On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 18:52:27 +0100, Capitol
wrote:



Andy Hall wrote:

This is irrelevant. The full set of information required to know what
has happened and to form an opinion has not been published.

I cannot agree, Peter's main points are correct, weak management
produces union problems. In this case, the company has run at a loss for
3 years apparently. In the Weinstock days of GEC, and again in US
managed ITT, 3 weeks was the maximum period that a loss was allowed in a
mature business, followed by replacing the manager in week 4!

I've seen the staff reduced by 50% in one afternoon to correct the
situation. In another international company, I've seen the "close"
decision taken and executed in a couple of days.

Regards
Capitol

I agree that weak management can cause union problems, but that wasn't
really my point.

There are plenty of companies that run at a loss for a lot longer than
three years and it does not necessarily mean that the management is
poor.

For example, it is quite common to put together a business plan which
assumes losses for a period of time because of investment or other
reasons related to the business and to enter profitability later.
This is fine, although shareholders will be looking to see that the
business performs according to the plan or that if it doesn't that
necessary corrections are made.

I am not saying that this is the case here, but equally we don't know
what the terms of the agreement are between BA and GG or between GG
and its parent company; neither have any of us attended their board or
management meetings. Therefore anything that is said can only be an
observation based on what is reported in the press.

My point is simply that there is not enough information there to be
able to point the finger at the management. They may have been
operating within parameters agreed with their parent.




--

..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl