MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
Hope we aren't too exposed 😥
Public procurement contracts always let to the cheapest.... this leads to crazy cost cutting to win the contracts in the first place and huge costs to actually get that far. There is no desire for quality. It’s no surprise that these things happen as the margins for error are so slim. Terrible for everyone involved. Fingers crossed they can all get jobs.
Sad news this morning. It seems the victims of govt penny pinching are not limited to the sick and unemployed. It raises huge questions of the relationship between govt and industry. Why do firms like carillion take on these loss making contracts which put the whole company at risk? I’m not sure I believe it’s only down to poor management. There’s something rotten somewhere.
Can I am a dumb again of the more informed posters plead?
What will happen to the in progress contacts for the public sector going on right now?
I feel sorry for the workers/pensioners and contractors affected by this. No doubt the Directors will be sliding smoothly into new positions in the next few weeks 👿
There really should be a public flogging post for people that screw up pensions (this includes the political leaders from Thatcher onwards that ignored the growing ageing population problem).
I just want to say that this is probably going to be a really tough time for many of the staff and subbies and I wish you all the best. I hope things get sorted out soon.
Very much this. I have friends and former colleagues working for them and my fingers are massively crossed for them.
Sad news this morning. It seems the victims of govt penny pinching are not limited to the sick and unemployed. It raises huge questions of the relationship between govt and industry. Why do firms like carillion take on these loss making contracts which put the whole company at risk? I’m not sure I believe it’s only down to poor management. There’s something rotten somewhere.
Also this. Seen at first hand in the same sectors - construction, hard FM, soft FM and provision of other services to government.
private companies must stand and fall on their own
Unless they're banks.
Yawn.
Carrillion have taken over a billion pounds out of the system - thats why they are going bust. all the money paid to shareholders and stolen from the pension fund. should be jailed every last one of the directors.
Why do firms like carillion take on these loss making contracts which put the whole company at risk?
Because they can remove large amunts of money from the system and then go bust deliberatly to avoid their liabilities. Its theft pure and simple.
they would no be going bust if they hadn't taken all that money in profits and given it to shareholders but instead put it into wages and pension payments. the going bust is a deliberate action to avoid their liabilities and to protect the fortunes the board and shareholders have stolen
all the money paid to shareholders and stolen from the pension fund.
That's a pretty serious, and probably false, allegation.
its the truth. of course it will be dresssed up as other things but its over a billion pounds that carrillion shareholders have takenout of the company. That billion pounds would have kept the company afloat.
I(ts a common practice. pay shareholders dividends and huge wages to the board which means not enough money left to meet other committments like wages and pension contributions then put the company into administration
We do work for Carillion, fortunately we don't have anything on with them just now and, in all honesty, I really, really won't miss them. They're a pretty awful company to work for. We also do work for Kier, B&K, Morgan Sindall and a few others and none of them are anywhere near as bad.
Sad day for the employees of Carillion.
I fully expect the unfinished work will be finished off and the maintenance contracts will go out to tender again or taken in-house/nationalised. I think that the giant French construction firms will be eager to take on the contracts, they already do this kind of work quite successfully in the UK.
Sad time for the staff, as a currently unemployed person I hope they find something as it's not the best market out there at the moment 🙁
But I agree with TJ ( 😯 ) that's what it is essentially about, didn't the CEO or someone manage to ensure he got his £4m bonus before all this happened?
£4m for running a company into the ground is pretty good money...
So if hedge funds had been predicting this for over a year, hire cone the government haven't stepped in sooner.... We know they are only about one thing, but someone should have been aware, when they are so important to the country.
Carillion's sub-contractors will be hit especially hard.
Companies like Carillion sub' huge amounts of their work out to third parties and little will be heard of the struggle the subbies face. I expect some will cease trading due to Carillions demise.
Carillions dividends look to have been quite healthy over the last few years, quite a surprise considering the trouble they've been in. Looks like a very poorly run PLC and I would be very interested to see what the senior Carillion people managed to take out of the company over the last few years.
The argument that the shareholders of 'too large to fail' banks and other companies are pension funds, and that by implication it is ordinary people who will suffer if the companies are not bailed out by public money, is ultimately specious.
The banks weren't bailed out to protect the shareholders, they were bailed out to protect the account holders.
Imagine that RBS had gone bust. In an instant, every account holder would have lost access to their money. Forget all the missed bill payments, mortgage payments, loan defaults etc, instead think about the fact that every business that banks with RBS, from corner shop to megacorp, would have gone into liquidation. That means that everyone that worked for all those businesses would have lost their jobs. The economy goes into meltdown.
Directors and hedge funds pretty much brought Carillion down by lining their own pockets instead of running a business. Immoral, but almost certainly not illegal (perhaps it should be...)
hire cone the government haven't stepped in sooner
Because they though, as Carillion did, that the debt deal the company was after would be accepted by the banks.
But the banks said no, rumoured to be because they wanted government money to soften their losses. What I can't work out is that now it seems the banks have lost more than if they had accepted the deal?
Big big shock today, I genuinely believed this could be saved. The share holders lost a fortune and the nit wit who claimed shareholders took a billion from the company is clueless. The board of directors are guilty of fraud. All Carillion sites have closed down... nothing no gets finished
It seems the victims of govt penny pinching are not limited to the sick and unemployed.
Whilst I feel sorry at the personal level for the many people directly affected by this, I don’t think the government can be accused of screwing the company over. The government puts projects out to tender, private firms bid on them. If they don’t like the terms of the eventual contract they’re not being forced to sign it. Free market neoliberalism, suck it up.
Nothing more expensive than getting a half finished priject completed by a new main contractor
Sad day for employees, even more so for the many more sub-contracted companies they were working with.
Carillions dividends look to have been quite healthy over the last few years, quite a surprise considering the trouble they've been in.
I am with TJ on this one - over the last few years they have paid dividends, paid bonuses, paid huge salaries etc. Yet were sinking. While it may not be direct fraud, it is reckless and disingenuous.
My own employer when I joined in 2013 was heading under, had just cut 50% of workforce and closed an office. We have had three years of hard chuffing work, minimal resources such as no new IT unless vital, all worked blooming hard to get work Last year it has suddenly come good - we are back trading with surplus, recruiting for new projects, invested in new resources like IT to speed up work, looks like salary increases may be on the cards if this carries on this financial year. It is called prudence.
Free market neoliberalism, suck it up.
But don't you think there should be some consideration into the likelihood of a company actually being able to fulfill their contract rather than just "that ones the cheapest"
Due diligence would have shown the risk in giving more work to Carillion. Sometimes cheapest isn't the best option.
Any MPs amongst the directors?
Will Carillion go bust = No in a nut shell
It's great to have such expert commentary from insiders.
coconut - MemberBig big shock today, I genuinely believed this could be saved. The share holders lost a fortune and the nit wit who claimed shareholders took a billion from the company is clueless. The board of directors are guilty of fraud. All Carillion sites have closed down... nothing no gets finished
Its indisputable that the board and sharholders took huge sums out of the company. Huge sums that if left in the company could have kept it afloat
scotroutes - Member
Due diligence would have shown the risk in giving more work to Carillion. Sometimes cheapest isn't the best option.Any MPs amongst the directors?
POSTED 46 SECONDS AGO # REPORT-POST
Baroness Morgan is a director 😯
Make pension funding sufficiency part of the scoring criteria for all government contracts
Its indisputable that the board and sharholders took huge sums out of the company. Huge sums that if left in the company could have kept it afloat
Lets be very clear about this, and other statements that are along similar lines, the responsibility of the board of a company to act in the best interests of the shareholders, not the employees. You (plural not just TJ) may not like that fact but that is the law.
Whilst board remuneration and large individual bonuses are certainly outside best use of the shareholders money but when compared with the overall company turnover it is highly unlikely to be a significant amount of money.
The BBC article states the Government will take over the Government defined contracts (Oxford City’s Council have already confirmed thier position) and the Public Contracts will be sold to potential buyers...
Network Rail will be unaffected.
Pension Funds now managed under PPF so that’s safe, though the deficit of £600m will undoubtably remain just that. So those that put into the Fund probably won’t receive the full term amounts.
I also see that the board has Philip Green on - who advised David Cameron on business corporate responsibility...
Looks like Carillion paid over £350million in dividends since 2012. Not an insignificant amount of money for a company on a less than stable financial foundation.
It’s in the share holders best interest for the company to report honestly, forecast correctly, manage the business professionally, take and manage risks appropriately, meet the companies legal obligations to all parties.
It is not it the best interest of shareholders to fail in the above or to pay large dividends when the performance of the business doesn’t justify it
If they get the above list right then the shareholders investments have been justified and they deserve just reward. The failure here is with the directors of the business.
the responsibility of the board of a company to act in the best interests of the shareholders, not the employees.
The problem with this is that this is often carried out on a short term basis where the shareholder interest and the employees interest do not align.
If a more long-term view is taken then the interests of the shareholders and the employees are more closely aligned.
Until shareholders and directors start to take a long-term view events like this will continue to happen
Isn't it a different Phillip Green to BHS?
I've worked with a couple of Government departments - and neither had a clue about assessing industrial capability, they are solely driven by the Treasure mantra of competition and margins, without any real understanding of the impact of what they were trying to do if they fail. In industry, we continually assessing our suppliers to make sure the critical ones aren't over-exposed / likely to fail. The fact that Government Depts continued to award contracts to Carillion, who no doubt used them to secure more money from banks led to their downfall.
The government puts projects out to tender, private firms bid on them. If they don’t like the terms of the eventual contract they’re not being forced to sign it.
In a completely transparent free market that's exactly how it should work. But it doesn't. I work for a major supplier to govt infrastructure projects like HS2. Everyone knows these projects are a nightmare. We struggle to break even on them let alone make a profit. Some firms, like Carillion, undercut others to win the work in the knowledge that they'll never make a profit. Why is that? Anything to do with the close relationship between CEOs and the govt? A more cynical person might think it's because the CEOs get to trouser millions with absolutely no consequences for failure, with the complete acceptance (or even collusion) of govt. The whole thing stinks.
The problem with this is that this is often carried out on a short term basis where the shareholder interest and the employees interest do not align.
I completely agree with you and when the company you work for is shorted by large hedge funds, or has their share price being "manipulated" by them for short term gain it's not a nice place to be. It is however the law and provided no one is acting illegally then it's the way things are.
MOB - wrong Philip Green; you're referring to the retailer.
Carillion were, effectively, a 'management contractor' with a small direct labour force relative to it's size.
Bid, win contract, contract with subbies for scheme delivery, attempt to 're-engineer' scheme, squeeze subbies to deliver buying gains and make margin.
Part of their process was to squeeze down the size of the risk pot (allowance) on each scheme to reduce bid price meaning that if/when problems arose there was limited scope to absorb the financial impact.
Fixed price contracts are ok if there is complete visibility and minimal risk; Carillion signed up to some where it was totally inappropriate.
Add in the unforeseen bad debts from their Middle East contracts; banks who wanted Gov to soften the blow by providing funding and then refused to provide further support when the Gov declined.
We have the usual range of uninformed comments about the board and shareholders which show no understanding.
As pointed about ^^^ a board's duty is to it's shareholders, not it's employees.
T1000 - nice idea about assessing pension fund health when awarding contracts but impractical; suggest you check out how many major companies are running pension fund deficits - it's 100% legal. Carillion were no different.
The PPF will support current and future pensioners to 85%.
Reliance on the PPF is not something public sector employees will ever need to worry about as theirs are, effectively, underwritten by the Gov.
Former CEO Richard Howson who led the charge for growth should be forced to repay his bonus; in addition his salary and benefits payments - which he is still receiving - should be stopped immediately.
Some firms, like Carillion, undercut others to win the work in the knowledge that they'll never make a profit. Why is that? Anything to do with the close relationship between CEOs and the govt? A more cynical person might think it's because the CEOs get to trouser millions with absolutely no consequences for failure, with the complete acceptance (or even collusion) of govt. The whole thing stinks.
It's also because they can take the risk of a massive cost overrun, and be safe in the knowledge that the government will pay it. Why? Because by that point the project will be at a stage where it would be even more expensive to re-tender with a different contractor.
But don't you think there should be some consideration into the likelihood of a company actually being able to fulfill their contract rather than just "that ones the cheapest"
Absolutely there should be. But that's poor procurement risk management on the part of the government, not the government screwing over a major company.
MOB - wrong Philip Green; you're referring to the retailer.
Nope.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Nevill_Green
What exactly do you think share holders took out this company ? We lost 100%... This could have gone into administration (of which there is a way out of)! Liquidation..... everyone got shafted... total fu@k up for everyone. The culprits were the board of directors and the shorters (they are not share holders and have no voting rights)
The government puts projects out to tender, private firms bid on them. If they don’t like the terms of the eventual contract they’re not being forced to sign it.
Except the public sector, unlike most private sector contracts, looks mainly at the bid cost. And very often, both sides know that the bid value doesn't really relate to the actual costs because some reason will be found to escalate them. It's a completely hopeless way of working and a private company that tried it would go bust. But government and civil service and local authorities keep on doing it.
It happened in defence some time ago (Nimrod/Astute, etc) and MoD has learned some lessons (but still a lot of room for improvement). Contract structure these days is nothing like it used to be, vastly reducing the risk on the taxpayer.
It seems the rest of the public sector hasn't learned anything. If they did a half decent tender and acted like a proper customer, you wouldn't end up with so many messes.
Pension Funds now managed under PPF so that’s safe, though the deficit of £600m will undoubtably remain just that. So those that put into the Fund probably won’t receive the full term amounts.
The standing of an individual scheme has no effect on benefits from the PPF.
The PPF has clearly defined rules and employees will receive exactly what they are entitled to under those rules. 100% for current pensioners, 90% of benefits up to a cap of £38k for active/deferred members. So they will get less, but that is down to the PPF guarantee and nothing else.
The deficit has nothing to do with that, any pension that goes into the PPF gets the same. It also isn't taxpayer support - the PPF is paid for by its member schemes. The PPF will join the list of creditors to fund the shortfall.
coconut - MemberWhat exactly do you think share holders took out this company ? We lost 100%...
dividends. Money that if kept in the company would have kept it afloat
Of course the small investor is shafted as they had to pay for the shares unlike the board who get given them
I can't believe how low some of the margins are on these contracts, especially as they're often the type of thing that has unforeseen overruns (unless a substantial contingency has been built in but then you risk pricing yourself out of the bid).
I can't believe how low some of the margins are on these contracts, especially as they're often the type of thing that has unforeseen overruns
Indeed. Hence the question of why they signed up to a fixed price contract on the AWB. Are we really supposed to believe that a CEO and board of directors with god knows how much commercial experience were so incompetent that they couldn't see what anyone with a basic knowledge of the construction industry would?
adviser on "corporate responsibility" apparently...
Carillons dividend was cut last summer when the first issues appeared. The dividend was about 7% . Bit like saying rbs should never have payed interest on any current accounts. Carillion's value as a PLC was the share price times the number of shares in existence. The wipe out of a billion pound company went to a few huge select hedge funds... Blackrock investments, kite and Marshall wace... they got stinking rich off this and added heavily to the decline. No one would lend to carillon, and in part this was due to the way shorters manipulated this down... hence the practice being banned in Germany. This could have been rescued no question!
I can't believe how low some of the margins are on these contracts, especially as they're often the type of thing that has unforeseen overruns (unless a substantial contingency has been built in but then you risk pricing yourself out of the bid).
Part of the Carillion MO is to trim/remove the risk allowance to make their bid lower.
Don't often agree with him but [url= https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/15/carillion-failure-contracts-government-whitehall ]Simon Jenkins in the guardian[/url] nails it.
"The company’s demise is attributable to favouritism, cost escalation, excessive risk, obscene remuneration and reckless indebtedness. Carillion and its bankers clearly thought it too big to fail. Whitehall behaved accordingly. It was like a pre-2008 bank."
Part of the Carillion MO is to trim/remove the risk allowance to make their bid lower.
From working in the IT industry I strongly feel that a significant barrier to increasing productivity is the relentless drive to save money which leads to outsourcing to the lowest bidder, which leads to failed projects and poor performance.
I can't believe how low some of the margins are on these contracts
Which then leads to squeezing the sub contractors, cutting corners and manipulating the specification whilst offering the client a perceived saving. None of which are a benefit in the long run to the end client/general public.
Lets be very clear about this, and other statements that are along similar lines,[u] the responsibility of the board of a company to act in the best interests of the shareholders,[/u][b] not the employees. You (plural not just TJ) may not like that fact but that is the law.
Haven't done their job very well then....
Carillons dividend was cut last summer when the first issues appeared. The dividend was about 7%
I'm sure Carillions board knew they were in trouble before then. I guess they were thinking of the tax saving when announcing the write down. If they had announced their troubles earlier then they might have struggled to reach the tender requirements. Plenty of other construction companies manage to operate in the same marketplace as Carillion did, IMO Carillion were not well run. Actual Carillion dividend total for 2016 was 18.45p
According to dividendmax.com
2016 = 18.45p x 430.3million = £79.390 milllion on T/O of £4.395 billion.
2017 = 12.65p
From working in the IT industry I strongly feel that a significant barrier to increasing productivity is the relentless drive to save money which leads to outsourcing to the lowest bidder, which leads to failed projects and poor performance.
Amen
I worked on a bid to do a job for a company. I worked with a guy from Germany from the vendor of the software being worked with. He'd been employed as one of a small team of specialists directly working with the client, and crucially on time and materials. They were able to take time sorting the issues out properly, and the whole thing was a total success.
The UK company on the other hand invited tender from a number of companies, one of which was a notorious outsourcer who quoted fixed price for 1/4 of our estimate. They don't have anything like the skills we do, and the project is chock full of unknowns by its very nature. They have under quoted by assuming everything's going to be easy and using cheap resources.
Can't see a problem there, can you?
I feel most for the subbies and employees because they're the ones who will feel the pain worse. No doubt it'll finish off some of the smaller subbies.
TBH, I have no idea why anyone would be a subbie because they shafted so hard by the main contractors. It's a funny old industry.
I have a friend who is also a QS who works for them and was working on One Chamberlain Square in Birmingham.
Lets be very clear about this, and other statements that are along similar lines, the responsibility of the board of a company to act in the best interests of the shareholders,[b] not the employees. You (plural not just TJ) may not like that fact but that is the law
Which law is this?
FuzzyWuzzy - Member
I can't believe how low some of the margins are on these contracts, especially as they're often the type of thing that has unforeseen overruns (unless a substantial contingency has been built in but then you risk pricing yourself out of the bid).
Balfour Beatty Rail, when it was loaded with work, based things on a 3-4% margin with scope for aggressive commercial variation to bolster this as the 3-4% was basically unachievable; this back fired when contracts (with NR) changed from fixed cost or cost plus to a pain / gain format where any gains over margin are shared by the client and the PC and any losses equally so. This was going on to the point where BBR hadn't made any profit off their own backs for 5 years prior to 2015 and had been bank rolled by Balfour Beatty Construction.
I can imagine this is what was going on at Carillion, but the bank rolling was based on loans gained on a back of their order book, but ultimately they couldn't pay? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong
From working in the IT industry I strongly feel that a significant barrier to increasing productivity is the relentless drive to save money which leads to outsourcing to the lowest bidder, which leads to failed projects and poor performance
I actually work for an IT services company that does a lot of outsourcing and yeah there's a lot of it in the industry. We actually have a process in place where we won't bid on contracts below a certain margin, not sure how many deals we lose on price but I suspect quite a few. One company we took over a few years back left us with a contract we were losing money delivering services the client didn't want but both bound by a nightmare contract, thankfully that nonsense has now ended...
From working in the IT industry I strongly feel that a significant barrier to increasing productivity is the relentless drive to save money which leads to outsourcing to the lowest bidder, which leads to failed projects and poor performance.
This is true for all services.
Friend was working as an IT troubleshooter for the DWP on Universal Credit
He quit after they ignored his report that the IT companies would never complete the task on time or at the budget they bid and the gov had no comeback.
That was a few years ago and UC is nearly a decade late and £13bn overbudget
With significant experience in transformation and IT governance, this is something I have often done internally and for external organisations. When you are ignored - it’s cathartic to see that you were right.
From working in the IT industry I strongly feel that a significant barrier to increasing productivity is the relentless drive to save money which leads to outsourcing to the lowest bidder, which leads to failed projects and poor performance.
True, but just because you pay more doesn't always mean you get a better service. I've seen some higher cost contracts deliver poor output quality and go way over budget. Hence, I totally understand why companies and government often go for the lower cost option. Also don't forget that on paper the technical skills of different companies can look very similar to key decision makers unfamiliar with the exact nature of the project, so cost becomes the king.
jamj1974 - Member
With significant experience in transformation and IT governance, this is something I have often done internally and for external organisations. When you are ignored -
off the back of it he started his own company that looked at legacy systems for big companies, despite the ridiculous fees he charged the big companies more often than not ignored his advice, I do wonder if its just something that happens in big institutions, where it becomes easy to ignore the red flags as long as everyone else does
Which law is this?
Corporate Governance Code.
Companies Act 2006 talks about responsibility to the company and mainly mentions shareholders with employees cropping up here and there.
Also don't forget that on paper the technical skills of different companies can look very similar to key decision makers unfamiliar with the exact nature of the project, so cost becomes the king.
Indeed. But, if you hadn't outsourced all your skills, you'd have your own skilled people who can call out when your contractors are being shit.
So it says the company has a responsibility to the shareholders, but doesn't exclude other stakeholders as well?
I suspect it is often used as an excuse, and an inaccurate excuse, for companies to exercise poor governance and unethical behaviour to other stakeholders, when that isn't what the law really says or intends. But I am not familiar with the companies act 2006, so can't say for sure.
Oxfordshire council have put the fire service on standby to deliver school meals if the worst happens.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-42687748
and over in liverpool all workers at the new late royal liverpool hospital pfi white elephant have been sent home for the day, told to return tomorrow, wonder how many self employed will not return and how many suppliers will be removing supplies/ equipment in the morning.
Which law is this?
Companies Act s172 mostly, as interpreted by courts over the years. Although s170 makes clear that these duties are owed to the company and not the shareholders (but then they are the owners...).
More recently, we have seen this distorted to mean "success until the next dividend and no further".
Also don't forget that on paper the technical skills of different companies can look very similar to key decision makers unfamiliar with the exact nature of the project, so cost becomes the king.
Very much this. We are a web agency that puts UX/UI/process at the heart of all we do so our costs are not the cheapest. More recently we have been losing out to companies charging much less – but it's because they don't go through the same process as we do (they will just make a 'pretty' site). It isn't that what they are doing is wrong, it's just different to how we do things yet the people we tender to don't see this - they just see 'website price A £X,000', 'website price B £Y00' and go for the cheaper option.
Balfour beatty are reporting a big hit on joint projects due to the failure of carilion.
various building construction mags are also saying a lot of smaller suppliers are going to failing next few months due to monies owed.
more info here https://www.pwc.co.uk/carillion
Irrespective of the party political bickering that could be gone into, I know who will end up paying the cost.
Tossers.
News already filtering through at work today of projects being cut, and to my knowledge we don't do a lot of work directly with them. This is going to have a huge knock on effect in the construction industry which has already seen investment levels drop thanks to brexit. On the positive side my chances of being made redundant are looking up.
I see the wages will only be paid for 48 hours. Looks like I'll be working from home on Wednesday.
@project - Carillion's 'standard' payment terms of 120 days will exacerbate this.; any subbies on Carillion rail jobs will be less badly affected due to Network Rail's 30 day payment charter which is imposed on all of their contractors and means that subbies are paid on 30 days end of month terms.
Subbies to other Carillion divisions will be on 120 days.
Those terms were implemented 4 or 5 years ago and were widely seen as Carillion trading on the margin.
An example of their mindset in recent years.
I have worked for them as an interim in 4 different sectors/divisions and have seen their changing attitude to pricing/winning jobs.
In their rail business, which is part of UK construction services, there was a stated objective to grow t/o with Network Rail to £500million pa quickly; what wasn't publicly stated was that they were totally unselective about what to bid for - it was all about volume and t/o.
I have no reason to assume the same thought process did not prevail in all other divisions.
Empty words from David Lidington this afternoon will be no consolation to employees, subbies, other stakeholders, clients.
Companies are an artificial construct, and only exist because we (our laws) permit it.
The problem with company structures is that they are amoral.
It's time we fixed that, and also time we had a govt appointed independent director with real powers in big listed companies. Might help cut tax evasion too.
4 month payment terms, who in their right mind would accept those terms, theres going to be wholescale walkouts from sites no matter whos running them, would anyone on here stay working at what was carillion in the present climate.
@project - subbies made noise, rightly, about extended payment terms but accepted them because they needed the work.
Carillion's position as no2 contractor in uk construction allowed them to lever their position - and they did.
surely all those sub contractors are not going to see a penny of what they are owed ?
[url= https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4631/39712350151_05ea8d0781_b.jp g" target="_blank">https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4631/39712350151_05ea8d0781_b.jp g"/> [/img][/url]
That would make sense, epic, but is it true? Do you have any links, surely it would be all over the news if it was that transparent, or maybe not.