sevenheavy wrote:DobboDobbo wrote:As I’ve said, I don’t think you know what you are talking about and I don’t think you are what you profess to be.Dmoney wrote:I work in corporate finance.
This is what you are holding yourself out as being. You do not state what role, but I assume you would not profess (or admit?) to being the cleaner. However, you do not seem to understand how VS’s business works and how it returns value to the Virgin group amongst others.Dmoney wrote:VS is not a viable airline at the best of times. They've made a big loss over the last 5 years.Dmoney wrote:Virgin was a zombie company going into this kept alive by low interest rates as they've never consistently earned a return on capital which justifies their existence.Dmoney wrote:It wasn't a profitable business going into the crisis, it goes under now. That's capitalism, get over it. Creative destruction.
Leaving aside your apparent lack of understanding of the term “creative destruction”, or the difference between “profitability” and “viability” or why businesses exist, would you agree it is a material oversight for someone in the corporate finance world to have not understood the royalty payment arrangements and how that affects profitability?
You also seem to have a confused position on whether Branson is “actually rich”. See below.Dmoney wrote:Or Branson whining like a little girl that it's unreasonable to ask him to liquidate assets in a distressed market. Turns out the chap is broke. Because being ACTUALLY rich means you are liquid. If you aren't rich enough to have 200 million in liquid securities then your just another leveraged liar fronting you have money when you don't?
Leaving aside the unsophisticated language, you do realise (I’m sure you do - you work in “corporate finance”) it is possible to be cash rich but asset poor and vice versa?
In any event, you may wish to hear that Bransons Virgin Group has already committed 250m dollars to help various Virgin companies tackle Coronavirus. By your own standard, Branson is not a leveraged liar but is “actually rich”. See link below.
https://www.virgin.com/richard-branson/ ... -employees
The premise of your position on him seems to be fundamentally wrong, unless you are now going to revise your criteria?
Personally, I think you are against VS not because of any financial reason as asserted, but because you have a personal animosity to either Branson, or anyone successful. You also appear to have some form of British prejudice.
This is demonstrated by by the following examples (there are many more like this):Dmoney wrote:You haven't grasped you are asking for a bailout for rich tax dodgers paid for by dirt poor British people.Dmoney wrote:Why do you lot all hate unions and the working man but want to give a bailout to rich capitalists?Dmoney wrote:Branson can go jump off a bridge the tax dodging narcissist.Dmoney wrote:Branson is a tax exile so he doesn't pay tax. Tax is for small people.Dmoney wrote:Why are you so desperate to suck up to rich people? Why is it socialism for the rich but Brits starving to death because their benefits have been cut.
To summarise, I’ve got no issue with you holding the opinion that VS should be allowed to fail and to dislike Richard Branson. But be honest about it. You’re new in here, pease don’t pretend to be something you are obviously not, because the faux financial rationale you keep pushing is transparently wrong, fools no one and devalues your input.
Great post. Couldn’t agree more. Too much of this thread is taken up by a handful of people who seem unable to separate their dislike or envy of SRB from the airline and the people who depend on it, either to take holidays, visit families or indeed to keep a roof over their head.
Indeed. It's sickening that some on here are desperate to see people lose their jobs because they don't like the founder.
If any VS staff are reading this, please be assured you have my support and I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a positive outcome for you.