Restaurant owner denies 'dodgy financial gymnastics'

Essex County Standard: Tony Cole has slammed Colchester MP Sir Bob Russell for accusing him of 'dodgy financial gymnastics' Tony Cole has slammed Colchester MP Sir Bob Russell for accusing him of 'dodgy financial gymnastics'

A RESTAURANT owner has slammed Colchester MP Sir Bob Russell for labelling his business as “dodgy”.

Tony Cole, who runs Number Nine, in North Hill, hit back at the veteran MP after he used parliamentary privilege yesterday to accuse Mr Cole of using “dodgy financial gymnastics” in order to reopen the fine dining restaurant, having originally closed it owing hundreds of thousands of pounds.

Because Sir Bob made the statement in parliament, he cannot be sued.

During business questions in parliament, Sir Bob asked for a change in law so failed business owners who have outstanding debts would not be able to re-open debt-free using a different name.

Mr Cole said: “I have been advised by the most respected of liquidation accountants and have complied with every single piece of current legislation."

Comments (38)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:09pm Fri 9 Nov 12

mummy250271 says...

Sir Bob is quite right the law does need to change, some companies can be declared bankrupt three or four times and then reopen a day later under a new name, wiping out all their debts and the poor local man who supplied the goods is still out of pocket! I can remember an article a while the butcher who was owed thousands from this particular restaurant
Sir Bob is quite right the law does need to change, some companies can be declared bankrupt three or four times and then reopen a day later under a new name, wiping out all their debts and the poor local man who supplied the goods is still out of pocket! I can remember an article a while the butcher who was owed thousands from this particular restaurant mummy250271

9:10pm Fri 9 Nov 12

mummy250271 says...

Sorry should say "an article written a while ago about the butcher"
Sorry should say "an article written a while ago about the butcher" mummy250271

9:44pm Fri 9 Nov 12

Skinner1963 says...

100 per cent agree with sir bob Russell. Why should people be allowed to do this and leave others out of pocket. Mr coke seems to know all the loop holes of liquidation law and using every one
100 per cent agree with sir bob Russell. Why should people be allowed to do this and leave others out of pocket. Mr coke seems to know all the loop holes of liquidation law and using every one Skinner1963

10:11pm Fri 9 Nov 12

Say It As It Is OK? says...

Don't always agree with Bob but I do with this issue.

Number Nine restaurant was and still is run solely by Tony Cole even though it is part owned by a Colchester Accountancy company Cole went into liquidation knowingly owing Thousands of pounds to a number of honest local suppliers who could not afford to lose that money.

It seems, from the earlier report on this business, that Tony Cole couldn't care less about honouring his earlier debts and he hides behind company laws that should be changed particularly to stop people like Cole ripping others off.

I'm sure the guy will one day get his comeuppance when he crosses the wrong people, just once to often!
Don't always agree with Bob but I do with this issue. Number Nine restaurant was and still is run solely by Tony Cole even though it is part owned by a Colchester Accountancy company Cole went into liquidation knowingly owing Thousands of pounds to a number of honest local suppliers who could not afford to lose that money. It seems, from the earlier report on this business, that Tony Cole couldn't care less about honouring his earlier debts and he hides behind company laws that should be changed particularly to stop people like Cole ripping others off. I'm sure the guy will one day get his comeuppance when he crosses the wrong people, just once to often! Say It As It Is OK?

8:30am Sat 10 Nov 12

mirokou says...

Will never use his restaurant . Colchester is only a small town and his reputation is already tainted .if he uses his suppliers like this imagine a customer with a complaint. wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of this business
Will never use his restaurant . Colchester is only a small town and his reputation is already tainted .if he uses his suppliers like this imagine a customer with a complaint. wouldn't want to be on the wrong end of this business mirokou

8:30am Sat 10 Nov 12

mummy250271 says...

Boris wrote:
We should all boycott Number Nine, on principle and for our own good. Not only is the man obviously dodgy, but when this story last came up, it emerged that the quality of food and service was crap.
I will certainly be boycotting when you read on Tripadvisor some people have even mentioned the Manager argues with you if you dare to complain and is intimidating. Just out of principle I will be recommending my friends "dont visit". Or we could all go down there en mass and eat Boris and then all walk out without paying and send the bill to the people he STILL owes money to!
[quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: We should all boycott Number Nine, on principle and for our own good. Not only is the man obviously dodgy, but when this story last came up, it emerged that the quality of food and service was crap.[/p][/quote]I will certainly be boycotting when you read on Tripadvisor some people have even mentioned the Manager argues with you if you dare to complain and is intimidating. Just out of principle I will be recommending my friends "dont visit". Or we could all go down there en mass and eat Boris and then all walk out without paying and send the bill to the people he STILL owes money to! mummy250271

8:36am Sat 10 Nov 12

Bobby Walker says...

What happens is that a "new" company is set up with new capital from investors but with the same liabilities of the old company. The new company has to pay the liabilities of the old company out of the profits of the business rather than capital injected. If investors had contributed funds to the old company the money would have been paid to creditors first.
The argument is that it makes investors more likely to contribute their money and turn around a failing business. A business that does it is abiding by the rules but the rules seem to give too little balance to the suppliers, and potentially ex employees, who haven't been paid.
What happens is that a "new" company is set up with new capital from investors but with the same liabilities of the old company. The new company has to pay the liabilities of the old company out of the profits of the business rather than capital injected. If investors had contributed funds to the old company the money would have been paid to creditors first. The argument is that it makes investors more likely to contribute their money and turn around a failing business. A business that does it is abiding by the rules but the rules seem to give too little balance to the suppliers, and potentially ex employees, who haven't been paid. Bobby Walker

9:07am Sat 10 Nov 12

Say It As It Is OK? says...

The sooner this restaurant closes the better but I afraid the staff, who have done nothing wrong will suffer. Although if it does close I can't see Tony Cole worrying about his staff losing their jobs!

In an earlier report (in August) the LB Group are said to be part owners of the new Number Nine business.

They are based in Colchester at:

82 East Hill, Colchester,
CO1 2QW

http://www.lbgrouplt
d.com

LB Insolvency Solutions say they offer:
Sympathetic & Confidential Advice
Urgent & Free Consultation
Commercial & Practical Solutions
Integrity & Professionalism
Clarity of Advice

Enough said I think!
The sooner this restaurant closes the better but I afraid the staff, who have done nothing wrong will suffer. Although if it does close I can't see Tony Cole worrying about his staff losing their jobs! In an earlier report (in August) the LB Group are said to be part owners of the new Number Nine business. They are based in Colchester at: 82 East Hill, Colchester, CO1 2QW http://www.lbgrouplt d.com LB Insolvency Solutions say they offer: Sympathetic & Confidential Advice Urgent & Free Consultation Commercial & Practical Solutions Integrity & Professionalism Clarity of Advice Enough said I think! Say It As It Is OK?

10:51am Sat 10 Nov 12

totallyfootball says...

He says "he has complied with every piece of current legislation", in laymans terms he has milked a legal loophole to death. Still Bob, be careful, greenhouses and all that!
He says "he has complied with every piece of current legislation", in laymans terms he has milked a legal loophole to death. Still Bob, be careful, greenhouses and all that! totallyfootball

11:31pm Sat 10 Nov 12

theequaliser1 says...

Mr Cole is a lovely man and a major contributor in many ways to the Colchester community. He does and is no different to many thousands of business owners all over the country and the world if that.
To single him out personally is a slant on his character and unjust.
Those that have accused him are not without sin themselves.
Tony does a good job with a decent heart about him and I am sure he will make amends if he needs to. The law needs changing not rubbishing individuals who operate within that law which is in force.
El moir main de la justice, nu pupa susiste son cerce melon don justice.
the equaliser.
Mr Cole is a lovely man and a major contributor in many ways to the Colchester community. He does and is no different to many thousands of business owners all over the country and the world if that. To single him out personally is a slant on his character and unjust. Those that have accused him are not without sin themselves. Tony does a good job with a decent heart about him and I am sure he will make amends if he needs to. The law needs changing not rubbishing individuals who operate within that law which is in force. El moir main de la justice, nu pupa susiste son cerce melon don justice. the equaliser. theequaliser1

7:50am Sun 11 Nov 12

Say It As It Is OK? says...

Quote from the equaliser: "Tony does a good job with a decent heart about him and I am sure he will make amends if he needs to".

Well I'm sure the businesses, and Colchester Council, who provided Tony Cole with goods and services in good faith might think differently. I'm sure they won't be holding out for your prediction to come true!

The chances of him making amends to those supplies is very unlikely. Perhaps equaliser you could ask Tony Cole to explain how he proposes to repay his earlier debts?

The issue here is his business did not really fail because its still open! By liquidating his earlier company and then re-opening the business under a different holding company name he was able, in law, to legally wrote off all his earlier debts owed by the first company.

That is why Bob raised the issue in the Commons and that is why the law does need changing to stop these morally dishonest people from acting this way.

So Equaliser how can you say what Tony Cole did were the actions of a man with a decent heart? There was nothing at all decent about what he did!
Quote from the equaliser: "Tony does a good job with a decent heart about him and I am sure he will make amends if he needs to". Well I'm sure the businesses, and Colchester Council, who provided Tony Cole with goods and services in good faith might think differently. I'm sure they won't be holding out for your prediction to come true! The chances of him making amends to those supplies is very unlikely. Perhaps equaliser you could ask Tony Cole to explain how he proposes to repay his earlier debts? The issue here is his business did not really fail because its still open! By liquidating his earlier company and then re-opening the business under a different holding company name he was able, in law, to legally wrote off all his earlier debts owed by the first company. That is why Bob raised the issue in the Commons and that is why the law does need changing to stop these morally dishonest people from acting this way. So Equaliser how can you say what Tony Cole did were the actions of a man with a decent heart? There was nothing at all decent about what he did! Say It As It Is OK?

9:39am Sun 11 Nov 12

Justice79 says...

theequaliser1 wrote:
Mr Cole is a lovely man and a major contributor in many ways to the Colchester community. He does and is no different to many thousands of business owners all over the country and the world if that.
To single him out personally is a slant on his character and unjust.
Those that have accused him are not without sin themselves.
Tony does a good job with a decent heart about him and I am sure he will make amends if he needs to. The law needs changing not rubbishing individuals who operate within that law which is in force.
El moir main de la justice, nu pupa susiste son cerce melon don justice.
the equaliser.
No this is a man with no morals and a track record of doing the same things to suppliers across Essex. The whole restaurant is just an extension of his ego serving mediocre food in a sterile lifeless atmosphere. Make amends? Then why doesn't he put his hand in his pocket and pay back decent local suppliers like Frank Wright who don't deserve to be out of pocket because Tony Cole is incapable of running a business.
[quote][p][bold]theequaliser1[/bold] wrote: Mr Cole is a lovely man and a major contributor in many ways to the Colchester community. He does and is no different to many thousands of business owners all over the country and the world if that. To single him out personally is a slant on his character and unjust. Those that have accused him are not without sin themselves. Tony does a good job with a decent heart about him and I am sure he will make amends if he needs to. The law needs changing not rubbishing individuals who operate within that law which is in force. El moir main de la justice, nu pupa susiste son cerce melon don justice. the equaliser.[/p][/quote]No this is a man with no morals and a track record of doing the same things to suppliers across Essex. The whole restaurant is just an extension of his ego serving mediocre food in a sterile lifeless atmosphere. Make amends? Then why doesn't he put his hand in his pocket and pay back decent local suppliers like Frank Wright who don't deserve to be out of pocket because Tony Cole is incapable of running a business. Justice79

9:57am Sun 11 Nov 12

horizontal says...

Mummy250271 said, “We could all go down there en mass and eat Boris…”

Hey steady on, that’s cannibalism.
Mummy250271 said, “We could all go down there en mass and eat Boris…” Hey steady on, that’s cannibalism. horizontal

1:06pm Sun 11 Nov 12

Boris says...

horizontal wrote:
Mummy250271 said, “We could all go down there en mass and eat Boris…”

Hey steady on, that’s cannibalism.
Thanks, horizontal, I was lying low, like you. I wasn't sure what Mummy meant when she said she wanted to eat me. I think she just forgot a couple of commas but I'll leave it to her to clarify.
[quote][p][bold]horizontal[/bold] wrote: Mummy250271 said, “We could all go down there en mass and eat Boris…” Hey steady on, that’s cannibalism.[/p][/quote]Thanks, horizontal, I was lying low, like you. I wasn't sure what Mummy meant when she said she wanted to eat me. I think she just forgot a couple of commas but I'll leave it to her to clarify. Boris

2:31pm Sun 11 Nov 12

mummy250271 says...

Boris wrote:
horizontal wrote:
Mummy250271 said, “We could all go down there en mass and eat Boris…”

Hey steady on, that’s cannibalism.
Thanks, horizontal, I was lying low, like you. I wasn't sure what Mummy meant when she said she wanted to eat me. I think she just forgot a couple of commas but I'll leave it to her to clarify.
lol you are right Boris, when I read it back I thought ooops. Don't worry you are safe I wont eat you. But apparently we have nothing to worry about as Tony Cole is a lovely man who does a lot for the community according to theequaliser1 !!!!! We could always beg to differ.
[quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]horizontal[/bold] wrote: Mummy250271 said, “We could all go down there en mass and eat Boris…” Hey steady on, that’s cannibalism.[/p][/quote]Thanks, horizontal, I was lying low, like you. I wasn't sure what Mummy meant when she said she wanted to eat me. I think she just forgot a couple of commas but I'll leave it to her to clarify.[/p][/quote]lol you are right Boris, when I read it back I thought ooops. Don't worry you are safe I wont eat you. But apparently we have nothing to worry about as Tony Cole is a lovely man who does a lot for the community according to theequaliser1 !!!!! We could always beg to differ. mummy250271

1:12am Mon 12 Nov 12

Boris says...

mummy250271 wrote:
Boris wrote:
horizontal wrote:
Mummy250271 said, “We could all go down there en mass and eat Boris…”

Hey steady on, that’s cannibalism.
Thanks, horizontal, I was lying low, like you. I wasn't sure what Mummy meant when she said she wanted to eat me. I think she just forgot a couple of commas but I'll leave it to her to clarify.
lol you are right Boris, when I read it back I thought ooops. Don't worry you are safe I wont eat you. But apparently we have nothing to worry about as Tony Cole is a lovely man who does a lot for the community according to theequaliser1 !!!!! We could always beg to differ.
OK, that's a relief. As for the equaliser, he should live up to his name and equalise all of his mate Tony Cole's debts, by paying off the suppliers that he cheated. Being a lovely chap, Mr. Cole will surely make it up to the equaliser in due course.
[quote][p][bold]mummy250271[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Boris[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]horizontal[/bold] wrote: Mummy250271 said, “We could all go down there en mass and eat Boris…” Hey steady on, that’s cannibalism.[/p][/quote]Thanks, horizontal, I was lying low, like you. I wasn't sure what Mummy meant when she said she wanted to eat me. I think she just forgot a couple of commas but I'll leave it to her to clarify.[/p][/quote]lol you are right Boris, when I read it back I thought ooops. Don't worry you are safe I wont eat you. But apparently we have nothing to worry about as Tony Cole is a lovely man who does a lot for the community according to theequaliser1 !!!!! We could always beg to differ.[/p][/quote]OK, that's a relief. As for the equaliser, he should live up to his name and equalise all of his mate Tony Cole's debts, by paying off the suppliers that he cheated. Being a lovely chap, Mr. Cole will surely make it up to the equaliser in due course. Boris

9:16am Mon 12 Nov 12

romantic says...

What he has done may be within what the law allows, but should not be. How can it be right that he can simply walk away from the debts to suppliers and then start up again? He will find it harder to get any credit terms in the future, that is for sure.

The people I know who have been to this place were not full of praise for it. The food was apparently OK -what you got of it. Tiny portions, very overpriced. They spent a lot of money and left still hungry.

equaliser, you clearly know this guy, so maybe you can send him round to Frank Wright and whoever else is owed money, and if he cannot pay everything back in one go, arrange how to pay them back. Whether or not he is legally obliged to do that, it would be the right thing to do.
What he has done may be within what the law allows, but should not be. How can it be right that he can simply walk away from the debts to suppliers and then start up again? He will find it harder to get any credit terms in the future, that is for sure. The people I know who have been to this place were not full of praise for it. The food was apparently OK -what you got of it. Tiny portions, very overpriced. They spent a lot of money and left still hungry. equaliser, you clearly know this guy, so maybe you can send him round to Frank Wright and whoever else is owed money, and if he cannot pay everything back in one go, arrange how to pay them back. Whether or not he is legally obliged to do that, it would be the right thing to do. romantic

5:14pm Mon 12 Nov 12

sandgronun64 says...

theequaliser1 wrote:
Mr Cole is a lovely man and a major contributor in many ways to the Colchester community. He does and is no different to many thousands of business owners all over the country and the world if that.
To single him out personally is a slant on his character and unjust.
Those that have accused him are not without sin themselves.
Tony does a good job with a decent heart about him and I am sure he will make amends if he needs to. The law needs changing not rubbishing individuals who operate within that law which is in force.
El moir main de la justice, nu pupa susiste son cerce melon don justice.
the equaliser.
Hello Mr Cole?

Almost had us feeling sorry for you ...

... almost but not quite!

This man owes other local businesses money but can still carry on trading?

Disgusting situation and yes, I agree that the law should be changed. There are too many of these aggressive 'business' people that are willing to leave the debts at other peoples doors and not their own.

Despicable and immoral.

Saying it is legal does not change that!

I will never eat there, and will be relating my thoughts to others, including a couple of travel writers I know.

There are ultimately other, much more well respected restaurants in town; not pretentious and honest to boot. Save your money and do not patronise this place.
[quote][p][bold]theequaliser1[/bold] wrote: Mr Cole is a lovely man and a major contributor in many ways to the Colchester community. He does and is no different to many thousands of business owners all over the country and the world if that. To single him out personally is a slant on his character and unjust. Those that have accused him are not without sin themselves. Tony does a good job with a decent heart about him and I am sure he will make amends if he needs to. The law needs changing not rubbishing individuals who operate within that law which is in force. El moir main de la justice, nu pupa susiste son cerce melon don justice. the equaliser.[/p][/quote]Hello Mr Cole? Almost had us feeling sorry for you ... ... almost but not quite! This man owes other local businesses money but can still carry on trading? Disgusting situation and yes, I agree that the law should be changed. There are too many of these aggressive 'business' people that are willing to leave the debts at other peoples doors and not their own. Despicable and immoral. Saying it is legal does not change that! I will never eat there, and will be relating my thoughts to others, including a couple of travel writers I know. There are ultimately other, much more well respected restaurants in town; not pretentious and honest to boot. Save your money and do not patronise this place. sandgronun64

10:04pm Mon 12 Nov 12

julieee says...

The Gazette could always ask the people in Maldon if they've got their money back yet. And despite the lovely invitation I won't be going there for a christmas dinner.
The Gazette could always ask the people in Maldon if they've got their money back yet. And despite the lovely invitation I won't be going there for a christmas dinner. julieee

8:41pm Tue 13 Nov 12

MaryLeBone says...

Are people not getting the point? He does not just get the slate wiped clean, he has to pay what he owes still out of the restaurants earnings (or profit)...

Instead of throwing him to the dogs, how about saying WELL DONE... hes faced bankruptcy (happening to SO MANY people these days....no one chooses to go into liquidation....!!) and he has fought and fought to keep his business going!

You people are slating him for re-opening his business, but if he didnt you'd be slating him for claiming benefits..... or for taking a job elsewhere...... he is fighting back against the recession and whether he goes about it the right way or not, I say he deserves respect for taking every opportunity he can to work and make money, its too easy to be given handouts and not work hard.

Not to mention the jobs he is creating in the town...whether short lived or not, many people are crying out for work.

If he disappeared and didnt re-open the business, he wouldnt be able to pay ANY of the money back... so I'm sure the people he owes money too are pretty glad hes trying hard to make that money!

And who, out of everyone here, would really turn down the opportunity to re-open their business in the same situation??
Are people not getting the point? He does not just get the slate wiped clean, he has to pay what he owes still out of the restaurants earnings (or profit)... Instead of throwing him to the dogs, how about saying WELL DONE... hes faced bankruptcy (happening to SO MANY people these days....no one chooses to go into liquidation....!!) and he has fought and fought to keep his business going! You people are slating him for re-opening his business, but if he didnt you'd be slating him for claiming benefits..... or for taking a job elsewhere...... he is fighting back against the recession and whether he goes about it the right way or not, I say he deserves respect for taking every opportunity he can to work and make money, its too easy to be given handouts and not work hard. Not to mention the jobs he is creating in the town...whether short lived or not, many people are crying out for work. If he disappeared and didnt re-open the business, he wouldnt be able to pay ANY of the money back... so I'm sure the people he owes money too are pretty glad hes trying hard to make that money! And who, out of everyone here, would really turn down the opportunity to re-open their business in the same situation?? MaryLeBone

10:35pm Tue 13 Nov 12

Say It As It Is OK? says...

MaryLeBone... you don't really get it do you? This man has had his previous company debts wiped clean by going into liquidation before reopening the same business under a different holding company.

His actions could jeopardise the suppliers who he failed to pay. They lost out and their staff could well suffer with job losses due to the actions of this man. The likelyhood of him paying his debts will not happen and as the law stands he is free to do exactly the same thing again. Lets hope no supplier ever gives him any credit, cash only on delivery of goods!
MaryLeBone... you don't really get it do you? This man has had his previous company debts wiped clean by going into liquidation before reopening the same business under a different holding company. His actions could jeopardise the suppliers who he failed to pay. They lost out and their staff could well suffer with job losses due to the actions of this man. The likelyhood of him paying his debts will not happen and as the law stands he is free to do exactly the same thing again. Lets hope no supplier ever gives him any credit, cash only on delivery of goods! Say It As It Is OK?

1:25am Wed 14 Nov 12

historyman22 says...

MaryLeBone wrote:
Are people not getting the point? He does not just get the slate wiped clean, he has to pay what he owes still out of the restaurants earnings (or profit)...

Instead of throwing him to the dogs, how about saying WELL DONE... hes faced bankruptcy (happening to SO MANY people these days....no one chooses to go into liquidation....!!) and he has fought and fought to keep his business going!

You people are slating him for re-opening his business, but if he didnt you'd be slating him for claiming benefits..... or for taking a job elsewhere...... he is fighting back against the recession and whether he goes about it the right way or not, I say he deserves respect for taking every opportunity he can to work and make money, its too easy to be given handouts and not work hard.

Not to mention the jobs he is creating in the town...whether short lived or not, many people are crying out for work.

If he disappeared and didnt re-open the business, he wouldnt be able to pay ANY of the money back... so I'm sure the people he owes money too are pretty glad hes trying hard to make that money!

And who, out of everyone here, would really turn down the opportunity to re-open their business in the same situation??
Hey, hey,

Let's get real here!

Apparently being a 'lovely-bloke' means you are immune from all normal responsibility.

Get real; the man owes!!!

I pay my way. Perhaps I'll visit his overpriced cafe, and refuse to pay? I bet he'll be really sympathetic.

Crooks don't pay. Go and eat there and do a runner! Tell him a different holding company has taken over since your exit! Doesn't sound legal? Well it isn't!

Avoid immorality.

The private sector constantly criticises the 'public sector.'

If this were a government/council enterprise the proprietor would be (metaphorically) crucified! It is simply not right. Change the law, not society's moral values.

STOP DEFENDING THIS SORT OF BEHAVIOUR!
[quote][p][bold]MaryLeBone[/bold] wrote: Are people not getting the point? He does not just get the slate wiped clean, he has to pay what he owes still out of the restaurants earnings (or profit)... Instead of throwing him to the dogs, how about saying WELL DONE... hes faced bankruptcy (happening to SO MANY people these days....no one chooses to go into liquidation....!!) and he has fought and fought to keep his business going! You people are slating him for re-opening his business, but if he didnt you'd be slating him for claiming benefits..... or for taking a job elsewhere...... he is fighting back against the recession and whether he goes about it the right way or not, I say he deserves respect for taking every opportunity he can to work and make money, its too easy to be given handouts and not work hard. Not to mention the jobs he is creating in the town...whether short lived or not, many people are crying out for work. If he disappeared and didnt re-open the business, he wouldnt be able to pay ANY of the money back... so I'm sure the people he owes money too are pretty glad hes trying hard to make that money! And who, out of everyone here, would really turn down the opportunity to re-open their business in the same situation??[/p][/quote]Hey, hey, Let's get real here! Apparently being a 'lovely-bloke' means you are immune from all normal responsibility. Get real; the man owes!!! I pay my way. Perhaps I'll visit his overpriced cafe, and refuse to pay? I bet he'll be really sympathetic. Crooks don't pay. Go and eat there and do a runner! Tell him a different holding company has taken over since your exit! Doesn't sound legal? Well it isn't! Avoid immorality. The private sector constantly criticises the 'public sector.' If this were a government/council enterprise the proprietor would be (metaphorically) crucified! It is simply not right. Change the law, not society's moral values. STOP DEFENDING THIS SORT OF BEHAVIOUR! historyman22

6:53am Wed 14 Nov 12

MaryLeBone says...

See Bobby Walkers post above. He concisely says what I could spend hours writing about. The debt does not get wiped, it gets held until there is profit.
See Bobby Walkers post above. He concisely says what I could spend hours writing about. The debt does not get wiped, it gets held until there is profit. MaryLeBone

7:13am Wed 14 Nov 12

Justice79 says...

MaryLeBone wrote:
Are people not getting the point? He does not just get the slate wiped clean, he has to pay what he owes still out of the restaurants earnings (or profit)...

Instead of throwing him to the dogs, how about saying WELL DONE... hes faced bankruptcy (happening to SO MANY people these days....no one chooses to go into liquidation....!!) and he has fought and fought to keep his business going!

You people are slating him for re-opening his business, but if he didnt you'd be slating him for claiming benefits..... or for taking a job elsewhere...... he is fighting back against the recession and whether he goes about it the right way or not, I say he deserves respect for taking every opportunity he can to work and make money, its too easy to be given handouts and not work hard.

Not to mention the jobs he is creating in the town...whether short lived or not, many people are crying out for work.

If he disappeared and didnt re-open the business, he wouldnt be able to pay ANY of the money back... so I'm sure the people he owes money too are pretty glad hes trying hard to make that money!

And who, out of everyone here, would really turn down the opportunity to re-open their business in the same situation??
Ah I see so this man is "fighting the recession" by jeopardising the cash flow of other local businesses through his own reckless financial dealings.

If it wasn't the first time Mr Cole had pulled this stunt them perhaps there would be more sympathy.

He needs to learn that when you run a business you pay what you owe when it's due and feather your nest with anything left over. Not the other way round.
[quote][p][bold]MaryLeBone[/bold] wrote: Are people not getting the point? He does not just get the slate wiped clean, he has to pay what he owes still out of the restaurants earnings (or profit)... Instead of throwing him to the dogs, how about saying WELL DONE... hes faced bankruptcy (happening to SO MANY people these days....no one chooses to go into liquidation....!!) and he has fought and fought to keep his business going! You people are slating him for re-opening his business, but if he didnt you'd be slating him for claiming benefits..... or for taking a job elsewhere...... he is fighting back against the recession and whether he goes about it the right way or not, I say he deserves respect for taking every opportunity he can to work and make money, its too easy to be given handouts and not work hard. Not to mention the jobs he is creating in the town...whether short lived or not, many people are crying out for work. If he disappeared and didnt re-open the business, he wouldnt be able to pay ANY of the money back... so I'm sure the people he owes money too are pretty glad hes trying hard to make that money! And who, out of everyone here, would really turn down the opportunity to re-open their business in the same situation??[/p][/quote]Ah I see so this man is "fighting the recession" by jeopardising the cash flow of other local businesses through his own reckless financial dealings. If it wasn't the first time Mr Cole had pulled this stunt them perhaps there would be more sympathy. He needs to learn that when you run a business you pay what you owe when it's due and feather your nest with anything left over. Not the other way round. Justice79

9:13am Wed 14 Nov 12

romantic says...

MaryLeBone wrote:
Are people not getting the point? He does not just get the slate wiped clean, he has to pay what he owes still out of the restaurants earnings (or profit)...

Instead of throwing him to the dogs, how about saying WELL DONE... hes faced bankruptcy (happening to SO MANY people these days....no one chooses to go into liquidation....!!) and he has fought and fought to keep his business going!

You people are slating him for re-opening his business, but if he didnt you'd be slating him for claiming benefits..... or for taking a job elsewhere...... he is fighting back against the recession and whether he goes about it the right way or not, I say he deserves respect for taking every opportunity he can to work and make money, its too easy to be given handouts and not work hard.

Not to mention the jobs he is creating in the town...whether short lived or not, many people are crying out for work.

If he disappeared and didnt re-open the business, he wouldnt be able to pay ANY of the money back... so I'm sure the people he owes money too are pretty glad hes trying hard to make that money!

And who, out of everyone here, would really turn down the opportunity to re-open their business in the same situation??
What about the staff of the companies that he owes money to? He is jeopardising their jobs by not paying up.

Sorry, but I simply do not agree with your take on this. In effect, the suppliers are subsidising his business until some vague point in the future when he makes a profit. He should borrow the money from the bank and pay off the people he owes, and then he can pay back the bank from the profits in the future.

If I came and took your dining table and then said I´m not going to pay you until I get a 20% pay rise, you´d call the police. This is analagous to that.

If he cannot pay his suppliers immediately, he should contact them and make arrangements to pay off an amount each month and that should be legally binding. It would show willingness to accept these liabilities.

I don´t know who is supplying him now, but it cannot be anybody locally, unless they get cash up front.
[quote][p][bold]MaryLeBone[/bold] wrote: Are people not getting the point? He does not just get the slate wiped clean, he has to pay what he owes still out of the restaurants earnings (or profit)... Instead of throwing him to the dogs, how about saying WELL DONE... hes faced bankruptcy (happening to SO MANY people these days....no one chooses to go into liquidation....!!) and he has fought and fought to keep his business going! You people are slating him for re-opening his business, but if he didnt you'd be slating him for claiming benefits..... or for taking a job elsewhere...... he is fighting back against the recession and whether he goes about it the right way or not, I say he deserves respect for taking every opportunity he can to work and make money, its too easy to be given handouts and not work hard. Not to mention the jobs he is creating in the town...whether short lived or not, many people are crying out for work. If he disappeared and didnt re-open the business, he wouldnt be able to pay ANY of the money back... so I'm sure the people he owes money too are pretty glad hes trying hard to make that money! And who, out of everyone here, would really turn down the opportunity to re-open their business in the same situation??[/p][/quote]What about the staff of the companies that he owes money to? He is jeopardising their jobs by not paying up. Sorry, but I simply do not agree with your take on this. In effect, the suppliers are subsidising his business until some vague point in the future when he makes a profit. He should borrow the money from the bank and pay off the people he owes, and then he can pay back the bank from the profits in the future. If I came and took your dining table and then said I´m not going to pay you until I get a 20% pay rise, you´d call the police. This is analagous to that. If he cannot pay his suppliers immediately, he should contact them and make arrangements to pay off an amount each month and that should be legally binding. It would show willingness to accept these liabilities. I don´t know who is supplying him now, but it cannot be anybody locally, unless they get cash up front. romantic

7:27am Thu 15 Nov 12

MaryLeBone says...

Whoever is investing in his business is paying the suppliers.
Gosh this is getting boring. It's common business law!!

This man did not steal, his business went into liquidation. if he did not reopen the business, his suppliers their staff and conpanies get NOTHING. As he has reopened, they get money back. Which would you prefer??

Forced liquidationis happening to do many businesses every day. It's called the effects of the recession? Or do u think he purposefully set out to create a failing business?

I'm bored of this thread, I thought maybe I could put some of my business law training into explaining, but some people are too quick to judge and not look at the bigger picture.
Whoever is investing in his business is paying the suppliers. Gosh this is getting boring. It's common business law!! This man did not steal, his business went into liquidation. if he did not reopen the business, his suppliers their staff and conpanies get NOTHING. As he has reopened, they get money back. Which would you prefer?? Forced liquidationis happening to do many businesses every day. It's called the effects of the recession? Or do u think he purposefully set out to create a failing business? I'm bored of this thread, I thought maybe I could put some of my business law training into explaining, but some people are too quick to judge and not look at the bigger picture. MaryLeBone

7:58am Thu 15 Nov 12

co2 says...

well done sir bob for exposing this restaurant and its owner who has no principles,we were planning on having our company christmas dinner at this restaurant but will now choose somewhere else,we can not support a business where the owner lacks the morals we expect from people we do business with.
well done sir bob for exposing this restaurant and its owner who has no principles,we were planning on having our company christmas dinner at this restaurant but will now choose somewhere else,we can not support a business where the owner lacks the morals we expect from people we do business with. co2

8:31am Thu 15 Nov 12

Say It As It Is OK? says...

MaryLeBone wrote:
Whoever is investing in his business is paying the suppliers.
Gosh this is getting boring. It's common business law!!

This man did not steal, his business went into liquidation. if he did not reopen the business, his suppliers their staff and conpanies get NOTHING. As he has reopened, they get money back. Which would you prefer??

Forced liquidationis happening to do many businesses every day. It's called the effects of the recession? Or do u think he purposefully set out to create a failing business?

I'm bored of this thread, I thought maybe I could put some of my business law training into explaining, but some people are too quick to judge and not look at the bigger picture.
The picture is very clear to most of us and being bored of the thread says quite a lot about your attitude of acceptance of sharp practice in business. Most people are judging him on his actions and to date I can tell you categorically none of his creditors, both suppliers and service providers, have seen a penny of the money owed to them by this man when he liquidated his business so he could wipe the slate clean and start again debt free.

Of course MaryLeBone please enlighten us if that is not the case and his supplies are recovering their losses.?

The following is extracted from the earlier article dated (20th August 2012) where it said:

Tony Cole, director of Number Nine Restaurants, was left owing food suppliers, Colchester Council and the tax man after trade began plummeting in May. But despite owing hundreds of thousands of pounds the business is set to reopen under a new, debt-free company, headed by Mr Cole.

The move has been slammed by out-of-pocket suppliers and town MP Sir Bob Russell, who has called for a review into business law.

Speaking exclusively to the Gazette, Mr Cole said: I expect there will be some annoyed suppliers.

Well at least he got that bit right.
[quote][p][bold]MaryLeBone[/bold] wrote: Whoever is investing in his business is paying the suppliers. Gosh this is getting boring. It's common business law!! This man did not steal, his business went into liquidation. if he did not reopen the business, his suppliers their staff and conpanies get NOTHING. As he has reopened, they get money back. Which would you prefer?? Forced liquidationis happening to do many businesses every day. It's called the effects of the recession? Or do u think he purposefully set out to create a failing business? I'm bored of this thread, I thought maybe I could put some of my business law training into explaining, but some people are too quick to judge and not look at the bigger picture.[/p][/quote]The picture is very clear to most of us and being bored of the thread says quite a lot about your attitude of acceptance of sharp practice in business. Most people are judging him on his actions and to date I can tell you categorically none of his creditors, both suppliers and service providers, have seen a penny of the money owed to them by this man when he liquidated his business so he could wipe the slate clean and start again debt free. Of course MaryLeBone please enlighten us if that is not the case and his supplies are recovering their losses.? The following is extracted from the earlier article dated (20th August 2012) where it said: Tony Cole, director of Number Nine Restaurants, was left owing food suppliers, Colchester Council and the tax man after trade began plummeting in May. But despite owing hundreds of thousands of pounds the business is set to reopen under a new, debt-free company, headed by Mr Cole. The move has been slammed by out-of-pocket suppliers and town MP Sir Bob Russell, who has called for a review into business law. Speaking exclusively to the Gazette, Mr Cole said: I expect there will be some annoyed suppliers. Well at least he got that bit right. Say It As It Is OK?

3:55pm Thu 15 Nov 12

Justice79 says...

Forced liquidationis happening to do many businesses every day. It's called the effects of the recession? Or do u think he purposefully set out to create a failing business?

No it's called playing the loopholes it's quite clear that the last person to suffer any loss or stress is Mr Cole.

He set out to create a business that was doomed to fail from the start knowing that when it did the law would protect him and penalise his suppliers, how he ever thought he could make a success of it when at times he was doing 7-8 tables a week shows just how poor his market research was. But from speaking to him his sole concern was being the man that brought a Michelin star to Colchester, he's both arrogant and ignorant.

Experienced staff he poached from other successful restaurants in the area saw the writing on the wall and bailed out.
Forced liquidationis happening to do many businesses every day. It's called the effects of the recession? Or do u think he purposefully set out to create a failing business? No it's called playing the loopholes it's quite clear that the last person to suffer any loss or stress is Mr Cole. He set out to create a business that was doomed to fail from the start knowing that when it did the law would protect him and penalise his suppliers, how he ever thought he could make a success of it when at times he was doing 7-8 tables a week shows just how poor his market research was. But from speaking to him his sole concern was being the man that brought a Michelin star to Colchester, he's both arrogant and ignorant. Experienced staff he poached from other successful restaurants in the area saw the writing on the wall and bailed out. Justice79

10:14pm Thu 15 Nov 12

historyman22 says...

Surely he'll be known as the man who brought a 'failing Michelin Star Restaurant' to Colchester?

Seven to eight tables per week?

INTIMATE!

EXCLUSIVE!

And of course ... lonely.

Ridere Clara Voce!
Surely he'll be known as the man who brought a 'failing Michelin Star Restaurant' to Colchester? Seven to eight tables per week? INTIMATE! EXCLUSIVE! And of course ... lonely. Ridere Clara Voce! historyman22

7:34am Fri 16 Nov 12

MaryLeBone says...

This man setting up a business deliberately to fail? That is ridiculous. As for comments 're: people getting paid, see earlier comments. I have repeatedly stated suppliers will be paid when the restaurant turns a profit. This is like banging my head against a brick wall!!

Learn some basic business law before u make assumptions about the way it works
This man setting up a business deliberately to fail? That is ridiculous. As for comments 're: people getting paid, see earlier comments. I have repeatedly stated suppliers will be paid when the restaurant turns a profit. This is like banging my head against a brick wall!! Learn some basic business law before u make assumptions about the way it works MaryLeBone

7:37am Fri 16 Nov 12

MaryLeBone says...

P.s I am not returning to this thread, I hoped to clear up some of the assumptions made but you are repeatedly ignoring what I say in order to pick arguments.... Ido not wish to waste my time repeating myself! So good health and happiness to you all
P.s I am not returning to this thread, I hoped to clear up some of the assumptions made but you are repeatedly ignoring what I say in order to pick arguments.... Ido not wish to waste my time repeating myself! So good health and happiness to you all MaryLeBone

9:42am Fri 16 Nov 12

Bert_Stimpson says...

BOYCOTT Number Nine.

That's the simple answer and tell all your friends and family to do the same. Don't be fooled by MaryLeBone's disingenuous take on the situation.

It is very easy for a small business owner to make sure that a company never turns a profit through use of dividend payments.

The losers here are the suppliers. Go and buy a steak from Frank Wright's and cook it at home.
BOYCOTT Number Nine. That's the simple answer and tell all your friends and family to do the same. Don't be fooled by MaryLeBone's disingenuous take on the situation. It is very easy for a small business owner to make sure that a company never turns a profit through use of dividend payments. The losers here are the suppliers. Go and buy a steak from Frank Wright's and cook it at home. Bert_Stimpson

9:50am Fri 16 Nov 12

totallyfootball says...

MaryLeBone wrote:
P.s I am not returning to this thread, I hoped to clear up some of the assumptions made but you are repeatedly ignoring what I say in order to pick arguments.... Ido not wish to waste my time repeating myself! So good health and happiness to you all
Thats the best thing you have said so far, having failed before and having so few people eating there (even less after this) what century do you propose he will pay the people back. In my experience people like this individual will do this over and over again because they can! Get your finger out Bob and do something worthwhile for a change, stop this from happening again.
[quote][p][bold]MaryLeBone[/bold] wrote: P.s I am not returning to this thread, I hoped to clear up some of the assumptions made but you are repeatedly ignoring what I say in order to pick arguments.... Ido not wish to waste my time repeating myself! So good health and happiness to you all[/p][/quote]Thats the best thing you have said so far, having failed before and having so few people eating there (even less after this) what century do you propose he will pay the people back. In my experience people like this individual will do this over and over again because they can! Get your finger out Bob and do something worthwhile for a change, stop this from happening again. totallyfootball

10:34am Fri 16 Nov 12

romantic says...

MaryLeBone wrote:
This man setting up a business deliberately to fail? That is ridiculous. As for comments 're: people getting paid, see earlier comments. I have repeatedly stated suppliers will be paid when the restaurant turns a profit. This is like banging my head against a brick wall!!

Learn some basic business law before u make assumptions about the way it works
You seem to have some kind of inside knowledge on this, are you connected with this business? Unless you know this guy personally, how do you know he has any intention of ever paying people back?

He may have acted within the letter of the law, but that is the point which Bob Russell was raising: if this can be done, it is wrong.

We have been a supplier who got caught in this way, by a client who closed on Friday and re-opened on Monday morning under a new name. Despite some vague promises very similar to these, we never did get our payment. But when they came to us again, we would only deal on a cash in advance basis. He did it again two more times, each time leaving other suppliers owed money.

Again, it is within the letter of the law, but shows that the law is wrong.

What is your knowledge of business law? I get the feeling you don´t work as a lawyer. What is the level of your "business law training" ? Have you ever put this training into practice in an actual commercial situation?
[quote][p][bold]MaryLeBone[/bold] wrote: This man setting up a business deliberately to fail? That is ridiculous. As for comments 're: people getting paid, see earlier comments. I have repeatedly stated suppliers will be paid when the restaurant turns a profit. This is like banging my head against a brick wall!! Learn some basic business law before u make assumptions about the way it works[/p][/quote]You seem to have some kind of inside knowledge on this, are you connected with this business? Unless you know this guy personally, how do you know he has any intention of ever paying people back? He may have acted within the letter of the law, but that is the point which Bob Russell was raising: if this can be done, it is wrong. We have been a supplier who got caught in this way, by a client who closed on Friday and re-opened on Monday morning under a new name. Despite some vague promises very similar to these, we never did get our payment. But when they came to us again, we would only deal on a cash in advance basis. He did it again two more times, each time leaving other suppliers owed money. Again, it is within the letter of the law, but shows that the law is wrong. What is your knowledge of business law? I get the feeling you don´t work as a lawyer. What is the level of your "business law training" ? Have you ever put this training into practice in an actual commercial situation? romantic

11:04am Fri 16 Nov 12

Say It As It Is OK? says...

MaryLeBone wrote:
P.s I am not returning to this thread, I hoped to clear up some of the assumptions made but you are repeatedly ignoring what I say in order to pick arguments.... Ido not wish to waste my time repeating myself! So good health and happiness to you all
Bet you secretly read it though! Bye bye.

Why don't you book a table at Number Nine? They are not busy so should fit you in without any problem at all!

And, instead of paying Tony Cole for the overpriced fare he offers why not forward payment to Frank Wright butchers instead? Now that would be positive!
[quote][p][bold]MaryLeBone[/bold] wrote: P.s I am not returning to this thread, I hoped to clear up some of the assumptions made but you are repeatedly ignoring what I say in order to pick arguments.... Ido not wish to waste my time repeating myself! So good health and happiness to you all[/p][/quote]Bet you secretly read it though! Bye bye. Why don't you book a table at Number Nine? They are not busy so should fit you in without any problem at all! And, instead of paying Tony Cole for the overpriced fare he offers why not forward payment to Frank Wright butchers instead? Now that would be positive! Say It As It Is OK?

12:26pm Fri 16 Nov 12

Bobby Walker says...

The reality beyond all the technical aspects of the law is that a business is given a reprieve from having to liquidate it's assets to pay the creditors, if additional capital is contributed into the business.
If the business is successful those debts would have to be paid. If not they probably never will.
The issue is whether it is fair to the suppliers when a business is able to defer payment, when the suppliers are more likely to be paid during immediate insolvency proceedings.
I don't think it makes sense to be able to set-up a new company when it is in substance the same business. New capital could be ring-fenced for new capital improvements to a business; it shouldn't require a whole new company.
The reality beyond all the technical aspects of the law is that a business is given a reprieve from having to liquidate it's assets to pay the creditors, if additional capital is contributed into the business. If the business is successful those debts would have to be paid. If not they probably never will. The issue is whether it is fair to the suppliers when a business is able to defer payment, when the suppliers are more likely to be paid during immediate insolvency proceedings. I don't think it makes sense to be able to set-up a new company when it is in substance the same business. New capital could be ring-fenced for new capital improvements to a business; it shouldn't require a whole new company. Bobby Walker

4:16pm Fri 16 Nov 12

sandgronun64 says...

Anybody else noticed how big this man's hands are - see article pic!
Anybody else noticed how big this man's hands are - see article pic! sandgronun64

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree