Much as I have always been against it and there are many down-sides, the point about UK operators being squeezed because of cheaper running costs across the pond make a powerful argument for all EU countries handing control of their finances to Brussels to ensure a level playing field as far as tax structures go.
I can't believe I have even thought that, let alone written it.
|
I am puzzled by the notion of this 'level playing field'. Miners lost their jobs because coal could be extracted more cheaply in places like Poland and South America, often by workers paid a pittance and with government subsidy.
Farmers closed up when pork and chicken started to be imported from the large US-owned farms operating in Poland, close to the German border.
Thousands, if not millions, of UK workers in manufacturing have lost jobs because people buy cheaper imported products from China, India etc made by people (sometimes children) earning a pittance and with scant regard to H&S or environmental considerations. Nothing level about any of these playing fields.
Personally I wouldn't mind some harmonisation of EU taxes and duties, but I suspect since we are supposed to be a 'low tax' economy (compared with France, Germany etc) UK business wouldn't want that.
Finally, I wonder how hauliers in countries like Germany are managing? Since Germany borders 'Eastern Europe' presumably they face the full blast of this cheaper competition?
|
I am puzzled by the notion of this 'level playing field'.
Be puzzled no more. There are three magic words missing from your counter points.
"The Common Market" - a single, borderless, free, European Union; that is what the EU is supposed to be.
I can understand if our Hauliers go out of business because Chinese and Indian and American truckers drive over here to compete against us. But they don't and they cannot because for a start they would need to get work permits!
|
I used to work there two and a half years ago. I had a feeling that Macfarlane's would got bused now. Sorry for all the workers who worked there, as I knew all of them personal.
but I am not sorry for the management who managed the company.
|
|
|
>> I am puzzled by the notion of this 'level playing field'. Be puzzled no more. There are three magic words missing from your counter points. "The Common Market" - a single borderless free European Union; that is what the EU is supposed to be.
Indeed. But its not a level playing field and is not supposed to be (ATM). Costs of doing business vary widely across the EU. Free trade is not the same as a 'level playing field' - in fact it is generally the exact opposite.
The thing that puzzles me is that UK haulage companies seem to think that there should be a level playing field for their industry across Europe. Why?
Anyway, can anyone answer the query about other Western European haulage co's and how they are bearing up against East European 'invasion'. I would have thought the Germans would be really up against it, having (we are told) higher employment costs than UK and being right next door to Poland. Or do they have a secret way of evening up the fight?
|
The thing that puzzles me is that UK haulage companies seem to think that there should be a level playing field for their industry across Europe. Why?
Because the Operators Licensing is supposed to be European legislation and the same across all borders and countries. But as usual it's implementation varies widely and therefore so does is effectiveness.
|
I'm not so sure it's all sunshine for the East European hauliers.
They may pay less duty on their diesel, but what that means is that it's gone up by a far higher percentage, which will have screwed their sums. By way of example, my heating oil has no duty, just VAT at 5%. It's gone up by nearly 100% in a year, which is about 32p/litre. Funnily enough, diesel has gone up by a very similar amount at the pump, but the hauliers will be reclaiming the VAT. So in real terms, the UK hauliers' price increases have been about the same as the offshore guys over the last twelve months.
Feel free to correct me... ;-)
|
Did anyone else see Road Wars this week when the foreign lorry driver took the wrong slip road so just drove over the grass verge blocking a full slip road and forced his way back onto the carriageway?
The police pulled him, explained what he should have done (gone down the slip and back up the other side), told him that if he had been English he would have just lost his licence and then sent him on his way. I'm not blaming the officers concerned as I'm sure it's probably far more difficult to prosecute than it's worth, but what kind of message does that send out to these people? Come over, cause a danger and you're virtually immune to punishment. IMO their trucks should be impounded pending payment of a substanial fine!
Sorry to rant but it made my blood boil.
|
i saw that. im a keen road wars fan. Ive got to say i was absolutely gobsmacked! can somebody please tell me
1. what would they have done had that driver been british?
2. are foreign drivers actually immune to prosecution?
this is a crazy country!
|
this is a crazy country!
Similar situation to that young man whose offer of a place to study medicine at Imperial College was withdrawn as he had a spent criminal record. If the student had been from foreign shores, they would not have had access to any computerised database to which branded him a criminal for life.
It is so easy to pick on Brits whose driving & vehicle data is stored on DVLA and PNC databases.
|
1. what would they have done had that driver been British?
Driver prosecuted for dangerous driving, given hefty fine and points as a minimum. Magistrate may even take his licence. Offence reported to the Traffic commisioner, TC could call driver in and suspend his licence, or if the Mag had already taken licence the TC could refuse to give the licence back after. Drivers company quite possibly taken through the wringer by the TC and VOSA as well.
2. are foreign drivers actually immune to prosecution?
Unless there is human damage involved they very, very rarely get prosecuted.
this is a crazy country!
Yep, but it is starting to change, Police are being given new powers to on the spot fine foreign drivers, but it seems they might not use it that much as they will have to take the money and as such could be accused of abuse (driver says he handed over £300 but only given receipt for £200 etc). My contacts in VOSA are not very hopeful for the new system!!!
|
|
just out of interest then, had that occured in say spain and had been a british driver would the spanish police have been so tolerent of the foreign motorist as we seem to be here?
|
are foreign drivers actually immune to prosecution?
So, now it clear that if you want to avoid speeding ticket/points on your license, dodge congestion charge etc. you need to have foreign license and a non UK number plate.
This country is really crazy now - only who obey the law get the penalty!!!
|
just out of interest then had that occured in say spain and had been a british driver would the spanish police have been so tolerent of the foreign motorist as we seem to be here?
Not sure about Spain, but I would imagine a hefty fine to begin with. But there are quite a few British drivers detained in France, many go missing for days before the French even let anyone know they have them in custody!!
I imagine it would also depend on the offence and your ability to pass the attitude test, but it is known that our european counterparts do treat British drivers as a bit of a cash cow and even if you are in the right it is difficult to prove that with the threat of a cell hanging over you, just easier and cheaper to pay up!!
|
|
Again, sad for all those who lose their jobs and sad that the nice yellow and green livery will be gone.
|
Quote:...""How much longer before we hear someone like Eddie Stobarts goes the same way?""
I read elsewhere that Stobart factors in fuel price changes to each quote for a job, real-time, so they don't need to absorb fuel price rises (except, of course, if the customer decides to go elsewhere!)
Edited by Sofa Spud on 04/07/2008 at 22:22
|
Allegedly,Stobarts,who as an agency driver I have been working for today,were all set to buy Macs,but found a £12m hole in the finances.
I'll leave the rest to your imagination.
|
Eddie Stobarts went bust 5 years ago and was bought by another company that has Eddies brother on it's board .
Longs of Leeds went bust last friday .
|
Does anyone know WHy these firms are going down .
1,Is it because they are getting hit by major contractors going bust on them ?
2,Bad management ?
3,A general decline in UK trade ?
|
Dont worry, the transport business is well and healthy and the good will survive ;).
How long before somebody takes notice properly though.
Sorry to hear of yet more job losses. good luck to all .
|
Does anyone know WHy these firms are going down .
In a single sentence - UK hauler firms claim that they are unable to compete with non-UK transporters as the later can afford buying cheaper fuel outside UK and pay lower wages to their employees, thus making the former expensive in UK market, which leads to subsequent demise of the firms.
|
Macfarlane Transport, the Leeds-based transport firm, has been sold out of administration by KPMG Corporate Recovery to a new company called Macfarlane Transport Holdings, securing the future of 300 jobs. 02-Feb-2006
Macfarlane Transport is linking up with seven other hauliers to form a new transport group called Jigsaw, which will operate 1,400 vehicles from 30 depots. 14-Oct-2002
Macfarlane Transport is planning to relocate its Leeds-based distribution business to a £5m site in the Aire Valley. 08-May-2002
.
It would seem this has been a badly managed outfit for some considerable time .
|
|
Your suggestion of transport hauliers going bust due to foreign hauliers cheap fuel and maintenance costs , does not stand up when you consider Longs of Leeds maintained it's own vehicles , owned it's own premises and had top paying contracts , I respectfully suggest .
|
Perhaps you might like to inform us as to why you think they went bust then?
Or why any other transport firm (big and small) seems to be under the cosh at the moment?
|
Macfarlanes over stated the stock in trade of goods and vehicles of the company to it's bankers , via accounts draw up . When they went cap in hand the bank sent in it's own auditors who valued the Company at 9 million less than Macfarlanes did .
The Bank then with-drew it's support . Macfarlanes had other companies interested in it's order book but could not reach a settlement figure for it . I will post up Macfarlanes accounts next .
|
profit & loss
Annual Accounts 01/07-12/07 Change (%) 01/06-12/06
Months 12 - 12
Currency GBP - GBP
Consolidated A/cs N - N
Turnover 20,364,150 16.6 % 17,457,570
Export - - -
Cost of Sales 14,550,578 15.8 % 12,565,549
Gross Profit 5,813,572 18.8 % 4,892,021
Wages & Salaries 7,011,173 13.4 % 6,182,250
Directors Emoluments 279,763 31.2 % 213,224
Operating Profits 630,029 84.6 % 341,300
Depreciation 231,157 431.2 % 43,520
Audit Fees 14,000 -6.7 % 15,000
Interest Payments 318,505 172.5 % 116,904
Pre Tax Profit 224,878 161.7 % -364,417
Taxation -85,858 -152.1 % 164,829
Profit After Tax 139,020 169.7 % -199,588
Dividends Payable - - -
Retained Profits 139,020 169.7 % -199,588
balance sheet
Annual Accounts 01/07-12/07 Change (%) 01/06-12/06
Tangible Assets 3,579,237 4.0 % 3,440,684
Intangible Assets 261,317 -5.2 % 275,557
Total Fix Assets 3,840,554 3.3 % 3,716,241
Total Current Assets 4,580,351 7.8 % 4,248,337
Trade Debtors 3,875,436 -1.7 % 3,942,397
Stock 198,683 114.8 % 92,481
Cash 42,541 -12.5 % 48,630
Other Current Assets 463,691 - -
Increase In Cash -6,089 -112.5 % 48,630
Miscellaneous Current Assets - -100.0 % 164,829
Total Assets 8,420,905 5.7 % 7,964,578
Total Current Liabilities 6,199,447 10.3 % 5,621,299
Trade Creditors 1,110,955 -23.5 % 1,453,109
Bank Overdraft 66,022 -36.5 % 103,893
Other Short Term Fin 3,807,749 410.1 % 746,400
Miscellaneous Current Liabilities 1,214,721 -63.4 % 3,317,897
Other Long Term Fin 2,082,026 -11.1 % 2,342,867
Total Long Term Liabilities 2,082,026 -11.1 % 2,342,867
Bank Overdraft & LTL 2,148,048 -12.2 % 2,446,760
Total Liabilities 8,281,473 4.0 % 7,964,166
Net Assets 139,432 999.9% 412
Working Capital -1,619,096 -17.9 % -1,372,962
capitals & reserves
Annual Accounts 01/07-12/07 Change (%) 01/06-12/06
Paid up equity 200,000 - 200,000
P&L Account Reserve -60,568 69.7 % -199,588
Sundry Reserves - - -
Revaluation Reserve - - -
Shareholder Funds 139,432 999.9% 412
Net Worth -121,885 55.7 % -275,145
back to top
miscellaneous
Annual Accounts 01/07-12/07 Change (%) 01/06-12/06
Net Cashflow from Operations 1,053,230 94.7 % 540,839
Net Cashflow before Financing 366,091 256.1 % -234,530
Net Cashflow from Financing -334,309 -286.5 % 179,267
Contingent Liability NO - NO
Capital Employed 2,221,458 -5.2 % 2,343,279
No of Employees 302 8.6 % 278
These accounts are available to the public and breach no laws.
Any questions ?
|
You will denote the 'Nett Worth' of Macfarlanes has been minus -121,885 ( 07 )and -275,145 ( 06 ) over the past 2 years . This , despite the fuel costs which Macfarlanes costed into every job !
You will also see , Profit After Tax 139,020 ( 07 ) on a turnover of 20,364,150 is pathetic and shows you they must have run many jobs at a loss .
The year before on a turnover of £17,457,570 they made a LOSS of - £199,588 ?
Bad management ?
Bet your house on it :
Directors ( wages ) Emoluments : there being only two of them go up each year , nice work if you can get it !
|
Can anyone explain how a eastern European registered truck can compete to move a load from say Teesport (one of our bigger ports) to say Manchester. They have to cover the cost of the run into the country which a local haulier does not.
I can understand the argument for cross channel but for UK traffic it does not stack up.
|
sq
Several reasons. Firstly, their diesel is much cheaper, and if you look at the tanks on a foreign truck you'll see that they're huge, big enough to do a week's work over here.
Secondly, many of them are double-manned; this gives them an advantage in terms of the amount of driving hours they can do.
Thirdly, many do not pay much attention to EU driving regulations, knowing full well that if VOSA pull them the worst that can happen is that the truck will be held until they've completed the necessary rest period.
Basically all the foreign hauliers have to do is undercut our own hauliers for long enough to make them go bust. they will then, of course, put their rates up to above UK rates, and you lot will end up paying for it. If they pick up a load from say, Liverpool to Harwich, it'll pay the driver's wages and some of the truck's running costs, whilst he'd otherwise be running empty back to the port to collect his return load. It's called "cabotage" and the EU has just legalised it.
Edited by Pugugly on 03/08/2008 at 00:23
|
"You will also see , Profit After Tax 139,020 ( 07 ) on a turnover of 20,364,150 is pathetic and shows you they must have run many jobs at a loss ."
I am not saying their management was good or bad. Their is an awlful lot of bad management all the way through UK ! More bad than good imo!
However in the need to chase business in such a competitive industry maybe the above quote of yours might answer the question! I wonder if they chose to do so or was getting forced on them ?
I dont think any answer is needed because we all (should) understand both sides of the meanings and reasonings for that !
|
Eddie Stobarts went bust 5 years ago and was bought by another company that has Eddies brother on it's board . Longs of Leeds went bust last friday .
How wrong you are on 2 counts.
Stobarts never went bust,Eddie decided to retire,and sold his share to William,who owns WMD developments,a construction company,and an ex driver,Martin Tinkler,is on the board,and is now worth an extremely large amount of money.
Eddie has recently bought the assets,of Boalloy,the former trailer maker in Congleton,and is now making horseboxes,of all things,but you can guess that before too long,Stobarts will once again be buying Boalloy trailers,when Eddie sorts it out.
As for Longs,well,they still have loads of trucks running around,as I have seen lots today,so don't believe anything you hear.
And for what it's worth,as soon as I finish this,I'm off to Macfarlanes yard,to retrieve some stock for the customer I'm working for today.
|
Mr Tinkler developed WA Developments, which focused on civil engineering and railway infrastructure. In 2004, Mr Tinkler and William Stobart bought Eddie Stobart from William's brother, Edward. The company was weeks away from going bust, after posting its first loss in 2001 - in part because of the soaring price of fuel.
.
{ 8< Rest Snipped - If you can't post a reply without resorting to personal insults, then don't post at all. And that goes for your 2 postings that follow this one as well - DD}
Edited by Dynamic Dave on 12/07/2008 at 19:07
|
|
saw a Romanian - registered LHD tractor unit today pulling a British - liveried full trailer , heading North in London .. ( Romania is due South - East ... )
On another note , I usually notice that heavy gravel lorries have wobbly ( meaning they don't travel in one line , a slight figure of 8 as they rotate, like a worn wheel bearing ) wheels at the back.. the other day I was behind an 08 plate large bulk box trailer that had the rear axle already wobblying slightly - how can that be ?
|
|
One assumes these Rumanian trucks are buying UK diesel or they have very big tanks. Costs in mainland Europe for diesel are on a par with the UK as any recent visitors will confirm plus there are tolls in In Germany and France heavy tax on trailers and far more tax on artics than the UK no sunday driving and a policeforce far more stringent than the UK ,not always greener on the otherside.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
