Whistle

[Rat Catcher]

It still only works on WIFI for me. On the in-app chat one driver said he's covered 60 jobs to date with another suggesting that's bull shit as he's had it on for two weeks and covered three jobs... so mixed reports.

Shareholders' liability is limited to their investment, in a nutshell that explains the concept of limited liability erm... something your LSE tutors clearly failed to do.

Any news on the meeting aimed at clarifying the corporate structure, Vikkiz?

[Vikkiz]

No word yet on that meeting Rats.
All smells fishey, even if the message contains typos

[john m]

Did they not say they had invested a sum of money already .So the question of liability is addressed to present debt Ie how long before investors would see a dividend .

[Rat Catcher]

The company is liable for current debt. Shareholders' liability is limited to their investment. Should the company become insolvent and be liquidated shareholders only lose what they've invested. Creditors would lose much of what they are owed.

[john m]

Rodent we have no idea of what guarantees this company have offered their creditors this is why I asked about shareholder liabilities and registration of same .If personal guarantees by the company on behalf of the company were offered to creditors who might actually be shareholders in the company who invested share capital .That liability might be transferred to new shareholders .Be interesting to see an expenditure spreadsheet im sure a lot of capital has already been invested and it would not make any commercial sense to offer shares in the company and not have a recovery policy to recoup investment capital before shareholder dividends were dispersed .In fact it is not clear if the company intends to show a profit or just break even .If there are any trading  surplussed how is it to be dealth with .Will it be shareholder dividends .Advertising or director bonus .Considering the potential of this idea you would expect a bit more effort being put into an investor shareholder prospectus .

[john m]

https://www.google.ie/search?q=selling+shareholder+prospectus&rlz=1C1ILPI_enIE777IE777&oq=shareholder+prospectus+&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j0l3.21542j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

[Vikkiz]

It's registered as a limited company John.
https://www.solocheck.ie/Irish-Company/Whistle-Taxi-App-Limited-593891

Your waffle is just that waffle. Giving yourself the runaround for no reason at all

[Rat Catcher]

Regardless of what guarantees the company has offered, shareholders' liability is limited to their investment. We know that significant sums have been borrowed at extortionate rates of interest so I guess those who have loaned the money will understand that the prospective returns reflect perceived risk. Shareholders could be asked to invest more to keep the company afloat should that be deemed necessary.

However, it's important to stress that there is no evidence to suggest the company is in any sort of financial trouble. We are merely speculating. To the best of our knowledge the company is able to meet it's current liabilities including loan repayments and directors' fees and salaries.

[john m]

Keeping it simple .In the far far long ago you bought credit for your phone and then you could make calls or send messages .Why did they not use this method and just say 50cent or a euro  a job you buy the credit we supply the work .Put 50 in credit only pay 50c put 20 in credit you pay a euro .Not bother with shareholders or the likes just guarentee that the maximum charge would not exceed a euro . Even state that in 6,9 or twelve months the charge will be a euro per job .This prepay system works perfectly for paying tolls .Then if it was a success the investors would own it .I think looking for shareholders has complicated the issue .If they have an accurate app and good advertising drivers will work it no need to own something that isint worth owning .

 I asked myself two question . Why would I want a share in this business .Why would passengers prefer to use this app over others ?

I couldnt see any reason to want to own any part of it other than later on to be encouraged to vote to  increase the charges so I could collect a dividend .The only reason why some passengers might prefer this app is because they might think it is driver owned .That seems to be its only selling point as passengers pay full fares .If I was advising on this I would redesign the offering and not bother with shareholders just get it working where the benefits of any profits go to the investors and the motivation to make it work is profit .A pre purchased credit model is simplest. 

[Vikkiz]

Jesus Christ Erm. You need a fucking hobby. I got a headache just reading that, you must have a migraine typing it

[john m]

Jesus Christ Erm. You need a fucking hobby. I got a headache just reading that, you must have a migraine typing it

Like yourself Vicci .I just wonder why complicate it .Just put drivers and customers to geather . You have Whistle issuing mail and Mytaxi love sending out crap .You never hear anybody complaining about the LYNK app they just do what it says on the tin .Dispatch Cabs .

[Rat Catcher]

You've answered the question in the question, erm. Being "the drivers own app" is a huge selling point. Whether there's a degree of truth in that or whether it's merely sales banter is unclear but a meeting outlining the corporate structure has been promised. What we have been told is that we can buy shares and that shares cannot be sold. That obviously raises more questions than answers, particularly given the dictatorial management style employed to date. For example, what happens to the shares owned by a shareholder who is subsequently banned for subscribing to ITDF or it's approved app, Flag... or indeed, for breaching the terms of any other instruction as may be issued by management?

[Shallowhal]

Telling drivers what taxi apps they can't associate with win them loadsa drivers.

[U Wha]

Shareholders are meant to have their share certificates issued (by the company/secretary) within a couple of months of buying shares.

There is stamp duty payable but wouldn't apply for people buying €50 worth. Shareholders only lose what they put in.

The Director/s may be liable for debts if they were found to be acting incorrectly (trading when insolvent), know as "lifting the corporate veil".

Any loans to the company, no matter how the agreement is worded will lose out if the company folds as revenue is first in line and if a company folds it would be unlikely that they would even be paid.

I did mention that it looked a bit dodge on another whistle thread. 

This situation will make it almost impossible for any other driver app including 'eircab' to get any momentum as this mess will kill any trust or credibility.

Pity!

[Rat Catcher]

We don't really know what the "situation" is. The in-app chat/support suggests a highly successful launch despite negative feedback on the toy shop and despite the fact that the passenger app doesn't work on some networks/handsets and despite virtually non-existent technical support and despite the lack of clarity regarding corporate structure and despite the thuggish, dictatorial management style employed to date. If an app can prosper in those circumstances it should inspire rather than discourage alternatives. There's plenty of mistakes there to learn from.