Million Impossible?

[mkgreenfield]

Just one piece of pure curiosity brad.

Why go back from plc to ltd?

Now it is 15 years since I was coowner of a plc, and subseqent companies acts may have changed thisbut as I recollect the matters the only results of being a private ltd plc were

(a) If the company had a "serious loss of capital" forget theactual number as one of the stupitiies of company law....you had to hold a meeting of directors but company law said nothing about what you had to do...

and

(b) The disclosure rules were more onerous, but only to the extent that you cant hide behind small turnover provisions.

In return for that we found it made a massive difference to

(a) How we were percieved...by customers


(b) The relative ease to getting publicity
and surprisingly

(c) Lots of companies were happy to open accounts for us without any checking at all.....most probably didnt realise how LITTLE it really means


Cheap for the sake of £60K...so whats the point in changing back???

I have looked at little closer at Million Impossible Plc and see they have a winding up petition against them for almost £3000. Maybe this is why they are changing to a LTD company.

A winding up petition kind of contradicts what they are trying to do - Help fellow business owners - this means they have not paid a fellow business owner money that was due.

 

[mkgreenfield]

"Only Honest Entrepreneurs Need Apply"

It would appear that the owners of Million Impossible are far from honest.

1. They have a winding up petition against them ( I checked using Credit Safe)

2. The directors and many of the staff at Million Impossible all used to work at a company called 118 Trades (google it and see what you find). This company went into administration owing millions. 118 Trades ripped off thousands of business owners selling advertising which was never published. This company also appeared on watch dog and was raided by the police and trading standards. Mr Brad Chapman was commercial director at 118 trades.

You will see from the Million Impossible website that they talk ALOT about adversity - this is their way of justifing ripping people off!

Stay well clear of Million Impossible - it's here today, but probably not tomorrow - as the saying goes, a leopard never changes its spots!

 

[garyk]

Just checked on creditsafe myself to confirm the above comments.

Perhaps one of those involved who posted on this thread would care to comment on these findings?????

 

[mkgreenfield]

Rachel Elnaugh is featured quite alot on the Million Impossible website and I am certain that she is not aware of these findings. Perhaps an email to Rachel to inform her is in order??

I don't think Rachel should not be associated with this company. Million Impossible are clearly using her to gain credibility and when they go under, it will be her name/reputation thats damaged.

 

[BeautyScientist]

It is interesting that the OP had an intuitive bad feeling from her first contact with this company. I looked at their website before reading the thread and felt that there was something I didn't like about it, but couldn't put my finger on it.

 

[DuaneJackson]

Good to know my gut instinct wasn't failing me.

Rachel Elnaugh is featured quite alot on the Million Impossible website and I am certain that she is not aware of these findings. Perhaps an email to Rachel to inform her is in order??

I don't think Rachel should not be associated with this company. Million Impossible are clearly using her to gain credibility and when they go under, it will be her name/reputation thats damaged.

Having her name plastered all over the site and their stand at the exhibition was part of what set off alarm bells. It seemed a desperate bid for some credibility. I've seen her name used in so many places for so many things that it carries no weigh in my eyes any more.

 

[ServersandSpares]

Rachel Elnaugh sems to have been a director of an awful lot of dissolved companies, so for me personally that would be enough to put me off.

 

[garyk]

To quote the lovely (?) Deborah Meaden;

Shall I tell you where I am?

I'm out!

On a more serious note and I know it opens a can of worms but these sort of outfits should be publicly named and shamed using the power of this forum if the facts can be 100% established.

 

[Mr. Mu]

I came into contact with some MI marketing a few months ago (as someone on Rachel's mailing list)

My instincts said "BAD".

The name is a disaster (semantically speaking). Million Impossible says 'a million is impossible' - full stop. The idea that its great because it gets people talking is something I've heard hundreds of times in marketing from people who have no idea how powerful words really are.

My immediate reaction to seeing the site was "Oh, no...Rachel.. don't do this".

Its great how when you put things under the Internetoscope they start to unravel, innit?

 

[lockie]

I got done by 118 trades as did a few others i know, so if they are linked to this lot stay well away

 

I do hope that any negative publicity arising from this does not hurt Rachel.

As far as I am aware, her only connection with MI is she thought that what they were doing was worthwhile, and as a result of that she gave them exhibition stands donated by exhibition organisers in exchange for rachel speaking at the exhibitions - the stands she had little use for...so "donated" them to MI

And as a quid pro quo she is gaining a little publicity from MI site too.

Rachel is doing a lot for small businesses both publicly and behind the scenes

 

[mkgreenfield]

I got done by 118 trades as did a few others i know, so if they are linked to this lot stay well away

Million Impossible is operated by the same crooks that ran 118 trades. They don't try to hide that fact either... they just call it "adversity"... it is an absolute joke how they can justify ripping people off.

I've noticed how MI management (Brad & Heidi) who previously posted on here haven't commented since the new findings (winding up petition).

Come on Brad/Heidi, what have you got to say for yourselves??

 

[garyk]

yes well a free bttt to keep it on page 1 then!

 

[Simon-M]

I do hope that any negative publicity arising from this does not hurt Rachel.

You take the plaudits for good judgement along with the bad press for bad judgements. That's life in business

 

[Rachel Elnaugh]

It's so easy to be judgemental without knowing the full facts isn't it?

Bradley Chapman is actually a friend of mine. I don't make judgements about people based on gossip or tittle tattle or companies house records, quite simply on the basis that many opinions have been formed about me by others based on those things - only for those people to apologise to me for forming incorrect opinions after they had met me in person.

I was not 'on the Million Impossible Stand' at the Business Start Up Show; the BStartUp team gave me the stand in return for speaking at the event for free - and I gave it to Bradley to help him with his business.

Yes BERR has issued a winding up petition against Mi, and Bradley is fighting it. I have personally spoken to Peter Mandelson and have also emailed him to ask him to intervene as (having seen the winding up petition) I feel BERR's approach is unjust and heavy handed. BERR should be encouraging enterprise in Britain not killing it.

And I have also told Bradley that calling a business 'Million Impossible' is karmically a very bad name!!! I was with him yesterday and he is now looking at changing the name.

I do wish that forums like this could stick to constructive positive comment and not engage in slagging others off.

Entrepreneurs should stick together and support one another! Business is tough enough !!!

Rachel

 

[DuaneJackson]

Welcome to the forums, Rachel.

I don't know anything about what happened with 118 Trades, so I've not commented on it - but it seems to have upset a lot of people.

I do wish that forums like this could stick to constructive positive comment and not engage in slagging others off.

Whilst I agree there is too much of slagging others off on this forum at the moment, there is a space between 'constructive postive comment' and 'slagging others off'.

Unfortunately most people *will* form opinions on other people in business based on their associations with other companies - it's just human nature.

You've had a bad reputation in the past based purely on gossip and speculation surrounding RLD. When I read in to the actual facts I realised the gossip was wrong and you were getting an unfair bashing over it.

But you now publically associate yourself with these guys that also have bad reputations.

There's only so many high-profile hits a personal profile can take before it loses its lustre. Companies can rename themselves, but when your name is your brand it aint so easy!

 

[Rachel Elnaugh]

I guess it depends what you want your (personal) brand to stand for.

I am trying these days to be supportive of other entrepreneurs and non-judgemental.

Knowing Bradley, I would prefer to stand up for him rather than distance myself on the pretext it may in some way 'damage my brand'.

 

[willitbe]

There is an old saying:

" You lie down with dogs, you get fleas"

Whether it is appropriate here, remains to be seen.

 

[DuaneJackson]

I guess it depends what you want your (personal) brand to stand for.

I think you're right, it does.

I'd have thought you'd be able to do as much or perhaps even more to help Bradley without your name having to be used as a PR/Marketing tool by MI.

There's certainly something admirable in the way you've chosen to go about things.

Best of luck with it all, and happpy new year.

 

[BeautyScientist]

I am still a bit hazy about what Million Impossible are actually offering despite a couple of visits to their website.

Is it a networking organisation like Ecademy? Or is it a magazine? Or does it offer training courses? Or is it all of these things?

I think Rachel's involvement is a big plus point for them. Having the name of someone you have heard of associated with it makes a big difference in how seriously you take something like this. The impression I got from the website was that she is sharing a platform with them and so her endorsement did seem pretty positive, even before her post on here confirmed it.

But I remain confused about what I should expect to get from joining up. There is a long list on the website called user benefits but most of the items on the list leave me none the wiser. It looks like there is a button to press for more information on each of the benefits but it doesn't seem to be working at the moment, at least not when I tried.

All in all I am not sure this company is about, and that gives me an uneasy feeling about them. I don't think that this counts as slagging off - just my observations.

 

[SLF]

I was at an event some couple years back where Rachel admitted that her RLD company went belly up after she took time out to have her kids and left someone in charge whom she trusted at the time, who bascially ballsed it up for her but by the time she found out it was too late and the rest is history.

So Rachel my thinking is, if you know a guy that has been a director for a previous company and not made a success of it, rather than trying to be the Mother Teresa of Entrepreneurs, why not learn to steer clear of some people who clearly aren't operating in your best interest even if you are in theirs?

I dont doubt you are trying to help, but you know, so are we. Everyone who posts something useful in a business topic is helping entrepreneurs and the Mi thing wont help anywhere near the numbers this forum has, even if you remove the BS comments entwined in the threads.

I would make a realistic guess that there is more to changing the name of Mi than is being admitted here. That it has a reputation linked to a bad reputation, that negative comments about Mi are now live in Google and thus it's brand is soured before it's barely got going.

They chose the name to get publicity and they have certainly done that.

 

[mkgreenfield]

I would make a realistic guess that there is more to changing the name of Mi than is being admitted here. That it has a reputation linked to a bad reputation, that negative comments about Mi are now live in Google and thus it's brand is soured before it's barely got going.

They chose the name to get publicity and they have certainly done that.

Totally agree. They are changing the name as they want a fresh start.

I see at companies house that the directors of Million Impossible have also registered Million POSSIBLE Limited - just a wild guess, but could this be their new name??

Thanks to Rachel for taking the time to post on here, but it hasn't reassured me in the slightest....

Million Impossible / Possible... whatever you want to call it, it's a complete farse. These people should be disqualified from being directors... they run up debts and start up again with a new name.

 

[Deleted member 27344]

Isn't that the way it works though (in the UK at least). You can set up a company, run up debts, (intentionally or otherwise), close it down and start again as something else with no real damage to yourself.

It does seem that an easy way out and, unless declared bankrupt, there's no law against you becoming director of another company.

Isn't that also why a lot of companies have 'chosen' to call in the administrators in the current climate?

Excuse my ignorance of the law but this is an area that I have never wandered into, and don't particularly want to plus what I've just said doesn't reflect on Mi, Rachel or anyone else and is just a personal observation.

 

[sysops]

Isn't that also why a lot of companies have 'chosen' to call in the administrators in the current climate?

Imagine you have a chain of 100 high street shops. 60 of them are quite profitable, whereas the other 40 make a loss. In fact, the losses from those 40 are such that the chain as a whole is making a big loss.

You'd think that closing the 40 loss making shops, or at least some of them, would be the obvious solution. But there are two big problems with this:

- Leases - many of your shops will have 10, 15 or even 25 year leases. You can't get out of those without significant payments being made to the landlords.

- Employees - making 40% of your workforce redundant will cost you a huge amount of money, and almost certainly bankrupt the company.

So what do you do?

Administration is a great way out. Whoever takes on the business can just close down the unprofitable shops, get rid of the unnecessary staff, and it costs them nothing.

Now, you can't just set up a new company to take over, that's just not on. But there's no reason why the company that does take over can't have some connection to you.

Is this bad? Not really - it allows shops to stay open, and people to keep their jobs.

 

[mkgreenfield]

I think you're misunderstanding the point I'm making...

Businesses (Limited/PLC Companies) get into financial difficulty and sometimes the only option is liquidation / administration. It's unfortunate, but we understand this happens.

Most business owners see their business as "their baby" and do not foresee any financial difficulties and want it flourish, be successfully and be trading profitability for many years to come. If something goes wrong, luckily they have some protection being a Limited company.

Less credible business owners, form Limited companies to PURPOSELY run up debts they have no intention of paying, as in a few months they will be trading under a different name - this appears to be what the Mi owners are doing.

It's these people that shouldn't be allowed to be serving directors.

 

[thedlog]

What a sad thread this is. Why is anyone slagging off Rachel and Brad/Million Impossible. They are doing a great job on all fronts, those of you who have decided to slag off the afformentioned people, have you actually met them/spoken to them, I think not, otherwise you would not be be posting such nasty retoric against them.
I have personally met with both, Rachel has helped me tremendously, and is still helping in every way possible, Bradley, well thanks to Rachel I have been lucky enough to meet with him also, and of course not forgetting Heidi. These people have bent over backwards to help and inspire me, and continue to do so.
Furthermore do any of you really think that Rachel would put her name to anything if it were bad, I doubt it, has she not suffered enough with snide remarks since the demise of RLD. Why is it that as soon as someone/people try to help others publicly they are punished, where are the likes of the other Dragons and so called great Entrepreneurs, why are they not out there helping others to get things going, I'll tell you all why, it's simple, they are to dam greedy, self, self, self, that is all they interested in.
Come give Rachel, Brad, Heidi a break, give them a chance as they are doing to others who are trying to make a life for themselves and others.

And as for a previous comment, "if you lye with dogs you get fleas", I hope you are not suggesting that Rachel is a dog are you?, I think you should remove that comment with immediate effect, as it is so dam rude, do you know her?, something tells me not, you are just jumping on some bandwagon, a sheep following other sheep, wake up smell the roses, get your facts together, find out what these people are doing relentlessly to help others, and I might add FOR FREE at times, is that what you call bad people, those who give for FREE, and ask nothing in return.

DLOG

 

[Rachel Elnaugh]

I agree that the administration laws need to be changed, in fact it was the leading article in yesterday's Financial Mail on Sunday.

The real problem however lies within the so called 'corporate turnaround and recovery' sector. There is a very close knit circle of insolvency professionals linked in to the banks and individuals who specialise in buying companies out of administration. A lot of deals are done on a nod and a wink and the spoils shared out between them.

That's before we even get on to the subject of pre-pack deals where a company can essentially be flipped in and out of administration overnight, debt wiped and same shareholders & directors in place the next day. Usually available in return for a nice fat fee paid to a friendly insolvency professional.

If I were changing the law I would firstly introduce a Chapter 11 style arrangement which would allow a company a set period to restructure itself without having to be forced through an administration process; secondly if the company could not be saved within that timescale I would prevent anyone with a prior interest in the business becoming a major shareholder or a director in the new business.

I would also makes the banks more culpable for forcing companies into administration unecessarily (for example by withdrawing overdraft facilities overnight) and I would also curb the ability of HMRCE to force companies into liquidation for non payment of VAT and other taxes, replacing this with the statutory ability for otherwise profitable companies to repay over time.

The problem with the current laws is that they incentive all parties to push companies through administration processes and in doing so value is almost always destroyed for the economy. Far better to encourage companies to restructure and continue to trade wherever possible.

 

[thedlog]

Why oh why are some of you continually having a dig at Rachel and Bradley. They are out there trying so hard to help others, is that a crime? And must say, that much of their time and effort is given for FREE, and un-conditionally.
'lie with dogs - you get fleas', how rude and disrespectful, do you know Rachel?, I doubt it. It seems that there are many out there on a 'witch-hunt' and out to slander those who do good, neither Rachel, Bradley or the MI team are 'dogs or witches'.
Show some respect to those who helping others to make something of themselves.
And with regard to RLD, yep, perhaps Rachel made a mistake, but so have many others, but they bounced back, like Rachel and Bradley, I don't see anyone slagging off them!! So why must anyone slag off and slander Rachel, Bradley, Heidi and the MI team?
Come on get real, and you yourselves put that time and effort in trying to help others.
Furthermore Rachel is well aware that she is on the MI website, endorsing what Bradley is trying to do, (help entrepreneurs) make it in life, and thereby helping others gain employment.

 

[SLF]

sounds sensible to me.

So, getting back onto Mi, if you would change the Law and not allow people to be a director or major shareholder again (we assume you mean after a failed attempt ie with financial loses/debts), why would you support this guy Brad in a second company?

I know you said he is a friend, but we all know you shouldn't let a friendship dictate the decisions you make in business.

 

[thedlog]

I am sure Rachel knows what she is doing, contrary to what others think!

 

[Simon-M]

but we all know you shouldn't let a friendship dictate the decisions you make in business.

Do we? Where did you hear that from? I do "mates rates" all the time.

I get your point but not the way you have made it

 

[SLF]

that's because it was aimed at Rachel Elnaugh

 

[chs117]

Let me know if anyone here joins.

 

[thedlog]

Why do certain people continually slag off Rachel Elnaugh, Bradley and the MI team.
They are trying very hard to promote the small business, and I hasten to add for FREE at times, is that a bad thing.
Also do any of you really think that if there was anything dodgy about MI that Rachel would put her name to it?
It seems to me that as soon as someone does something for the good of all, then they are slagged off, I think you call that jealousy.
How rude to the comment, 'lie with dogs - you get fleas'. Do you know Rachel, or Bradley for that matter?
Why is it that certain people have to resort to slander, what have these people done to you?
It seems to me that there are those of you out there who are determined to ruin the aforementioned people, for what purpose I do not know, but, give them a break they are trying to HELP, unlike many I could mention!!

 

[Rachel Elnaugh]

I meant director/shareholder of the SAME phoenixed company...

And of course entrepreneurs should be allowed to set up other businesses, most entrepreneurs undertake many ventures in a lifetime, some successful, many others not.

The BERR directors' disqualification proceedings should catch any crooks in the process, well that's in theory, you may not be aware that their team of solicitors is tasked to disqualify x number of directors each year...

Having been on the end of such a persecution (where BERR put a solicitor full time on my case for 18 months in an attempt to get a high profile directors' disqualification against me before eventually giving up - because there was no evidence, despite their interviewing 8 connected parties to obtain it) I know that the system can be unjust.

I was lucky, I managed to hire the UK's top insolvency lawyer (Ian Grier at SGH) to fight the action, at a personal cost of £20k... Others who are persecuted may not be so lucky to be able to afford such good legal advice.

As for Mi, as far as I am concerned, Bradley is innocent until proven guilty.

The winding up order issued by BERR has nothing to do with insolvency by the way, it is a 'public interest' proceeding. However the problem caused by BERR's action is that under such proceedings all bank accounts are automatically frozen - which means that Mi can't even currently access its considerable cash reserves.

However, Bradley is fighting the petition and has now engaged a barrister at considerable personal expense.

Interesting though, having spoken to Bradley last night about this thread, he pointed out to me that it was started by one of the UKBF team... Is this thread actually more about trying to diss a perceived competitor I wonder?

Especially as I am aware that other posts in support of Bradley and Mi have not yet appeared on the site?

 

[DuaneJackson]

Interesting though, having spoken to Bradley last night about this thread, he pointed out to me that it was started by one of the UKBF team... Is this thread actually more about trying to diss a perceived competitor I wonder?

Hi Rachel,

It was me that started the thread. I'm not sure what "one of the UKBF team" means. I'm a voluntary moderator here and have no commercial involvement with the site or the company that owns it.

I started the thread for the reasons I said in my orginal post. There's no hidden agenda here. MI first came to my attention because I spoke to them at the bStartup Exhibition as mentioned on my blog.

Duane

 

[Simon-M]

Especially as I am aware that other posts in support of Bradley and Mi have not yet appeared on the site?

Are you saying that supportive posts here are being deleted?

 

[DuaneJackson]

Are you saying that supportive posts here are being deleted?

Only two posts have been deleted from this thread, both from thedlog, both becuase they were duplicates of other posts he/she had already made.

 

[SLF]

there are tonnes of threads about this sort of company/director behaviour on forums, im sure plenty on ukbf, so its not unusual for someone to highlight such a company and start a discusison. Obviously as it's been mentioned the director had a previous company that went to the wall with debts, it's bound not to get great reviews if you think about it.

Just because you are well-known for being on telly on DD, and you know the guy, does not eliminate him from discussion nor should it mean you infer that Duane has posted solely with bad intention.

It's not difficult to check out which companies Duane is a director of. It's not even a competing site so it's a strange thing to allege of someone.

I personally dont think there is anything wrong with entrepreneurs starting again after a failed business. Not at all.

But I agree with Duane's first post, in that if the Mi site is about helping other businesses/entrepreneurs etc, for Brad then to go bust with unpaid debts in his last company, only to invest in a new company - and even be able to afford a good lawyer to protect him in this new company as you describve above - does raise some concerns with logical and ethical people.

Even you would have understand that if that was put to you on camera on DD.

 

[thedlog]

Well actually had to re-post them because they were not showing up, so yes in agreement with Rachel, it appeared that they were being removed/not showing on purpose! Furthermore, if they were duplicate why could you have made sure that one of each of the duplicates was published!!