Clydes took £23m loan to fund post-merger office move By Katy Dowell 17 January 2013 15:39 17 December 2015 11:20 Sign in or register to continue reading. It's FREE Sign in Email Password Keep me logged in Forgot your password? Not registered? It's FREE! Register now Register with The Lawyer Muhammad Haque 18 January 2013 at 09:17 But your report discloses nothing of use to ‘the public’ in the context of the ‘business’ of ‘law’! HOW exactly did Clyde & Co increase its banking facilities? What SECRETS underline such mysterious achievements? And how did the ‘earner’ increased their ‘earnings’ given the five years of downturn, recession, and the now daily demand by the deniers of the truth that the disenfranchised must continue to be robbed and looted even further….? What statute, what gem of jurisprudence contains or hides inside it the answer to this most amazing question: how do they do it while the majority of Society is being told that it must allow the looters to carry on looting? The role that ‘the law’, the ‘rule of law’, ‘due process’, play in the “economic performance” of “the Economy” [within whatever boundaries it is conceived of] is something that your outlet must report on. Otherwise, it is a moral, intellectual cul de sac. It is devoid of evidence that it is part of Society. At which point the ‘lawyer’, be it your outlet or be it the notional individual law trader, becomes a parasite at the expense of Society! It is time for you [thelawyer] to mull over the implications! [Posting this a 2nd time at 0916 GMT 18 January 2013] Reply Link Confused.com 18 January 2013 at 10:46 Who invited Muhammad Hope to the party? Reply Link jason 18 January 2013 at 11:11 easy tiger, for most of us the law is a soap opera about money usually and power of which there is actually very little, and sometimes power of which there’s actually very little (unless you count decisions about the choice of paper suppliers or which colour to pint reception). Or its a horse race with runners and riders (and fallers). if you expect discussions about the law’s wider impact on society i think you’ve wandered in to the wrong place Reply Link Muhammad Haque 18 January 2013 at 12:01 I did. My conscience did. Evidence did. The actions, the words and the policies of George Osborne, did Cameron, the CONDEM Collusion, did. The absence of the overdue examination of the part played by the statuettes, the common law, the courts in the perpetration of discrimination in economic activities and lives of people daily, did. The absence of citable, publicly announced or known or accessible evidence of any sustainable or significant intention on the part of the groups of law ‘practitioners’ and ‘law professional’ agencies, interests and lobbies to uphold universal rights and civil liberties in the UK, did. The dearth of universally recognisable and substantiated democratic debate in the ‘elected’ part of the British Parliament, did. The centuries old claims made by the law traders that they are in business to ‘represent’ the causes that otherwise would not get represented, did. Society as it currently is, did. The onward march of the backward forces and elements grabbing hold of the levers of economic ic and financial powers and those of the means of state ‘validations and legitimisation’ that are being applied to create even more division and deprivation in Society while the small number of looters, robbers, deprivers are allowed to profit from the increasing disparities that are being created and perpetuated by central and locals agencies, did. The central part in all this as played by ‘the banks and the banking system’, did. The blatant abdication of responsibility to Society that is evident in the agendas, in the thinkings and in the biases and the prejudices for the rich and the robbing sections in Society and at the expense of Society in the ‘legal and the courts system’ in Britain, did. The huge corruption inside the ‘law’ trade in the UK, did. Reply Link Anonymous 18 January 2013 at 12:03 Has Muhammad been turn down for a loan? Reply Link Anonymous 18 January 2013 at 12:32 MUHAMMED, BUDDY, TAKE SOME ANTI-DEPRESSANTS, DUDE. Reply Link Anonymous 18 January 2013 at 15:10 @Muhammad: Repetition and deviation, I’m afraid. It’s over to Mr Payton. Michael, you have 55 seconds to talk about, “Clydes office move”…zzzz Reply Link Terry 19 January 2013 at 10:32 Muhammad Your insight should be applauded – I suspect it is difficult for those inside the profession to fully appreciate the nuance of what your are stating. Reply Link Anonymous 20 January 2013 at 09:44 I agree with you that ‘the statuettes’ need to be investigated. They are a shadowy, sinister harmony singing group that many believe to be in control of the Supreme Court. Reply Link Crusader 21 January 2013 at 16:56 Back to the main agenda – £46.2m borrowing in addition to partner capital borrowings presumably underwritten by the firm! That’s a hefty level of debt in total not simply in terms of the impact on overall net worth but to service in interest costs in what is already a challenging arena for margins from client work. Hopefully somebody has a good head for finances in the team. Reply Link Sharp 21 January 2013 at 17:24 Muhammad has some interesting points to debate but probably the wrong platform to get the party going whether the statuettes were in support or not. Whether the business legal industry truly adds to wealth creation within our society is an unlikely feature to make it to the pages of the Lawyer I would imagine.On the plus side, Clydes represent for many what isn’t right in the sector so that’s a good choice. Reply Link Captain Pugwash 22 January 2013 at 10:57 Our friend does indeed make some interesting points, and it seems to me the central one is decadence. Decline is always prefaced by decadence. Cultural decay, structural weakness and reliance on finance are the usual warning signs. And, by any standards, £46m of bank debt and £125m of creditors in all on turnover of £285m is ‘reliance on finance’. At some stage though, the music will stop and this cheap debt will have to be repaid. Given their near 100% focus on the insurance sector and, therefore, a declining profit margin, this won’t be easy. Reply Link Master Mate 22 January 2013 at 13:30 Not all decline is precede by a period in which the incumbent rulers fiddle in the face of looming threats but increasingly it does seem that many law firm management teams are doing just that. Whether Clydes have got the gloves on this is hard to say from a straight read of the accounts and no doubt they will be adjusting the antenna and applying the hand brake to any financial issues. It’s important to beat the stick on this point more broadly and encourage firms to clean their rifles, hold their own and complete their financial handiwork before overstretching themselves. Looking after the cash is not just the province of smaller firms and one man bands – every firm should think carefully before painting the ceiling with new office openings and extravagent hires. Reply Link In the hand 22 January 2013 at 13:42 Muhammad makes no mention of Onan’s will but firms will need to wrestle the eel of rising interest costs on borrowings set against declining rates in the insurance market. This will involve sharpening their pencils and polishing their swords to look for alternative business models. Clydes are exposed on this front Reply Link Roger 22 January 2013 at 17:10 Growth must not be an end in itself, and nor swelling partners’ coffers. Law firms are staring a new, naked model in the eye and they just have to accept it. Flogging the dead horse is pointless and will just generate needless friction. Time for a change of hand on the tiller. Reply Link Cabin Fever 23 January 2013 at 08:59 Roger’s right – not a time for splashing out and seeding vanity growth. A tighter hand on the model and more financial muscle control is needed to avoid spilling talent and shooting backwards. Restraint is the order of the day. Reply Link Anonymous 27 February 2013 at 11:20 I read Clydes Guildford, Manchester & Oxford accounted for only 3.7% of turnover totalling £10.8m. Would it not be a saving to merge these offices into one base? As a lot of the claims dealt with in Manc’ and Oxon’ are more routine, it may also be worth exploring outsourcing of this work to a lower salary cost/overhead base. Reply Link Name Email Cancel reply Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.