British Steel

[Not Now Kato]

Sydney. As I've explained before, there's no point in me naming any credible economists who believe in Brexit because you in your judge and jury capacity will simply deem them as not credible!

if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.

Sydney

Your rabid defence of the EU makes you blind to any justifiable criticism of the EU! If anybody offers you tangible evidence you simply dismiss it as, at best misguided, or at worst lies!

Remember last year when we had the debate on railway nationalisation? You absolutely refused to believe my points and countered it with copy and paste pages from the guardian! Even though I know I’m right! So, providing you with any evidence is totally pointless because if it doesn’t adhere to your narrative you simply dismiss it.

I also note you’ve not commented on the fact that the EU restrict our governments ability to provide state aid to struggling organisations. Is this another inconvenient fact your choosing to ignore?

HA/BB can't/won't/will never be able to answer the most basic questions asked surrounding the whole debate which would end the debate which has been asked many times by many people. Show us some credible statements by credible economists that state the UK will improve or just maintain what we had before brexit.
Zero credibility comes to mind.

if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.

Sydney,

I can’t share any information regarding the economy, simply because I know nothing about it! I don’t have the skills, knowledge or experience to make any meaningful comment on it. So I won’t. Sure, I could copy and paste some stuff from whatever media outlet shares my narrative, but what’s the point in that? All you become is a mouthpiece for others.

The Brexit debate is full of people dodging uncomfortable questions on both sides of the argument. Just like you’ve done on a number of occasions. So, there’s my response. Now, would you care to make a comment on how the EU restricts government support on state aid for struggling organisations (in this case British steel)? If you can’t, just say so, there’s no shame in admitting you’re wrong is there?

I totally reject the premise of your question HA, the EU is not the big bad bully you and the rest of the great uninformed make it out to be, Brit Steel are down the can due to the fact that this stupid government doesn't know how to govern, had they sorted wrexit one way or any way this situation would be different, the EU does not make the regulations it is the executive that implements what all the member countries agree to, is that so difficult to understand?

I'm not an expert on the economy or climate change either but when around 99% of credible experts tell you something then it make sense to listen, no?

Reject the premise all you want Sydney. You would do, because it doesn’t adhere to your narrative and pre conceived opinions of the great and good EU. You are right that the government  are highly culpable in this mess, as are the owners of British steel. However the FACT, whether you like it or not, is that by being members of the EU our government would find it virtually impossible to provide state aid to British steel. Equally, because we are members of the EU any renationalisation of British Steel would also be extremely difficult to deliver and would in all likelihood be blocked. Also, to add a bit of equilibrium to this, a no deal brexit would also likely be bad news to British steel as it would almost certainly impose a 20% tariff on exports. The So, can you now provide a response?

I'm sorry HA, but you're quite wrong. You first have to understand what State Aid is, and then what the rules around it are.
 
State aid is defined as an advantage in any form whatsoever conferred on a selective basis to undertakings by national public authorities. Therefore, subsidies granted to individuals or general measures open to all enterprises are not covered by this prohibition and do not constitute State aid (examples include general taxation measures or employment legislation).

To be State aid, a measure needs to have these features:

1. There has been an intervention by the State or through State resources which can take a variety of forms (e.g. grants, interest and tax reliefs, guarantees, government holdings of all or part of a company, or providing goods and services on preferential terms, etc.);

2. the intervention gives the recipient an advantage on a selective basis, for example to specific companies or industry sectors, or to companies located in specific regions
 
3. competition has been or may be distorted;
 
4. the intervention is likely to affect trade between Member States.
 
Despite the general prohibition of State aid, in some circumstances government interventions is necessary for a well-functioning and equitable economy. Therefore, the Treaty leaves room for a number of policy objectives for which State aid can be considered compatible.
 
The EU is very transparent in what it does, more-so than our own government, and it provides a very functional search facility on which member states have applied state aid to whom and how much.  You can find it at https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/competition/transparency/public?lang=en
 
A very quick and rudimentary search reveals the the UK has made a very large amount of state aid available, here's just one example
 

 
 
Our government can if it wants to, offer State Aid to British Steel.  It apparently chooses not to, the why of this is rather important, and TM hasn't made this at all clear.
 

I think people should take more time to fully understand what the EU is, how it really works, and the benefits of being in it.  Having said that, most people seem to find it easier to believe the lies and myths propagated by the likes of the Mail, Sun and Express!

NNK,

I'm not wrong at all. In fact your posts supports my point! For the UK to provide state aid to British Steel it would require prior authority from the EU. So no, our government cannot make an arbitrary decision to provide support. The EU may authorise this (based on the points you listed) but the basis of my point still stands; that the final, overriding decision of whether a government can provide state aid lies with the EU and not the sovereign government.

So, do you think the UK Government went to the EU when they bailed out the Bank's?
 
But whatever, it is within the gift of the current government to provide support for British Steel.  That they choose not to, either directly or through a request to the EU, is rather telling don't you think?

The government helped the banks because they argued that they were still commercially viable. Your argument is misdirected though. The fact is, if they DID want to help they would require authority from the EU, so to claim that the UK is able to make that decision itself is incorrect.

As I said,      That they choose not to, either directly or through a request to the EU, is rather telling don't you think?
 
You don't seem to have answered that question.

I don't understand what you're asking. The government can't choose not to help directly because they can't help directly! Their policy is effectively overruled by the EU. Whether the government choose to or not is a different matter.

Yes it can.  But the last part of your statement is most telling of our current government.

[Herbert Anchovy]

Sydney. As I've explained before, there's no point in me naming any credible economists who believe in Brexit because you in your judge and jury capacity will simply deem them as not credible!

if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.

Sydney

Your rabid defence of the EU makes you blind to any justifiable criticism of the EU! If anybody offers you tangible evidence you simply dismiss it as, at best misguided, or at worst lies!

Remember last year when we had the debate on railway nationalisation? You absolutely refused to believe my points and countered it with copy and paste pages from the guardian! Even though I know I’m right! So, providing you with any evidence is totally pointless because if it doesn’t adhere to your narrative you simply dismiss it.

I also note you’ve not commented on the fact that the EU restrict our governments ability to provide state aid to struggling organisations. Is this another inconvenient fact your choosing to ignore?

HA/BB can't/won't/will never be able to answer the most basic questions asked surrounding the whole debate which would end the debate which has been asked many times by many people. Show us some credible statements by credible economists that state the UK will improve or just maintain what we had before brexit.
Zero credibility comes to mind.

if you can't just say so, there is no shame in admitting you're wrong BB the debate has gone on for around 3 years and no one else has either so you are not on your own.

Sydney,

I can’t share any information regarding the economy, simply because I know nothing about it! I don’t have the skills, knowledge or experience to make any meaningful comment on it. So I won’t. Sure, I could copy and paste some stuff from whatever media outlet shares my narrative, but what’s the point in that? All you become is a mouthpiece for others.

The Brexit debate is full of people dodging uncomfortable questions on both sides of the argument. Just like you’ve done on a number of occasions. So, there’s my response. Now, would you care to make a comment on how the EU restricts government support on state aid for struggling organisations (in this case British steel)? If you can’t, just say so, there’s no shame in admitting you’re wrong is there?

I totally reject the premise of your question HA, the EU is not the big bad bully you and the rest of the great uninformed make it out to be, Brit Steel are down the can due to the fact that this stupid government doesn't know how to govern, had they sorted wrexit one way or any way this situation would be different, the EU does not make the regulations it is the executive that implements what all the member countries agree to, is that so difficult to understand?

I'm not an expert on the economy or climate change either but when around 99% of credible experts tell you something then it make sense to listen, no?

Reject the premise all you want Sydney. You would do, because it doesn’t adhere to your narrative and pre conceived opinions of the great and good EU. You are right that the government  are highly culpable in this mess, as are the owners of British steel. However the FACT, whether you like it or not, is that by being members of the EU our government would find it virtually impossible to provide state aid to British steel. Equally, because we are members of the EU any renationalisation of British Steel would also be extremely difficult to deliver and would in all likelihood be blocked. Also, to add a bit of equilibrium to this, a no deal brexit would also likely be bad news to British steel as it would almost certainly impose a 20% tariff on exports. The So, can you now provide a response?

I'm sorry HA, but you're quite wrong. You first have to understand what State Aid is, and then what the rules around it are.
 
State aid is defined as an advantage in any form whatsoever conferred on a selective basis to undertakings by national public authorities. Therefore, subsidies granted to individuals or general measures open to all enterprises are not covered by this prohibition and do not constitute State aid (examples include general taxation measures or employment legislation).

To be State aid, a measure needs to have these features:

1. There has been an intervention by the State or through State resources which can take a variety of forms (e.g. grants, interest and tax reliefs, guarantees, government holdings of all or part of a company, or providing goods and services on preferential terms, etc.);

2. the intervention gives the recipient an advantage on a selective basis, for example to specific companies or industry sectors, or to companies located in specific regions
 
3. competition has been or may be distorted;
 
4. the intervention is likely to affect trade between Member States.
 
Despite the general prohibition of State aid, in some circumstances government interventions is necessary for a well-functioning and equitable economy. Therefore, the Treaty leaves room for a number of policy objectives for which State aid can be considered compatible.
 
The EU is very transparent in what it does, more-so than our own government, and it provides a very functional search facility on which member states have applied state aid to whom and how much.  You can find it at https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/competition/transparency/public?lang=en
 
A very quick and rudimentary search reveals the the UK has made a very large amount of state aid available, here's just one example
 

 
 
Our government can if it wants to, offer State Aid to British Steel.  It apparently chooses not to, the why of this is rather important, and TM hasn't made this at all clear.
 

I think people should take more time to fully understand what the EU is, how it really works, and the benefits of being in it.  Having said that, most people seem to find it easier to believe the lies and myths propagated by the likes of the Mail, Sun and Express!

NNK,

I'm not wrong at all. In fact your posts supports my point! For the UK to provide state aid to British Steel it would require prior authority from the EU. So no, our government cannot make an arbitrary decision to provide support. The EU may authorise this (based on the points you listed) but the basis of my point still stands; that the final, overriding decision of whether a government can provide state aid lies with the EU and not the sovereign government.

So, do you think the UK Government went to the EU when they bailed out the Bank's?
 
But whatever, it is within the gift of the current government to provide support for British Steel.  That they choose not to, either directly or through a request to the EU, is rather telling don't you think?

The government helped the banks because they argued that they were still commercially viable. Your argument is misdirected though. The fact is, if they DID want to help they would require authority from the EU, so to claim that the UK is able to make that decision itself is incorrect.

As I said,      That they choose not to, either directly or through a request to the EU, is rather telling don't you think?
 
You don't seem to have answered that question.

I don't understand what you're asking. The government can't choose not to help directly because they can't help directly! Their policy is effectively overruled by the EU. Whether the government choose to or not is a different matter.

Yes it can.  But the last part of your statement is most telling of our current government.

NNK

I'm unsure how else to explain this, so I'm afraid I'll have to repeat myself. The UK government cannot volunteer state aid to a loss making organisation that has question marks regarding its future commercial liability. It has to approach the EU with sound evidence that the organisation is sustainable and any state aid will not have a detrimental affect on the single market or competitors in other EU states. Then, the EU makes the final decision on whether to sanction the state aid. So, the decision on whether state aid can be offered or not is with the EU.

Of course our government can decide not to apply for state aid sanction, but that's a separate point

[Filo]

This thread is painful to view with the quotes stacking up

[wilts rover]

I'm unsure how else to explain this, so I'm afraid I'll have to repeat myself. The UK government cannot volunteer state aid to a loss making organisation that has question marks regarding its future commercial liability. It has to approach the EU with sound evidence that the organisation is sustainable and any state aid will not have a detrimental affect on the single market or competitors in other EU states. Then, the EU makes the final decision on whether to sanction the state aid. So, the decision on whether state aid can be offered or not is with the EU.

Of course our government can decide not to apply for state aid sanction, but that's a separate point

Thanks Herbert that's interesting. Can you point me to what the EU resolution was to the nationalisation of Northern Rock in 2008 as I can't find anything?

I have found the ECHR judgement upholding the legality of the nationalisation taken by the UK government and UK courts and refusal of compensation to shareholders in 2012 but noting prior to the nationalisation of this bankrupt and failed company.
https://www.ejiltalk.org/echr-leaves-northern-rock-shareholders-out-in-the-cold/

[Herbert Anchovy]

I'm unsure how else to explain this, so I'm afraid I'll have to repeat myself. The UK government cannot volunteer state aid to a loss making organisation that has question marks regarding its future commercial liability. It has to approach the EU with sound evidence that the organisation is sustainable and any state aid will not have a detrimental affect on the single market or competitors in other EU states. Then, the EU makes the final decision on whether to sanction the state aid. So, the decision on whether state aid can be offered or not is with the EU.

Of course our government can decide not to apply for state aid sanction, but that's a separate point

Thanks Herbert that's interesting. Can you point me to what the EU resolution was to the nationalisation of Northern Rock in 2008 as I can't find anything?

I have found the ECHR judgement upholding the legality of the nationalisation taken by the UK government and UK courts and refusal of compensation to shareholders in 2012 but noting prior to the nationalisation of this bankrupt and failed company.
https://www.ejiltalk.org/echr-leaves-northern-rock-shareholders-out-in-the-cold/

Wilts,

No, I can't point you to any specific resolution. However, during the financial crisis the EU adapted its rules to allow governments across Europe to bail out banks. From January 2016, the EU tightened these rules again due to concerns about levels of government debt. The 'newer' rules mean that governments can contribute to a bail out, however other stakeholders such as investors also have to cover some of the cost. I'm guessing that as the Northern Rock were bailed out in 2012 these tighter rules didn't apply.

To be fair, I applaud this move by the EU but there's a risk that smaller investors could be badly affected.

The brutal truth is is that banks are much, much more important than steel. An economy can still grow successfully without steel, but much less so with failing banks. Consequently rules around state aid support for banks were (I'm assuming) much more flexible.

[SydneyRover]

''Could the government step in to save stricken British Steel?''  (25/5)

''Nor should it necessarily be the case that EU membership crimps state aid: in 2015, France spent 0.65% of its gross domestic product on state aid schemes, while Germany spent 1.2% of GDP. The equivalent proportion of spending in the UK was just 0.35%.

And some feel that the UK could be doing more within the existing framework of rules. Just 43% of steel bought by the government comes from the UK. Not all the grades required are made domestically, but UK Steel has said there is headroom for more''

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/may/25/british-steel-stricken-could-government-step-in

[wilts rover]

So in effect what you are saying Herbert is that if a national government decides it is in the national interest to bail out/nationalise a particular industry that has failed/is not commercially viable, the EU will allow that either under the exisiting rules or by adapting those rules. Because that is what happened with Northern Rock (and to a lesser extent RBS).

Making a judgement on which industry is more important is a totally separate question as to whether or not EU rules prevent the British government nationalising British Steel. I think we have answered to second question and I guess the answer to the first depends on your view of the importance of protecting and promoting global financial capitalism as opposed to doing the same for local, high skilled manufacturing jobs.

[Herbert Anchovy]

That's not really what I'm saying. The decision on whether a government is able to offer state aid lies with the EU. The government can state a case but the decision is with the EU. The fact is the EU puts increased importance on the health of banks rather than heavy industry.

[SydneyRover]

That's not really what I'm saying. The decision on whether a government is able to offer state aid lies with the EU. The government can state a case but the decision is with the EU. The fact is the EU puts increased importance on the health of banks rather than heavy industry.

This is a simpler explanation HA:

''What are the EU rules about state aid?'' this is the last para but there is more about what may happen outside the EU in the article.

''The Labour leader said the government should have decided it wanted to own British Steel and nationalised it - but that is also tricky under EU rules.

A government can own a company under state-aid rules - but it is not allowed to keep it going if it would otherwise fail.

So if a government could convince the European Commission that buying the business would be a sensible move that any investor would make for a profit, it would not be classified as state aid.

That might have been a difficult argument to make with British Steel.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41392469

[Herbert Anchovy]

That's not really what I'm saying. The decision on whether a government is able to offer state aid lies with the EU. The government can state a case but the decision is with the EU. The fact is the EU puts increased importance on the health of banks rather than heavy industry.

This is a simpler explanation HA:

''What are the EU rules about state aid?'' this is the last para but there is more about what may happen outside the EU in the article.

''The Labour leader said the government should have decided it wanted to own British Steel and nationalised it - but that is also tricky under EU rules.

A government can own a company under state-aid rules - but it is not allowed to keep it going if it would otherwise fail.

So if a government could convince the European Commission that buying the business would be a sensible move that any investor would make for a profit, it would not be classified as state aid.

That might have been a difficult argument to make with British Steel.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41392469

Yes Sydney, yes I agree completely! I'm not here to defend the government at all. But, the whole point here is that the final, absolute decision on whether a sovereign government is able to bail out an organisation lies with the EU and NOT that government. That's what I fundamentally oppose about political EU membership.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

I guess also on the topic would we all as taxpayers be happy to subsidise a largely loss making business?

[i_ateallthepies]

It's a moot point anyway whilst ever there is a Tory government in power.

[SydneyRover]

That's not really what I'm saying. The decision on whether a government is able to offer state aid lies with the EU. The government can state a case but the decision is with the EU. The fact is the EU puts increased importance on the health of banks rather than heavy industry.

This is a simpler explanation HA:

''What are the EU rules about state aid?'' this is the last para but there is more about what may happen outside the EU in the article.

''The Labour leader said the government should have decided it wanted to own British Steel and nationalised it - but that is also tricky under EU rules.

A government can own a company under state-aid rules - but it is not allowed to keep it going if it would otherwise fail.

So if a government could convince the European Commission that buying the business would be a sensible move that any investor would make for a profit, it would not be classified as state aid.

That might have been a difficult argument to make with British Steel.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41392469

Yes Sydney, yes I agree completely! I'm not here to defend the government at all. But, the whole point here is that the final, absolute decision on whether a sovereign government is able to bail out an organisation lies with the EU and NOT that government. That's what I fundamentally oppose about political EU membership.

OK, say the government gave BT the loan it requested, there is still a glut of steel in the world and there will always be countries that can produce it cheaper by lower wages costs and reduced safety within production, what happens next if we are not part of the EU? there will be tariffs to sell steel into the EU, does the company reduce the price to make the steel cheaper due to the tariffs? How will it manage this by reducing wages, safety or will be knocking on the door of government for more money?
Remember we haven't signed a single trade deal with anyone yet.

[Herbert Anchovy]

Well that's a different argument. I don't know too much about it but I'd guess that's why negotiations on a deal with the EU are so important? It's a catch 22 because we could increase tariffs on imported steel to protect the steel industry here, but then you're simply passing on the cost to businesses who buy these imports. This is the problem with the U.S. Policy. However, this doesn't affect the point that state aid\nationalisation decisions are made by the EU and not our government.

[wing commander]

   Right,i've been avoiding commenting on these posts simply because no matter what opinion people have it wont be changed by peoples different opinions on here.However British Steel is something I have more knowledge off than anybody on here so I'm going to have my penny's worth on this...

  Many years ago British Steel was the envy of the world,our steel was the best out there and was exported all over the world,China was one of our biggest customers.China made steel but it was pig iron and very low quality and mainly used for ballast.Then a decision was made that destroyed that market for short term gain and long term disaster.When the pits shut we had a massive shortage of coke needed for the furnaces and the price of importing coke rose massively reducing profit margins.British Steel (at the time) decided to do a deal with China.They agreed that in return for a low fixed price on importing coke for a set period in return British Steel would send people out to China and show them how to make a grade of steel good enough for there own internal use.China started producing much better quality steel and then refined the process so that as we are today they can now produce steel at a equivalent quality to us.Chinas production costs are miniscule compaired to ours (low labour,no emmisions,no workers rights etc etc)which means they can import it to us and still be cheaper than us...

   For example I put a enquiry into British steel a month ago for about £290k worth of rolled sections.I'm 10 miles from Scunthorpe yet I could still buy it from Bejing import it over and still be £40k cheaper than buying it from down the road...

  There have been many different owners of British Steel since but none bought the business for the business itself.Tata bought it because the government gave them massive tax breaks and concessions which helped there Jaguar car plant.When these expired they ran it down and jettisoned it..

  Now of course Greybull own it after buying it for a £1,they are a hedge fund.As we know hedge funds are group of investors who join together under a anonymous name.They do this because they are merciless,it's all about extracting the maximum amount of short term profit before closing or selling on.Which is why they sold the carbon credits..You only have to look at Greybulls record with buying large corporations and then creaming profit and closing them..ie Comet...

   Only last week Greybull bought a French steel company for £40 million while at the same time asking our Government for funding using the employee's as a bargaining chip,EU rules dictated that wasn't possible but it wouldn't have happened anyway because Greybull wouldn't have provided the collateral to make sure any loan was paid back.They were looking for a gift..

   While all these companies have taken ownership of our steel industry,none have actually invested in it,which means we are now using old methods and plants which make us uncompetitive to the rest of the world.Scunthorpe had looked at plans to build a new mill to rectify this but of course that needs investment and that wasn't the name of the game for the owners over the last 20 years...

   The reality is that British Steel doesn't have a market.It costs to much for standard steel grades to be imported into the EU.They have there own steel plants that can do that,and our overseas market has vanished.it's too expensive to even use much of it in our own country these days...

   People can use the argument on Brexit either way but it's rubbish.Carbon credits is just the last nail in a coffin that has been nailed shut with hundreds of nails over the last twenty years...

   I've no doubt British Steel will be sold again,but only to another company using it as a weapon to secure other financial incentives.It will continually to be run down and jobs lost...

[SydneyRover]

Thanks WC, here is a bit of background about Greybull

https://www.ft.com/content/cead5936-7caa-11e9-81d2-f785092ab560

Can you or anyone say if Greybull invested the 400m they said they would put in and whether the fact that they were producing steel with lower carbon footprint than other EU plants which is why they were receiving credits made them more efficient, I presume it's a yes.

Here's some more but back in 2016 when they first took over from TATA

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/tata-steel-Scunthorpe-plant-who-are-greybull-capital-buyer-everything-you-need-to-know-explained-a6980316.html

[wing commander]

   That is a impossible question to answer Sydney and one in true political style can be argued both ways..
   Firstly it depends what you call investment,since they took over there have been job losses from when they bought them meaning they have saved money,however Scunthorpe is a old plant and costs a lot to maintain and service which means they can class some spending as investment when in reality its maintenance..There has been very little in the actual investment of the infrastructure of the place..I have been going there for many years on a regular basis and the difference in the place from then and now is remarkable..I was there 2 weeks ago and it's falling apart in places..You wouldn't believe the state of some of it..
  As for the emission's and low carbon footprint,that has very little to do with efficiency I'm afraid but more to do with the type of steel they make,there are many different grades of steel.They make high grade sectional steel that has a naturally low carbon content as opposed to standard s275,s355 which is your standard higher carbon steel ..So they are always going to have relatively low emmisions on the product of steel they make..

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

I also think it's highly subjective in some ways. However, much like we would say in football there has to be a return on investment should it be accepted that the owners just push money in with little or no return?

It shouldn't be underestimated financially how much a steelworks costs to run, maintain etc as WC states.

I suspect WC there are people on here who know the company even more detailed than you but you make some.valid points.

[albie]

Greybull have form for asset stripping businesses...look at their previous.

An interesting aside is that I'm told the Brexit Party candidate in Peterborough by-election is Mike Greene,
....of Greybull!

[wilts rover]

   That is a impossible question to answer Sydney and one in true political style can be argued both ways..
   Firstly it depends what you call investment,since they took over there have been job losses from when they bought them meaning they have saved money,however Scunthorpe is a old plant and costs a lot to maintain and service which means they can class some spending as investment when in reality its maintenance..There has been very little in the actual investment of the infrastructure of the place..I have been going there for many years on a regular basis and the difference in the place from then and now is remarkable..I was there 2 weeks ago and it's falling apart in places..You wouldn't believe the state of some of it..
  As for the emission's and low carbon footprint,that has very little to do with efficiency I'm afraid but more to do with the type of steel they make,there are many different grades of steel.They make high grade sectional steel that has a naturally low carbon content as opposed to standard s275,s355 which is your standard higher carbon steel ..So they are always going to have relatively low emmisions on the product of steel they make..

I was going to reply back to that and say that the works are not all that old and I remember them being built (as the Anchor Site) until I realised that was about 1975!

On the cost of saving the works, not specifically your post WC just in general, I don't believe enough is being made of the economic and social costs to the wider area of loosing 25000 jobs.

[karldew]

Meant to be the deadline for potential buyers on the 30th June. Think we’ll be seeing what happens with British Steel very soon

[Ye-Aul-Tavern]

Am I the only one who opened this thread hoping to read about classic Judas Priest? 

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Meant to be the deadline for potential buyers on the 30th June. Think we’ll be seeing what happens with British Steel very soon

You'd hope so, but these things are never quick!

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

So these deadlines pass etc, press report they exist but not a word on the outcome.  Wonder then if the place has a future?

[wilts rover]

Bids closed last week. According to local press there are 10 interested parties and the administrators hope to chose a preferred buyer by the end of this month - with a deal being completed by the end of August.

However they are also working on an alternate plan to decommission the site should none of the bids be successful.

https://www.grimsbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/british-steel-deadline-contingency-Scunthorpe-3092126

[karldew]

Rumours going round that a Chinese company have got it.

I’ve just left a job on the site just incase it all goes pear shaped.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Looks like the next steps aren't far away. Good news for a lot of people.

[SydneyRover]

What a difference an election makes? though I would have thought buyers would have been lining up to grab this bargain to have stockpiles ready for the brexit bonanza with tariff free trade to India, China, Mexico, etc.

''UK government agrees £300m rescue package for British Steel''

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/aug/09/mystery-bidder-joins-race-to-buy-british-steel

edit: ''Insiders told Sky News the funding would satisfy EU state aid rules, which Theresa May’s administration claimed prevented ministers from providing support to British Steel before it collapsed into insolvency in May''

[foxbat]

is that the state aid as APPROVED by the EU then ?
Just proving the point that every single anti EU claim is nothing but an  outright lie.
17.5 million people completely played by multi millionaire criminals .

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Different terms to what was needed pre liquidation which would have fallen foul of laws on state aid sp you're wrong foxbat. Certainly interesting how technical those rulings are.