8ball
Decolonise colons!
I think it's hard to deny that brogdale is right.
MickiQ isn't actually making a counter-argument there.
I have no idea how the magical creation of shares in your own company works.
It be witchcraft, indeed.
BrewDog: yet another hip company using 'rebel' language to sell its stuff
- Thread starter treelover
- Start date
I think it's hard to deny that brogdale is right.
MickiQ isn't actually making a counter-argument there.
I have no idea how the magical creation of shares in your own company works.
It be witchcraft, indeed.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
I thought that capitalists regarded their system as amoral.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
Broggers is right about the motivation. I agreed with that earlier. MQ is right about the efficiency v bank savings. By a long way.
8ball
Decolonise colons!
Oh yeah, can't argue on that count (well, I could, but I'd have to be a lot better at arguing than I really am to get anywhere with it).
8ball
Decolonise colons!
I think many regard it as highly moral.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
So, everyone's agreed about everything, there's not actually anything wrong with brewdog and the thread can be closed.
I don't think we've addressed the elephant in the room which is the reduction in ABV of Punk IPA. Try as you might to sweep that under the carpet.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
A form of shrinkflation to maintain dividends to shareholders; cunts.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
What has it been reduced from/to?
MickiQ
In My Defence I was left Unsupervised
What are we discussing now? Whether Brewdog are a shit employer or that their beer is vile, Can't really offer an opinion on either of those since I have never worked for them and I drink cider not beer. Those people I know that have tried their beers and have offered opinions have been almost entirely positive though.
As for Share ownership are we considering a position that it is immoral in some way? If so then I suspect that is an argument that has been long lost. Excluding Pensions Funds (which to a certain extent makes almost all of us shareholders) I would imagine that there are at least as many people as own shares that don't. I know loads of people from all walks of life that dabble a bit in buying and selling shares. We've got Maggie T to thank for that.
They're not really rapacious capitalists but ordinary folks with a 9 to 5 (often 24/7) job. Evil American Megacorp had a sharesave scheme but since they were American it always seemed potentially far more trouble that it could ever be worth.
Son Q's employer is British though and their Sharesave scheme works by them paying an amount (which I think is tax free) into it every month and after three years it gets converted into shares but at the price they were when the scheme started.
He's cashed in a load of them from the first few years and he has got back better than double the amount of money he put in, pretty much 80-90% of the deposit he has put on the house.
This seems like a great idea to me, the company has basically given him free money, indeed it has given him back at least a share of the profit from his labour. Even better from my point of view the Bank of Dad has not had to loan Son Q and Pollyanna anywhere like the amount I had to lend Middle Q and Paddy.
As for the shares in my own company their creation was indeed pretty much magical. The company was registered and 10 shares each with a notional value of £1 sprang into existence. No's 1-5 were given to me and No's 6-10 were given to Mrs Q (got certificates even). All dividends were then split 10 ways and paid out to the shareholders. After Mrs Q got promoted at school and became a higher rate taxpayer, the company bought back shares 6 and 7 from Mrs Q for their notional value and sold them to me for the same. Quite bizarre when you think about. The company paid £2 into Mrs Q's account and then I paid £2 into it. I wanted to deduct it from my next paycheck but apparently that's classed as tax fiddling.
As for Share ownership are we considering a position that it is immoral in some way? If so then I suspect that is an argument that has been long lost. Excluding Pensions Funds (which to a certain extent makes almost all of us shareholders) I would imagine that there are at least as many people as own shares that don't. I know loads of people from all walks of life that dabble a bit in buying and selling shares. We've got Maggie T to thank for that.
They're not really rapacious capitalists but ordinary folks with a 9 to 5 (often 24/7) job. Evil American Megacorp had a sharesave scheme but since they were American it always seemed potentially far more trouble that it could ever be worth.
Son Q's employer is British though and their Sharesave scheme works by them paying an amount (which I think is tax free) into it every month and after three years it gets converted into shares but at the price they were when the scheme started.
He's cashed in a load of them from the first few years and he has got back better than double the amount of money he put in, pretty much 80-90% of the deposit he has put on the house.
This seems like a great idea to me, the company has basically given him free money, indeed it has given him back at least a share of the profit from his labour. Even better from my point of view the Bank of Dad has not had to loan Son Q and Pollyanna anywhere like the amount I had to lend Middle Q and Paddy.
As for the shares in my own company their creation was indeed pretty much magical. The company was registered and 10 shares each with a notional value of £1 sprang into existence. No's 1-5 were given to me and No's 6-10 were given to Mrs Q (got certificates even). All dividends were then split 10 ways and paid out to the shareholders. After Mrs Q got promoted at school and became a higher rate taxpayer, the company bought back shares 6 and 7 from Mrs Q for their notional value and sold them to me for the same. Quite bizarre when you think about. The company paid £2 into Mrs Q's account and then I paid £2 into it. I wanted to deduct it from my next paycheck but apparently that's classed as tax fiddling.
5.6% down to 5.2%.
Its a race to the bottom and any right minded tramp fuel aficionado should be very perturbed.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
We're discussing whether the initial premise of this thread was flawed and whether Brewdog are innocent of all the accusations made against them.
As far as I can see, in the last couple of pages everyone's agreed that's the case (which is a bit surprising to me), which is great news and it's nice to end the week on such a positive note.
I haven't read all the bits of your post where it looks like you're trying to defend you and your family's position as exploitative agents of ruthless capitalism who (unlike Brewdog) are morally reprehensible, because it's not really relevant.
teuchter
je suis teuchter
That's great that they are gradually making their drinks more healthy.
editor
hiraethified
LOL at the 'equity punks'
www.ft.com
www.standard.co.uk
vinepair.com
Punk rebellion: BrewDog’s crowdfunding investors start to lose faith
UK’s largest craft brewer under fire for prioritising PE backers and creating ‘toxic’ workplace
Simon English: Brewdog is a barking way for investors to make money
Here’s Brewdog co-founder James Watt a while back talking about how much money the company has raised from customers under its “Equity for Punks” scheme.
www.standard.co.uk
Equity for Chumps: BrewDog’s Crowdfunding Model a Dubious Deal for American Investors
BrewDog's investment offer to American fans is long on risk, short on reward, and overpriced to boot. Here’s a closer look at our findings.
vinepair.com
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
Watts' property/real estate transactions seems somewhat murky...
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
Booze is not supposed to be healthy. It's an indulgence, not sustenance.
Is it now one of my 5 a day?
teuchter
je suis teuchter
So you are now advocating for indulgences to be as unhealthy as possible (because you want anyone who has fun to die as soon as possible). Unlike Brewdog.
It seems that Brewdog are less morally reprehensible than a lot of posters on this thread.
NoXion
Craicy the Squirrel
No. Not healthy =/= as unhealthy as possible. When someone asks for sugar in their drink, they mean to suit their taste, not "as much sugar as the liquid can possibly dissolve".
It only seems that way because you're a strawmanning dipshit.
Spymaster
Plastic Paddy
More or less what I was saying yesterday about the Brewdog IPO by someone who also seems to know what he's talking about. It's all about the marketing.
As BrewDog delays its IPO, should it consider abandoning flotation altogether?
As BrewDog delays its IPO, should it consider abandoning flotation altogether?
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
Oh come on, you're being ridiculous. Nobody on this thread is saying they want anyone who has fun to die as soon as possible. That's just hysterical overreaction.
Monkeygrinder's Organ
Dodgy geezer swilling vapid lager
I wouldn't have thought a day glow flashing hook that sounds an air raid siren as soon as anything gets near it would get any bites, but here we are.
brogdale
Coming to terms with late onset Anarchism
Did the capitalists lower the price of this "healthier" product that requires less fermentable material input?
If not, it looks as though their motivation was their own bottom line rather than any public health gain.
Or, put another way...you're spouting bollocks.
Last edited:
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
I object to being categorised as 'more morally reprehensible than Brewdog'.
that's unfair. Brewdog have never in their history paid a single dividend to their
Support
support.brewdog.com
equationgirl
Respect my existence or expect my resistance
As I said before, go wax lyrical about Brewdog on a thread devoted to them. Or are you doing it to be deliberately irritating?
Similar threads
