Uptowngirl Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 The 400m is expenditure on keeping the 10 year old Toyota running, you know like a replacement exhaust, battery, tyres, oil change, spot of welding etc. You can do that all you like but you wont change that 10 year old car into a new one running on a different type of fuel. To do that you need to spend some considerable sum and buy a new car - and they are not doing that unless the pension issue is fixed because their corporate investors simply wont stump up the guarantee. Obvious to anyone with a modicum of business understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 Obvious to anyone with a modicum of business understanding. It helps that I have shares in refinery and related interests :-) Unite decided to fight an ideological class war from the 1930's with the jobs of 800 people. Sadly they blinked first and INEOS won..... Everyone will get their jobs back at more sensible rates of pay, the pensions scheme will carry on, just closed to new members and with assistance from the existing members. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waldo Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 Best tell UNITE then.......it's them who have written to HMRC asking them to investigate the [non]profitability of INEOS............because they don't believe INEOS,and what they are saying about it making a loss there.............Simples. Are UNITE a bunch of retards? We want to keep our jobs and pensions and be paid well, so lets get HMRC to investigate our (loss making) employer with a view to screwing more corp. tax from them. Yeah, cos, like, that will really put us workers in a better position... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalga Posted October 24, 2013 Author Share Posted October 24, 2013 The 400m is expenditure on keeping the 10 year old Toyota running, you know like a replacement exhaust, battery, tyres, oil change, spot of welding etc. You can do that all you like but you wont change that 10 year old car into a new one running on a different type of fuel. To do that you need to spend some considerable sum and buy a new car - and they are not doing that unless the pension issue is fixed because their corporate investors simply wont stump up the guarantee. Yes,this is what the guy I am quoting has said............you don't commit to huge Capital Investment unless it goes hand in hand with future profits.......INEOS have said that they don't expect to make future profits there,so why make the investment?..whichever way you look at it,the mistake for the losses and the writing down to zero lies with INEOS,not with the workers..........if you are not going to make profits with that investment,it's just wasted money,but it's not the workers or the union that has wasted it. ---------- Post added 24-10-2013 at 10:13 ---------- Are UNITE a bunch of retards? We want to keep our jobs and pensions and be paid well, so lets get HMRC to investigate our (loss making) employer with a view to screwing more corp. tax from them. Yeah, cos, like, that will really put us workers in a better position... More corporation tax?..........the allegation is that they are not paying any UK tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 Yes,this is what the guy I am quoting has said............you don't commit to huge Capital Investment unless it goes hand in hand with future profits.......INEOS have said that they don't expect to make future profits there That's not what you said, nor what your cut n paste said. They don't expect profits in the next 5 years as they write down the cost of the plant upgrade - try reading and understanding it... helps immensly.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 So let the millionaire use his own money to invest in it then.If he has allegedly not paid tax in the UK for years,why is he expecting the UK taxpayer to do it for him?........if he has spent 400m on capital investment and then wrote it down to zero,is that the fault of the taxpayer or the workers?. What has 'the millionaire' got to do with the fact the raw materials needed in the plant have dried up? Stop 'ranting' about the millionaire owner of the plant and how he's an evil genius, frankly it's boring and you haven't got a clue. If you owned a massive petrochemical plant employing over 1000 people you'd expect to be a millionaire, if you weren't then something is massively wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalga Posted October 24, 2013 Author Share Posted October 24, 2013 That's not what you said, nor what your cut n paste said. They don't expect profits in the next 5 years as they write down the cost of the plant upgrade - try reading and understanding it... helps immensly.... So as I keep explaining the money was not 'sensibly committed' then was it,by INEOS,nothing to do with UNITE or the workers.If they had committed the money sensibly,it would have invested it in sourcing shale gas in the US and building the new tanker facility it wants......the money that it now wants from workers pension funds and pay freezes,and the UK taxpayer........in order to keep the plant viable for the next twenty years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 Do you think that maybe the reason it hasn't happened is because it's quite a risky venture and the chances of it being a long-term stable profitable business are slim. Afterall there is absolutely nothing stopping some joker opening up an identical plant in the US next to the source of the gas and piping it straight into the factory, by-passing millions in transport costs and producing the same products at a massively reduced price.. That place would massively undercut Grangemouth as they don't have to fund a stonking great tanker, or transport the gas halfway across the world so they would drive grangemouth out of business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chalga Posted October 24, 2013 Author Share Posted October 24, 2013 If you owned a massive petrochemical plant employing over 1000 people you'd expect to be a millionaire, if you weren't then something is massively wrong. Well if you're a millionaire you won't be needing taxpayers money to help bail you out then when the business you own isn't making you enough money. ---------- Post added 24-10-2013 at 11:38 ---------- Do you think that maybe the reason it hasn't happened is because it's quite a risky venture and the chances of it being a long-term stable profitable business are slim. No,because INEOS have already said it would keep the plant viable for 20 years........if you can believe anything they say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted October 24, 2013 Share Posted October 24, 2013 So as I keep explaining the money was not 'sensibly committed' then was it,by INEOS,nothing to do with UNITE or the workers.If they had committed the money sensibly,it would have invested it in sourcing shale gas in the US and building the new tanker facility it wants......the money that it now wants from workers pension funds and pay freezes,and the UK taxpayer........in order to keep the plant viable for the next twenty years. You've not explained anything. All you've done is froth incoherently and demostrated that you've no idea about what the plant does, how it works, or how to addup up without taking your socks off I'm afraid. Get a grip and start debating rationally - then we can all stop lauighing at you and provide some meaningful discussion instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.