very true but there is one dead giveaway in this case.

 

If the company is making a profit on operations (hidden or not) why are they closing down a £2 billion investment?

Starbucks and Amazon don't want to do that.

 

I bet no one at Unite can answer that one.

[chalga]

Ah yes that old chestnut; Capital expenditure. Your cut and paste wasn't worth your effort.

 

Well you wouldn't want a petro-chemical works the size of a small town to actually replace anything worn out or obsolete would you? I think you will find that just about the whole plant will be replaced over a 20 year period. But if the union tells you that's bad, no doubt they won't shout when a worn out part of the plant blows up and kills a few of its members.

 

This does sound like a trade union that has messed up big time, lost its members their jobs and is desperately digging in the vain hope that the hole it has dug won't get any deeper.

 

You couldn't have missed the point by much more could you?...........nobody has said that capital expenditure is wrong,the author of the quote I pasted is saying that if you are going to spend on capital,make sure that profits follow the expenditure.............INEOS claim they are not going to make any profit there after shelling out millions on capital expenditure.Where have the union said that it's bad?..........the workforce that the union represents are being blamed for the losses there,when this author is claiming that capital expenditure accounted for most of the losses,and that capital expenditure was worthless unless it came hand in hand with future profits,something INEOS could not achieve,according to them,but they were happy enough to let the workforce take the rap for the losses,and let them take the hit for the 'non profit' whilst asking for taxpayers money to bale them out for their poor decisions on spending on capital without being able to turn it into profit.

[Uptowngirl]

You couldn't have missed the point by much more could you?...........nobody has said that capital expenditure is wrong,the author of the quote I pasted is saying that if you are going to spend on capital,make sure that profits follow the expenditure.............INEOS claim they are not going to make any profit there after shelling out millions on capital expenditure.Where have the union said that it's bad?..........the workforce that the union represents are being blamed for the losses there,when this author is claiming that capital expenditure accounted for most of the losses,and that capital expenditure was worthless unless it came hand in hand with future profits,something INEOS could not achieve,according to them,but they were happy enough to let the workforce take the rap for the losses,and let them take the hit for the 'non profit' whilst asking for taxpayers money to bale them out for their poor decisions on spending on capital without being able to turn it into profit.

 

What a load of bull. The chemical plant was set up to process by products from the refinery. It used ethane from the North Sea as part of the process. That supply is virtually dried up and the chemical plant operating at low levels. So a major investment would be needed if the plant is to survive as it would need to import gas from the USA. That doesn't alter the fact that the plant is not making a profit and hasn't for some time or the fact that the investment might be better made elsewhere where costs are lower.

 

What caused this row 3 weeks ago was a dispute with a UNITE official who works for the Labour Party yet continues to draw a salary at the refinery. This dispute has led to strikes which closed production. Shutting down a refinery takes 5 to 7 days and starting it up again a similar length of time. It is pretty clear that faced with a loss making plant, the need to make huge capital investment and a union that was prepared to cripple the site for its own ends INEOS decided to pull the plug.

 

I imagine there are a few UNITE members who have now realised that the union isn't acting in their best interest. Perhaps there will be a renegotiation but it is pretty clear INEOS won't be reopening the site until every one of those problems is taken care of and the union no longer in a position to close the site.

[chalga]

What a load of bull. The chemical plant was set up to process by products from the refinery. It used ethane from the North Sea as part of the process. That supply is virtually dried up and the chemical plant operating at low levels. So a major investment would be needed if the plant is to survive as it would need to import gas from the USA. That doesn't alter the fact that the plant is not making a profit and hasn't for some time or the fact that the investment might be better made elsewhere where costs are lower.

 

 

So how come the capital investment that INEOS made didn't do what it should have done,enable it to survive and bring profits,that is the point of making the investment.This capital investment accounts for the bulk of the losses there,so INEOS only has itself to blame for investing and not making it pay,instead they,and others have shifted the blame onto their workforce,they are paid too much,the pension scheme is too costly,just a smokescreen for the failings of INEOS and their investment.

 

---------- Post added 24-10-2013 at 08:47 ----------

 

 

What caused this row 3 weeks ago was a dispute with a UNITE official who works for the Labour Party yet continues to draw a salary at the refinery. This dispute has led to strikes which closed production. Shutting down a refinery takes 5 to 7 days and starting it up again a similar length of time. It is pretty clear that faced with a loss making plant, the need to make huge capital investment and a union that was prepared to cripple the site for its own ends INEOS decided to pull the plug.

 

.

 

Exactly the scenario that they needed to manufacture the outcome that they wanted, so that they could get rid of something that their own ineficiency had turned into a loss making business,then try to blame the workforce and unions for it being loss making.

[Uptowngirl]

So how come the capital investment that INEOS made didn't do what it should have done,enable it to survive and bring profits,that is the point of making the investment.This capital investment accounts for the bulk of the losses there,so INEOS only has itself to blame for investing and not making it pay,instead they,and others have shifted the blame onto their workforce,they are paid too much,the pension scheme is too costly,just a smokescreen for the failings of INEOS and their investment.

 

You really don't have a clue about what is going on do you?

The major investment to update facilities hasn't been made and won't be made in the current climate.

Capital expenditure is made on a daily basis to replace worn out and obsolete plant for safety reasons and happens in every company. It is part of every companies costs and balance sheet. But with no real arguement it is being used in a desperate smear attempt by a union that has totally lost the plot.