Last week, the Daily Echo carried the following headline on their website:
But the story was quickly denied by
Velvet on their Facebook page:
This later story in the Echo explains what has happened.
Velvet wanted to sell,
Xela wanted to buy. A deal was signed, but then
Xela exercised their right to withdraw from the deal at the last minute. This now raises the question of whether
Velvet is still for sale and who else might be interested.
In other news,
there are evening diversions to Bluestar's Totton services for three weeks. Services away from Southampton won't serve stops on Waterloo Road, at Millbrook Station or on Millbrook Road West as far as Regents Park Road after 8pm each night. Buses will divert via Shirley Road, Park Street and Regents Park Road. Routes 8, 9, 11 and 12 are affected, but journeys towards town are not. Ignore that, the roadworks have been indefinitely postponed.
I am pretty sure that Mr Stockley has already answered your question. I think he may also be pretty upset by your headline!
ReplyDeleteIf the quotation from Mr Stockley in the follow-up Echo article still stands, then surely there is no outstanding question to be raised, notwithstanding the alliterative attraction of the original scenario?
ReplyDeleteThe whole world now knows that the sale would have happened. Quite how this affects the thinking of passengers,those with contracts,and councils going forward,is another matter. Presumably,the collapse of the sale now puts Velvet in a strange place.... a bit like a bride left standing at the alter. One minute,all looks rosey, the next,no honeymoon.
ReplyDeleteNot really done either party any good has it?
I think it's done a lot of damage, and as you state not done either party any favours. What the future holds we will all have to wait and see. The public seems to be very pro Velvet, so let's hope in the future they are not let down by whoever may purchase Velvet if this is to be the case. PAC
DeleteThe planned Totton diversion by Bluestar has now been posponed - However there is a diversion this Saturday on service 18 in Thornhill and on Sunday for service 2 in Eastleigh. - Happy days! PAC
ReplyDeleteOne has to accept what the protagonists of the aborted merger/takeover have told the public. Nonetheless, it seems to me that reasons for buying from, selling to, or backing out from purchase often fall in to the following:
ReplyDeleteReasons for selling an enterprise:
• doing very well but little room for expansion
• doing the opposite and a get-out card is welcome
• something else more attractive, interesting or safer beckons.
Reasons for buying
• purchase seems good value and fit with the buyer’s present operation
• offers opportunities, combined, to expand whilst controlling costs
Reasons for pulling out
• inability to complete
• emergence of some hitherto unknown factor(s)
• impact of known factors realised to be potentially more serious under certain circumstances that might come about
I note from a posting on the Velvet site that the 300-N6-N8 are withdrawn after Saturday 5th April 2014. PAC
ReplyDeleteVelvets comments (their web site) that the N6/N8 night buses are to finish seems strange. The implication is that Eastleigh Council are withdrawing funding because the whole Eastleigh area is not covered now B* have pulled their night buses. Unilink are running a night service to Eastleigh (although not to Fair Oak) so this comment appears strange
ReplyDeleteThe assumption is the night services are unprofitable and is of course good reason for a commercial operator to pull out. The social argument for the service is the council's to make.
I believe Velvet have also surrendered the contract for Winchester - Petersfield.
ReplyDeleteAnd several Velvet journeys seem to be cut (lost) on a regular basis as seen on Twitter/Fbook when they have a lack of vehicles or breakdowns. Hmm.... & Mr Stockley up north playing buses elsewhere... doesn't look good does it?
ReplyDeleteI have to agree, there have recently been lots of services lost due to vehicle breakdowns, and no bus to replace the broken down vehicle. It's a great pity this, as in general the public like what Velvet offers. However if issues are not addressed the public will soon alter their opinion I feel. PAC
DeleteAt this rate Xela won't need to buy anything.Just wait and let Velvet collapse,then pick up what you want.
ReplyDeleteAs a fan of Velvet I am concerned at the number of journeys lost due to breakdowns. However it must be remembered that they seem far more open on this point than other operators - are they better or worse
ReplyDeletethan the competition ?
Before I get into the discussion about our various woes, one point in the original post intrigues me.... "Exercised their right to withdraw". What right was this then? Does our blogger know more about the contracts than I do (or our lawyers for that matter)? Phil Blair signed a legally binding agreement to buy Velvet, having had full access to all our innermost secrets, and in full knowledge of all the positives and negatives. For reasons that are his business and his alone, he subsequently asked if he could be released from his obligations, and we agreed terms to enable this to happen. We enjoy a good relationship with the Blairs and Xelabus, we have a great deal of respect for them and we wish that to continue, so the process was concluded amicably and life has returned to something close to normal.
ReplyDeleteHowever there can be no denying the unsettling effect of an episode like this and I pay tribute to my staff for getting on with the job with great professionalism and good humour in the face of attempts by many outside the business to undermine their positions.
As for Velvet, we weren't looking to sell before the Blairs approached, that moment has passed and we continue to plan for a bright purple future!
We have had an awful winter though. Vehicle reliability has been a real problem, breakdowns have been above the norm, our ability to respond has been hampered by unprecedented long term sickness affecting staff availability. Roadworks at West End then Colden Common smashed the reliability of the A and floods decimated the 67 - both destroying the revenue in the process.
But far from letting things unravel, we intend to reclaim the high ground. We have made a conscious decision to pull back from the 67 and 300, create a smaller and much more localised operation around Eastleigh and Southampton, with less intensive use of vehicles, more running time and reduced mileage. This will allow more time for maintenance and cleaning, micro-management of the service to promote reliability and first class customer care - values that we hold very dear.
It will be for others to judge whether we succeed, by their experience of using our services over the next few months, but we are embracing the challenge with enthusiasm and optimism!
I think Velvet's standards have certainly gone downhill over the last few months. Owner is up t'nth & to be honest must want shot of Velvet or else he'd have never even "accepted" Xela's offer, even if out of the blue. Other local operators like First/Bluestar/Stagecoach do have breakdowns but I'd be very interested in the percentage of lost journeys due to breakdowns when comparing operators. I wonder what VOSA would say? So Velvet are short of buses.... never heard of hiring a spare in for a week to cover? I'm sure someone local would have lent them one on reasonable rates (Brijan Tours say). Velvet dropped a school/college jny for Xela to take up recently too. I'm actually wondering if the "A" actually makes any money now?
ReplyDeleteThe whole episode is rather odd. Why the change of heart on the part of the potential buyer? All this has done is to make both parties look a bit silly in public. A bit like a one night stand,with regrets all round in the sober light of day.
ReplyDeleteThank you Mr Stockley for your explanation, which there is no reason not to accept. However within the explanation is, " our ability to respond has been hampered by unprecedented long term sickness affecting staff availability"'
ReplyDeleteHere are the results of a search on long term sickness.
Stress is #1 cause of long term sickness
http://www.cipd.co.uk/pressoffice/press-releases/stress-number-one-cause-long.aspx
and from
http://www.hse.gov.uk/stress/furtheradvice/signsandsymptoms.htm
there is
Signs of stress in a group
Disputes and disaffection within the group
Increase in staff turnover
Increase in complaints and grievances
Increased sickness absence
Increased reports of stress
Difficulty in attracting new staff
Poor performance
Customer dissatisfaction or complaints
Thoughts that come to mind are whether any company such as Velvet with long term sickness has any casuals it can call on, and if they are as willing to fill in as they might be they may have been. In my own field of employment there were some places I would decline. They are but my thoughts and I would just leave them just as they are.
I'm pleased Phil Stockley has explained Velvet's side of the story. - Mr Blair, could you tell yours please?
ReplyDeleteVelvet may have casual staff to call on but that process has not been helped by licensing changes.
ReplyDeleteTo hold a PSV licence requires a medical and nowadays requires a defined number of days training - both costs presumably met by casual staff - the medical is fine but not the training. It would be interesting to know how many casual drivers gave up their licence
Since licenses began there have been grandfather rights - if you hold a licence today future changes do not affect you and this was the case until the training requirement came in
This is not to say that training is not possibly a good thing but as an example I can drive a pcv with a trailer but someone passing the same test later cannot
A bit late to the party but here goes.....
ReplyDeleteCredit to the Blair family and Phil and team. Many late withdrawals from arrangements like this end up badly but from what we see it has ended amicably.
I voiced concern on other forums (maybe this one too I am too lazy to look back) that when XelaBus expanded to Winchester I thought it was too wide a spread at too fast a pace. After getting told I was bashing the small operators I stayed quiet when Phil decided to expand to the 67 and the 300.
I think that the big boys still have too much of a hold in Hampshire for it to be effective in the long term.
That being said I would like to hope that both the green and the purple operators continue to work towards doing well. I fear that two small companies in Eastleigh might be one to many but I would love to be proved wrong and need to eat the proverbial hat.
Well judging by the way the 67 keeps on having missing buses I think Velvet have seriously damaged their reputation. I would not be surprised if VOSA get wind of their "missing buses" & HCC decide that they are not fit to run buses & of course they will deduct £ given in contract for 67 if a bus does not run. I know Xela were on/off contracts like a light switch but I'm sure they actually run buses & not just didn't turn up. The future could be black for Velvet!!
ReplyDeleteXela may not be everyones cup of tea, but their School & Supermarket business plan does seem to be sustainable. The small operators just need to find their own niche in the market & stick to it rigorously. Nabbing a bit of contract work when it's not stretching things to the limit. Think of Emsworth & District, Brijan & Wheelers - they have their own little bits & (seem to) do ok. Phil perhaps in his mind has taken his mind off of Velvet thinking he was still Blue-line-ing, especially if he's up t'nth sorting out someone else's buses. You can't run two companies 50-50 & expect top results. The management team at Velvet may be ok, but Phil is the owner & if he either wants Velvet then he should be down south managing it or else if he doesn't want it sell it off whilst it is still viable & concentrate up t'nth. Feelings of indecision too easily filter through to the staff. In/out - no half way bus stop. Ok, rant over & I'm off to catch a Firstbus ..... then get a Stagecoach bus. Hopefully they'll both turn up!
ReplyDeleteI note that on the twitter site of Velvet this week, more and more complaints comeing in, due to the fact of vehicles being non operational due to defects. The 67 seems to have suffered badly as have other services. I hope the problems will be rectified as soon as possible, before any more damage is done too public confidence in their operations. PAC
ReplyDeleteVelvet has form for taking on HCC contracts and bailing from them when circumstances no longer suit. Xela, have much worse form but either way there is a credibility problem there with the local authority when it comes to future tenders. This might not be important given present financial climate and the fact a business built on tenders is no longer viable long term. But why bid for a contract knowing you're going to have to service it from a remote base, and knowing that these issues might likely arise?
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to observe that long term staff sickness and the owner moving onto/being diverted to other things seem to run parallel.
As for bailing from contracts, surely the people in charge at Velvet have solid backgrounds commercially and can plan for fluctuations in revenues caused by extreme weather - or can plan for cost increases during a contract life?
These are the things a career with the big operations teach you, or is supposed to teach you.
It leaves me wondering just what the exit strategy is for Velvet - and its owners? Longer term, it would make an excellent fit within Stagecoach with different brooms in charge than in Phil's days and would allow Stagecoach to expand/pitch for work at a lower cost base like it does with Fleet Buzz.
As for Xelabus, for people who are marketing/promotion professionals it leaves you wondering what their talents must be - how does it look to the outside world when you announce you're buying what is your biggest competitor in the local area, then bailing from the deal before completion? Nothing unduly wrong with that but when you've gone public, what credibility does it suggest? With their ability to produce howlers like this, I best keep their number in case I need to promote my own business in the marketplace.
There is a big difference with anoraks playing buses and people who have the experience of running bus businesses. I think we can work out which camp Xelabus falls into.
Could you clarify which HCC contacts have Velvet taken on and bailed out of?
DeleteAt least 2 - the '35' and now the 67. Admittedly around three vehicles worth of work but much was made of their high profile at the time
DeleteThe 67 Winchester - Petersfield. Well in recent weeks the early bus has been cancelled so many times, HCC must be getting a bumper refund from Velvet!!
DeleteTry the 46 and the 67. There may be more.
DeleteI have yet again feel obliged to enter this discussion to try and put some of the correspondents correct on the actual allegations being made about my company.
ReplyDeleteAs I understand this site is for enthusiasts to have their views on how buses should be run, I first of all will say yes I am an enthusiast but for the position of running a business conveying the public on vehicles I own the vehicles are outside the preservation scene and I keep those vehicles for my own personal interest and I would say that I have invested in a number of buses that would have gone to the scrapyard had I not have intervened and of course these are therefore now seen for the enthusiasts to enjoy!
That is that side of my interest covered!
We were approached by Phil Stockley about taking on his business and we have always had an interest should this come about we did enter into professional discussions with him and obtained significant data about his operation. As Phil has said both Xelabus and Velvet have worked closely together over the past and it would be an obvious step for one or other of us to look to purchase the other. As it was, Velvet made the first move.
We did conclude on the deal but following a very short period of undisclosed information coming to light we decided to terminate the decision to purchase. At the time we did make a payment to support Velvets operations and assist them but when we pulled out from the agreement we felt it was only respected to allow for work that had been completed towards the agreement.
We did not take the decision to pull out lightly but now some 2 weeks later it was definitely the right thing to have done.
Xelabus is a profitable business now after early years of capital payments and we are now replacing first vehicles and replacing with single deck MPD buses. We have a programme of vehicle replacement going ahead and newer double deckers are coming into the fleet shortly to replace the Olympians.
We have significant new contracts from September to look forward too and also a busy easter and Summer with English Languauge schools, Fairthorne Manor, Festivals and general private hire.
We are more than happy with the business performance and there is also a plan for a new commercial service starting in September too.
Many opportunities are in front of us and with profitable operation and fleet investment we are extremely comfortable with the way forward.
I hope this will alleviate more speculation on Xelabus and put to bed the continual insults of us as "anoraks" and make it clear Xelabus will continue to grow with its experience of winning business through professional negotiations and operating to customers requirements and expectations.
PHILIP BLAIR
Managing Director
Xelabus Limited
Phil Stockley said "As for Velvet, we weren't looking to sell before the Blairs approached, that moment has passed and we continue to plan for a bright purple future!"
ReplyDeletePHILIP BLAIR said "We were approached by Phil Stockley about taking on his business and we have always had an interest should this come about we did enter into professional discussions with him and obtained significant data about his operation. As Phil has said both Xelabus and Velvet have worked closely together over the past and it would be an obvious step for one or other of us to look to purchase the other. As it was, Velvet made the first move"
Hmm... someone is being shall we say untruthful. I'm pleased that Philip Blair has put his comprehensive side of the story & explained his business model as mentioned by ANON 26 March 2014 10:33.
Perhaps we will never know the REAL reason for the non buy-out... the speculation continues!
Stockley says Blairs made the approach - Blair says Stockley approached him !!!
ReplyDelete>>We did conclude on the deal but following a very short period of undisclosed information coming to light we decided to terminate the decision to purchase. <<
ReplyDeleteOf all Phil Blair's comment that could be the most telling sentence.
^Which is evidence of extremely poor due diligence being conducted by a purchaser.
DeleteA professionally run business wouldn't have gone public until DD was completed and would have kept quiet.
Just to complete my response Mr Stockley DID approach us first about purchase of his company. He made it clear he wished to take it easier and just look after TM Travel and indeed we offered him consultancy work for Xela which at the time he accepted!
ReplyDeletePHILIP BLAIR
Managing Director
Xelabus Limited
So does this mean any future sale is unlikely between the two parties then? Now that apparently all of Velvet's cards are on the table,would this information deter any other buyers,leaving closure the only option?
ReplyDeleteAs for the 'who asked whom first' debate,all very school playground.
Rumour is that Xelabus did not realise TUPE regulations would prevent them from cutting the Velvet wage rate drastically.
ReplyDeleteNo, not rumours... we need the truth!!
DeleteWe had no intention of retaining Velvet staff so TUPE would not have applied.
DeleteWow. With that comment any lingering respect I had for Philip Blair as a businessman has gone. I hope the companies and organisations using Xelabus services see that to know exactly what they're dealing with next contract renewal.
DeleteHow nice!
DeleteTUPE most definitely does apply when acquiring another business Mr Blair. I would suggest you employ some very good employment law experts next time you go on the acquisitions trail to avoid future tribunal cases as you've clearly been given duff advice here.
DeleteThat isn't what you were telling Velvet staff on the day of the takeover, Philip. You're a snake.
DeleteSo we've established xela doesn't understand basic employment law. And they don't like being referred to as anoraks playing buses. Professional outfits do not overlook TUPE and its legal obligations.
DeleteIt isn't like the trade press is not available for people to read, they even post you free mags when you hold an operators licence, all sorts of free advice contained within.
Well, reading between the lines, Mr Stockley is fed up with Velvet, so he decide to play with TM Travel & flog off Velvet, whilst getting a bit of bunce from Xela in case TM go pear shaped. Wouldn't be surprised if Velvet suddenly closed down & 'alternative' routes started by Xela to replace them.
ReplyDeleteInteresting...so why offer to buy what you can pick up for free a while later? Fancy overlooking TUPE ...
ReplyDeleteSo Xela had no intention of retaining Velvet staff - well it has to be a reasonable assumption that xela would retain the majority of Velvet (else why buy it) so where were the drivers to come from ?
ReplyDeleteOffer to buy so that Velvet would not sell out to a big boy bus co. with bigger competition to go up against maybe?
ReplyDeleteXela would have got just buses, some inherited HCC contracts & the "A" route, of which they could have done their own version quite legally - like they did with their Brijan 8 similar route. But Mr Blair would not have taken on any Velvet staff. He's honest. So, if I were a Velvet bus driver/cleaner/fitter etc I'd be very much pi$$*d off that Mr Stockley was happy to sell me out for ££££ after giving loyal service. From purple pounds to JSA (Job seekers allowance) ... nice!!
Except I would imagine Mr. Stockley knows that TUPE is not optional, and you can't just buy a company and not retain staff. Either Mr. Blair budgeted for every unfair dismissal claim, or he doesn't know what he's doing.
DeleteIf any of the current staff employed by Velvet read such statements as have been issued by Phil Blair,they must be horrified to think that if the sale had gone ahead they might not have a job. The present staff at Velvet are second to none,and should surely be treated with more respect than what I have been reading on this site over the past few days,from statements by either Xelabus or Velvet management. PAC
DeleteAnonymous said on 3 April 2014 08:04
Delete"Except I would imagine Mr. Stockley knows that TUPE is not optional, and you can't just buy a company and not retain staff. Either Mr. Blair budgeted for every unfair dismissal claim, or he doesn't know what he's doing." Well, I think a lot of people on here have said that he doesn't know what he is doing, but he does deny being an anorack!
Mr Blair does not know the law - If you take on another company or contract you are required to take the staff at current pay and conditions.
ReplyDeleteBoth owners have experience of employment with 'big' bus companies. No real excuses for overlooking a basic employment law. I wonder if either has emerged from this public farce with an enhanced reputation?
ReplyDeleteAwful comments from Xelabus thankfully they did not take over velvet as this guy obviously does not know how to deal with people let's hope Xelabus stop and more buses become purple
ReplyDeleteI do wonder if either of the bus bosses actually really know the industry as well as they say they do, even though they have had big bus co. experience. Although I expect someone said that about Brian Suter & look what happened to him!!
ReplyDeleteOk lets put the record well and truly straight here. I do not intend to keep answering comments on here from people that have no idea about how and why the Velvet purchase failed. That is my business but I will say that its obvious quite a few Velvet staff read this forum and let me explain a few home truths.
ReplyDelete1. Xelabus actually paid Velvet fuel bill totalling £20,000 a few weeks ago just at the time when the business would have well and truly gone under!
2. We did our level best with Phil Stockley to look at a major rescue plan for Velvet and even after extensive data being made available, the reason why I pulled out was because of its overall future which still had a lot of problems and it would have caused a major effect on Xela's future and I was not prepared to do that.
3. I am sorry if Phil Stockley is reading this but Velvet is not a very well company for want of better words and you must have seen the 300 and Nightbuses being de-registered and now the 67.
4. Had Xelabus taken over Velvet there would have had to be a major reduction in cost. We would have moved the fleet out of their yard to start with saving rent. Closed their offices and merged admin with Xela.
Engineering - they have an excellent employee who would have been retained. Vehicles - Replacement and upgrade as quickly as possible and we had already looked at transferring some Tridents across and add additional MPD's as and when we could.
5. We have already loaned them Xela staff to help keep the services running.
6. We have loaned them buses to keeps ervices running
7. Future of staff - well a very large number have only been with Velvet less than 2 years so we would not have had to take them and they would not have been eligible for redundancy. Others who have been with Velvet are the real loyal core and we don't think very many would want to work for us. there would have been a few leaving!
For drivers pay - Velvet and Xela are very similar. For example Velvet don't pay drivers breaks. At Xela we do pay right through so staff would not have seen much of a change for those that could have come across.
We also had contracts from later this year that we would transfer to the "Velvet" section and we would have kept the business under the legal name. Ultimately Velvet could have come a simple schools, colleges and contract business in cheaper premises, reduced costs for admin, marketing and fleet maintenance.
Perhaps all those that have slated Xelabus can see from above that we were keen to incorporate within Xelabus group Velvet but there were too many issues which we felt could not be solved very easily and quickly.
PHILIP BLAIR
Managing Director
Xelabus Limited
The 'state' of Velvet is more reason for your company to buy it then Philip - being that it represents a lower cost opportunity for your business to consolidate with a similarly sized rival.
DeleteOne might say, it's called taking a risk - and the good businesses are the ones that take risks and develop. Risk averse businesses miss opportunities and don't prosper in the long term. And you operate in an area with a formidable, well resourced competitor.
Putting it more simply, this was an ideal opportunity for you and your business to consolidate in the area you operate, and you've elected to walk away from what might well be a golden opportunity. It is the sort of business Stagecoach would just buy, write a few losses off along the way, and in buying it they'd obtain a low cost unit with which will be in a lovely position to pitch for tenders in the heart of your own territory and that of Go Ahead and First without the back room overheads of a normal business.
If Velvet is as rocky as you are inferring, then it will only be a matter of time before you find yourselves with a well backed competitor for your work, which strikes me as an opportunity missed.
Unless of course xelabus is exposed to existing debt and there are financial ties the directors have to the business - aside from the extent of their own financial investment. One can obtain bank loans and credit in order to fund a purchase, unless that wasn't possible due to existing borrowings. One can pay a pound and discover this from the published accounts.
Most businesses would take that opportunity when offered, and this is why people slate xelabus. As they can see you've missed a golden opportunity, as you've put it...
Seeing the way the story has developed, with truths that appear only half, if that, I wonder if Blair's ire drawing TUPE post could even be a feint to avoid other giving other reasons that would be more damaging to either or both parties.
ReplyDeleteAlso, when push comes to shove, what is better for an employee of any business, JSA or a wage cut?
I don't intend to get drawn into a public row about the circumstances of the sale, the detail of which is confidential to the two parties involved.
ReplyDeleteHowever, a few reasonable and considered comments have been made which warrant a response:
1) A comment was made about the propensity of both us and Xelabus to 'bail out' of contracts early, and that as a commercially aware business we should have a range of responses to things not working out as planned. Well we do, and one of those responses is to terminate the contract. In this area, all contracts place the revenue risk with the operator, so when pricing a tender one has to guess the commercial revenue, often with no or very little patronage expectation. It seems to me to be a reasonable expectation on both sides that an early termination could arise from things not working out as planned. Questions might arise if you play this card too often (twice in six years in our case) but it is bound to happen from time to time. All operators do it, large and small. Likewise, the local authorities change, modify or curtail contracts routinely as a result of changes in their funding position or political priorities, and this is accepted by operators as a normal feature of life.
2) Someone expressed concern that my staff might feel disgruntled at me selling the company from under them. Well they have every right to be disappointed, but not aggrieved. While confidentiality agreements meant they could not have been forewarned, and I fully understand that this is unsettling, every single person who joins Velvet gets the same speech from me - we strive to provide a friendly environment where we can all enjoy each other's company, but have never made a secret of the fact that one day we might sell, or equally it could all go horribly wrong and close. It's a job of work, and circumstances change over time, and I have always asked my staff to be intelligent enough to recognise that we will make rational business decisions when we have to. One of the features of this sale is that it protected everyone's job and that added to it's attractiveness to me
3) On this subject, my understanding is that TUPE would not have applied because the staff didn't actually transfer between undertakings. They continued as employees of Black Velvet Travel Ltd, just with new directors and managers, but with the full protection their continuous employment afforded. The only two circumstances under which they could have been dispensed with would have been redundancy (on payment of appropriate redundancy payments, it having been demonstrated that their positions no longer existed) or dismissal on grounds of competence (following alleged misconduct and an appropriate disciplinary procedure)
4) As someone wisely pointed out, there is such a thing as due diligence. This means that the buyer has full access to every last detail of the seller's business, both good and bad, and makes the decision to purchase having the full facts at their disposal.
Okay, on reflection I may have commented more specifically than I intended. However, the full ins and outs of the sale and it's subsequent cancellation are not for public consumption (although the role of the large concrete block may make for an entertaining tale at some point).
Suffice to say that I treat the Blairs with considerable respect - they did after all give us our first ever job when we came into being back in January 2008 - so anyone hoping that we might be drawn into public criticism will be sorely disappointed.
As PAC and others have pointed out, this episode and it's subsequent portrayal have done neither of us any favours, but our focus remains on providing high quality service to our customers - even if we do need to take a step back in the size of the operation to allow us to regroup and allow us once again to play to our strengths.
TUPE In the VelXel situation, as I understand it, Xela was to buy PS's 51% of ordinary share capital, the remaining 49% would stay in their existing ownerships, mainly Stockley family ( at last accounts). Does that fact make the application of TUPE different from when an undertaking's total share capital is bought by the acquiring company?
ReplyDeleteIt seems from PS's post above that my question is answered, and is as I thought it would be
DeleteLet's now hope that timetable changes proposed in May this year address many of the problems that Velvet have at present. I'm grateful to both Phil Blair and Phil Stockley to have given their respective views on this site as to the situation. PAC
ReplyDeleteI'm not calling either of The Phil's liars in any way shape or form. But if Velvet are really in deeeeeeeep trouble as indicated, then maybe a "quick death" instead of a long painful fight to keep going may in the long run be better for all concerned. Any viable routes will be snapped up by another operator, whether it Xela, Wheelers or a big boy or a new boy. I feel sorry for staff, but if Xela's wage rates are similar to Velvet's then if Xela take on anyone (as new) then at least it's better than JSA. And before anyone slags off Xela or Velvet, just think, how often do you get the bosses of a bus company actually respond in depth to probing & sometimes downright rude comments?! If Xela are 'anoracks' does that mean they have a greater passion than a non-anorack at running a bus company? Probably do, & therefore have a better knowledge than a Mr. Shareholder in a Suit taking a decision at board level. Xela bosses want to be involved at a local level. Maybe Velvet can survive, if Phil's passion to keep on running buses bears fruit.
ReplyDeleteWow stunned at the totally unprofessional open blogging by two bus operators and unfortunately one being my employer. Please grow up and concentrate on running the business as this childish behaviour does not bode well for the epople who bring in your revenue. Time to look elsewhere as it is obvious both companys dont give a monkey. you are both a joke, grow up stop playing with our jobs.
ReplyDeleteYes, from reading the point of view of the employee, I, a regular Joe Public passenger, can see the damage both the Phil's have done to their respective credibility. Hope Anonymous9 April 2014 20:52 can find a better employer. I know that Brijan were looking for coach drivers a little while ago. Anyhow, best of luck.
ReplyDeleteDaily Echo is reporting that there is a dispute with mechanics; one gate blocked so that A service cannot run. Not good news at all is it?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/11159017.Bus_service__blocked_in_at_its_depot_/
But then what is the reliability of Echo reportage?
ReplyDelete