Member Info for JohnNth

As it now emerges, the temporary management was too busy securing itself a package in the eventuality it goes bust so no one was chasing any debt or trying to put things right to trigger payments. The start date for the next CEO was 6 months into the future so why bother to do any groundwork for which the new CEO can take all the credit. Effectively, since announcement of high profile departures, they became a lame duck management, and for this the Board has to take ALL the responsibility.

Think they needed �20m immediately and then govt to provide g'tees on any further loans made by the banks. In my opinion the company had a good future, but became cash strapped in the meantime, and they didn't get the help.

The banks were private just like Carillion; the banks collapsing were similarly mismanaged like clln was; banks were loaned capital just like what clln wanted; and collapse of clln would smilarly disrupt the economy as would collapse of a bank. Clln asked for �20m, not �80b that Banks got. Further, the bailout would have helped the city of Wolverhampton which is a deprived area as opposed to the City of London which is full of vankers. I lived in Wolverhampton so I know how this will impact the local community/economy. Govt should've provided the �20m and learnt the lesson, going forward not to put most eggs in one basket.

Keeping the company rudderless for 6 months was not a good idea.They should have appointed new CEO with proven track record to take over immediately instead of waiting 6 months. Mgt running around like headless chickens and no responsibility/incentive put the final nail in the coffin.

Govt provided in excess of �80 billions to the Vankers in the City of London in 2008 but couldn't spare �20 million to save a major company in a deprived area of Wolverhampton...says it all!