Reply to: What's all this then??????

[John Galt]

Yes, but the point of an organisation like the PCG is to tell people why these dodgy schemes are a bad idea - if they still go ahead and use them then on their own head be it.

Anyway, as you say regardless of how it was done I don't think many of us are too happy about it and, let's face it, we are the paying public.

[malvolio]

Well then, wouldn't the best thing to have done would be to write a guide for newbies telling them what to look out for - in this way they would know the good guys from the bad guys straight away.

A short term cockup by someone who didn't understand the basics of change management. Prior to that they were consistenly one of the two most recommended ones to use, even by the guys on here. We've tried education on hear over the last year or so and people are still joining the bad guys and asking (or even promoting!) offshore and composites. Never underestimate the ability of people to make stupid decisions

Basically IMHO it is sheer laziness - rather than research brollies they've just picked one and let's face it, it wasn't long ago that Parasol were getting a right hammering on this very forum because their service levels sucked.

Doubt that - they have pretty tight due diligence procedures these days, ever since people started asking questions about how the money was being spent.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea, and I don't think many PCGers do either, but I am fairly confident it's been done properly and honestly on both sides.

[John Galt]

Well yes, I take your point. The counter argument (that I don't fully agree with) is that there is a clear and consistent demand for umbrella services so we may as well have one that sticks to the rules and brings people into contact with the PCG so they can be indoctrinated properly. As I said, you can get the same effect by accreditation. However, by doing nothing, you lose the "talk to the PCG" opportunity and leave the market open to anyone, which is where we are now - and let's face it, if all the umbrellas were 100% honest and charging modest and reasonable fees, we wouldn't be arguing about them at all...

Well then, wouldn't the best thing to have done would be to write a guide for newbies telling them what to look out for - in this way they would know the good guys from the bad guys straight away. Basically IMHO it is sheer laziness - rather than research brollies they've just picked one and let's face it, it wasn't long ago that Parasol were getting a right hammering on this very forum because their service levels sucked.

[malvolio]

Well yes, I take your point. The counter argument (that I don't fully agree with) is that there is a clear and consistent demand for umbrella services so we may as well have one that sticks to the rules and brings people into contact with the PCG so they can be indoctrinated properly. As I said, you can get the same effect by accreditation. However, by doing nothing, you lose the "talk to the PCG" opportunity and leave the market open to anyone, which is where we are now - and let's face it, if all the umbrellas were 100% honest and charging modest and reasonable fees, we wouldn't be arguing about them at all...

[Cowboy Bob]

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.

No, it's not a good idea. A good idea would be for them to enter into partnership with an accountancy firm to help newbies set-up their own limited. To be recommending ANY kind of brolly is effectively helping to increase the profits of that umbrella company. Whether said brolly is one of "the good guys" or not is utterly irrelevant. The PCG is turning into a commercial enterprise under the guise of being a representative of the contractor community. This is not what it was originally set-up for.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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]

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

[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!

[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.

[~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

[Diestl]

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

[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.