What's all this then??????

[malvolio]

What makes you think that about the £300 a membership organisation?

£125 plus VAT. Or £220 + VAT if you take PCGPlus. £300 is PCGPlus for one company with two fee-earners; IR35 taxation, and hence the tax insurance, is a personal one, hence the cover per person requirement. It is a not-for-profit organisation, but with the average court caselike Arctic running at around £0.5m, a working fund is rather necessary. No dividends are paid to the shareholders, all surpluses are retained within the company to cover its operating expenses.

If you're going to talk crap, at least use the right numbers.

[Diestl]

Just a joke calm down, do you own the organization or something?

[~Craig~]

Just a joke calm down, do you own the organization or something?

Don't mind him, he's probably been in CAB all day

[Pondlife]

I think it's a bit of a contentious issue on PCG with divided feelings. Apparently it went from "we're thinking about it" to "ta da, here it is" without real discussion.

Still don't like the fact that it is not an acretitation(?) scheme but an affiliate one. What about the other 'above board' brollies (please don't ask for examples )

Also, my cynical side doesn't like it when organisations have 'nice little earners' that deviate from their members direction.

Just my opinion - I still agree with what PCG is, stands for and does.

[malvolio]

Don't mind him, he's probably been in CAB all day

Nope, I'm on the bench at the mo. And the weather seems to gone off and SWMBO has a growing list of "little jobs around the house", so it's time to start looking again!

[John Galt]

This all seems to be getting a bit out of hand - definite toys out of the pram on some other forums: Bottom post

[malvolio]

This all seems to be getting a bit out of hand - definite toys out of the pram on some other forums: Bottom post

That's just Jerry exercising his non-existent journalistic skills again and his chums jumping on the bandwagon. Still, always good fun to seen anonymous people making accusations they can't support!

[John Galt]

That's just Jerry exercising his non-existent journalistic skills again and his chums jumping on the bandwagon. Still, always good fun to seen anonymous people making accusations they can't support!

I agree - not the best site for well informed prose Mal but you have to admit he has got a point. It seems really odd to me that a so called advisory body would suddenly decide to support one particular service provider - they haven't said anything about considering all the options or consulting us lot to see what we want from a brolly. Usually when one company promotes another there is an exchange of cash and fair enough but it doesn't seem right with the PCG who are supposed to be unbiased - a bit like ACAS sponsoring an employment agency

[malvolio]

It's already been said they should accredit umbrellas in the same way they do for accountants - use the badge if you're good enough to qualify. While I know the deal is entirely above board, it was surely not too hard to anticipate the kind of reactions we are seeing. Good idea (excellent idea in fact if it stops newbies getting burned), good way to track down potential candidates for educating on why they should move to "proper" company ownership, crap PR.

[simondolan]

That's just Jerry exercising his non-existent journalistic skills again and his chums jumping on the bandwagon. Still, always good fun to seen anonymous people making accusations they can't support!

I've just looked at this and had a nose around at Companies House.

Parasol Ltd made a loan of £7.5m to a new Company Parasol Management Ltd to buy the shares in Parasol Ltd. The whole £7.5m was paid out in cash to one of the shareholders.

The accounts don't show retained profits of anything like that amount to pay out, so the money will have come from financing or cashflow generated from VAT, PAYE etc.

Is all above board, but if the Company takes a turn for the worse it could cause major problems if they couldn't afford to repay the loan.