no the ipswich depot not affected .Some of trucks have been shuffled about as some have gone back and some trucks have been hired.Dont really no the full story as i am on holiday go back tomorrow
jj72:
good to see the spin doctors have come up with a special name “pre packaged administration process” as previously we have had to refer to it as plain old “shafted everyone”so, besides the taxman (i.e you the taxpayer’s money), will all their previous suppliers just merrily start them a new account and start racking up more potential losses, or what?
I bet theres a few hefty bills lying unpaid, be surpising to see who is due what !!!
end off the day its O/D and small firms that get shafted most 
been talking to one of the OD hes been paid so i really dont no
blunder man did u work for MTL
how come vosa gave bulmers transport o/l when bulmers logistics prob owe money to hmrc
bulmers logistics ltd and bulmers transport are 2 differnt companys jonny stood down 2 month ago from bulmers logistcs ltd.It must be all above board for it to happen
Rikki-UK:
SHYTOT:
Bulmers Logistics at 16.00 then Bulmers Transport 16.05
Can this be done legally no operators licence, no repute, no money, no assets, no insurance ■■What is the ‘pre-pack administration process?
A ‘pre-pack’ (pre-packaged sale) refers to an arrangement under which the sale of all or part of a company’s business or assets is negotiated with a purchaser prior to the appointment of an Insolvency Practitioner as administrator. The sale will be effected by the Insolvency Practitioner shortly after his/her appointment.
I would imagine that the Management team have been working with the administrators for a while to get the new company up, funded ,licenced and ready.
Presumably this company must have know it was trading insolvent and so the directors should face the full force of the law, and if any of the directors are involved in the buyout then hopefully the Traffic Commissioner will take a dim view of the situation.
An owner/driver would not be allowed to do this.
why do people allways asume there is something dodgy gone on at bulmers .This type of thing happens all the time and will probally happen through out the reccession with a number of companys.The easyiest thing would have been to shut shop and walk away.but he asnt he has the balls to try again in a very difficult climate kept 150 plus in jobs .well i wish him the best of luck
Yes I did Andy
Not necessarily trading insolvent - a company may be experencing difficulties and trying many avenues to keep going, from raising finance to looking for a buyer - Often the signs that there are major problems come well before insolvency.
Take the example of a company that knows traditionaly in January its income drops by 50% , In November/December it normaly makes a large profit.
At the end of November it has made a profit but no where near as much as it normally does- If Decembers profits are not enough to get it through the traditional January slump it realises it may not be solvent at the end of Jan, So through December they try to raise finance but fail so they prepare the pre-pack admin agreement in case Decembers profits are not high enough to carry them through-
At the end of December they realise they havent made enough to carry them through January and put the pre-pack admin agreement into effect.
Thats not trading insolvent. At the point they became insolvent they called in the administrators who then sold the assets to the new company.
I am NOT saying this is the case with Bulmers - but shows that entering this sort of arrangement doesnt mean they have traded insolvent
all double dutch to me .All i know something needs to happen in this country very shortly or the will be no one left to work for.Doom and gloom every time u listen to tv or radio
What gets to me though is that Bulmers willingness to run at a rate that seemingly doesn’t allow them to make a profit will have helped to suppress the rates for everyone else, so the fact that they can just bounce back like this does the industry no favours at all. It was the same with Innov@te and there are no doubt others too - they start with a huge pile of money (or borrowings) and undercut everyone else (putting them out of business in many cases) and then act all surprised when the money runs out and the wheels fall off their own business.
Paul
i can name 4 hauliers that have cut the rate to take work of bulmers and one incedent was in the commercial moter although it didnt name who it was
Surely it would make sense for the new company to not have “Bulmers” in the name - as that name along with Innovate, Pawson, Macfarlane and countless others now have a stigma attacted to it. The new company should make a clean break from Bulmers Logistics alltogether… 
SANMAR~~~~~~~ SILVER BIRCH 
BULMERS~~~~~~~~ BULMERS TPT
did anyone know that the NFU has an ethics policy where they do not insure pheonix companies.maybe that should extend to other suppliers.
this company will be using the same tyre,fuel,maintenance,breakdown contractors all carefully paid up and primed before all the non essential suppliers are handed the old administration ■■■■■■■■.
andy best:
why do people allways asume there is something dodgy gone on at bulmers .This type of thing happens all the time and will probally happen through out the reccession with a number of companys.The easyiest thing would have been to shut shop and walk away.but he asnt he has the balls to try again in a very difficult climate kept 150 plus in jobs .well i wish him the best of luck
very loyal but you’re missing the point completely - it doesn’t take “balls” to go into administration owing probably tens or hundreds of thousands, only to start a phoenix company essentially whilst running a technically insolvent or at least unviable business 
wrecktech100:
did anyone know that the NFU has an ethics policy where they do not insure pheonix companies.maybe that should extend to other suppliers.
this company will be using the same tyre,fuel,maintenance,breakdown contractors all carefully paid up and primed before all the non essential suppliers are handed the old administration ■■■■■■■■.
It’s always been a part of haulage though, I remember years ago, the tyre companies garages etc, continuing to work for companies although it was common knowledge they were as good a insolvent, when they went bust they would claw back whatever they could, and immediately start to supply the new phoenix company. I suppose in an effort to recoup some of their losses, or to put it as my mate regularly says ‘Principles never made anyone rich’
the argument for administration is to protect jobs already in place at the failed company.
who protects the suppliers jobs.?
as my mate regularly says ‘Principles never made anyone rich’
depends entirely on your viewpoint of rich.