The following was announced this morning on TechRadar:
Play.com, one of the UK's biggest e-tailers, has announced that it is to be bought by Rakuten, a Japanese company that specialises in e-commerce.
The surprise takeover was announced this morning with news that the two companies have entered into a 'definitive agreement', where Play.com will be acquired by Ratuken for £25 million (approx. 3.3 billion yen) in cold, hard cash.
I hope the purchasers know what they're doing. Pay.com is one of the biggest abusers of the UK's VAT system through it's abuse of low value consignment relief where goods worth under £18 are sent to the UK VAT free.
Now that is still legal (although wait for reforms this autumn) but some time ago Jersey agreed to stop the island being used by non-Jersey owned companies for this purpose precisely because it's considered abusive.
Now play.com won't be Jersey owned.
So will they be turfed out now?
Interesting idea. One for the new owners to watch out for maybe. I'd have a warranty on it in the deal if I was them.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Richard.
To answer your question: – “Will Play.com be turfed out of Jersey?” take into account that the Jersey government does precisely what suits its own selfish, greedy agenda — this counterbalanced to an extent by their PR department’s damage limitation assessment.
In other words whatever delivers the dosh without the world finding out the Jersey government will do. To the exclusion of all other considerations.
Richard.
To answer your question: – “Will play.com be turfed out of Jersey”? one should take into account that the Jersey government does precisely what suits its own selfish, greedy agenda — this counterbalanced to an extent by their PR department’s damage limitation assessment.
In other words whatever delivers the dosh without the world finding out the Jersey government will do. To the exclusion of all other considerations.
Richard, This looks like desperation to me. 25 million is nothing. The company turned over in excess of 400m last year. Looks to me like they are leaving a sinking ship and that LVCR will be gone shortly. I hope the Japanese have done their homework. Richard
I assume your warranty suggestion is a joke. No seller would warrant no change in government policy on tax or residence as it’s outside their knowledge/control
This one is predictable
But surely this would not be a matter for a warranty but would be a pricing factor.
Its not something that the seller, or the company, has special knowledge of due to its position.
I agree John. It’s a price chip not a warranty. Loose wording by mr Murphy !
Oh dear
I can live with the error
lol – i am not sure whether RM is apologising for the error or not having attempted to defend it in his first reply
I’m saying those who commented are pedants
And I can live with it
And I do happen to think it’s a warranty issue – because you’d expect Play.com to know a lot more than the purchasers so why not include one? I would!
I bet representations were made – and I’d nail them down on it
I think those who commented were wrong – but pedants are boring so I dismissed it with an off hand comment if you’re really seeking clarification
The company structure must be so complex it would have devalued it.
The Hut gave up on their floatation bid last week. Back in June this year they were really gung ho.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6bc99342-a270-11e0-9760-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1Ybn1FGL1
They all clearly know something nasty is coming to end the LVCR party…