Quote: JohnG "The £300m was a repayment but is an indication of the fact that the company is cash rich and if it was facing the problems it claims why didn't it ask the parent company to let it keep the money. After all the parent company didn't need and thqat anmount of money could have paid for a lot of staff development so that come 2010 we'd be in an excellent position.
As regards naming the company, there are obvious reasons for this - most companies would take a dim view of this sort of discussion.'"
Are you sure, really really sure that your company didn't ask to defer the payment or to make it in milestones X months apart?
The reality is that it's unlikely that any credible company would shed 1200 of 6000 staff and repay a loan of £300M without having very little alternative. The £100M operating profit figure is a red herring also unless you can tell us the turnover.
Is it possible that the parent company may have needed the £300M to repay a loan that they had taken or could one of the supporting financial institutions called in a debt to reduce thier financial burden? Stories like this are never isolated and are frequently long and complex, but don't let that stop you.
