Talk:Alpha Plus Group

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alpha Plus Group. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110825182411/http://realdeals.eu.com/mid_market/sovereign_makes_fivefold_return_on_alpha_plus_sale to http://realdeals.eu.com/mid_market/sovereign_makes_fivefold_return_on_alpha_plus_sale

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

[Untitled section]
Hello,

I have flagged a section of this page as NPOV. A single contributor has created this section, increased its contents and reverted my edits, pushing a particular point of view.

Previous language used, now edited, was not objective.

A paragraph was added: The title of the leaflets was "Your child's education is under threat. Don't let the school force teachers to leave to defend their pension. Demand Alpha Plus call in the £40m loaned to the parent company". Glenn Kelly, the union's regional officer dealing with the issue, described the action by stating that 'It’s not my usual day to day work — in leafy Notting Hill where children are dropped off by nannies' and added that 'it’s a brutal response from an employer that you wouldn’t expect in education'”. → This appears to me as POV pushing

This section (now re-instated) was removed by the same user, even if it was of major relevance to the article: "Alpha Plus Group confirmed that it consulted with all teaching staff in thirteen of its schools about a proposal to exit from the TPS in August 2019. The consultation closed in April 2019 and the Group withdrew from the TPS in August 2019. All teachers previously enrolled in the TPS have since enrolled in the Group's Personal Pension Plan. No contracts were terminated as a result of the Group's exit from the TPS".

The last paragraph was removed because it was pushing the POV of the unions. There was no public controversy relating to the withdrawal from the TPS: all teachers previously enrolled in the TPS have since enrolled in the Group's Personal Pension Plan, and there were no strikes despite the unions' encouragement.

In addition, the pension issue is an industry-wide issue.

The contributor wrote "the measure has been proven to be a successful cost-cutting strategy since it will reduce 'the Group’s pension costs by approximately £1.1m per annum" according to the February 2019 accounts'. In fact the Group did not 'cut costs' as it kept contributions at the same level of the TPS (16.48%). — Preceding unsigned comment added by LauraHackett (talk • contribs) 14:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

[Untitled section #2]
The opinions put forward in the below section of the article are put into question by the performance of the 2024 bond, since December 2019.

"As a matter of fact the 2024 and 2019 bonds have lost 9% (from £107 to £97) and 5% (from £103 to £98) respectively in the year to September 2019. [12][13] Bond prices traded above par until 25 September 2019 but fell below par at the end of September 2019 reflecting a deterioration in the market perception of the Group's default risk and questions the actual value of the collateral securing the bonds. The 2024 bonds continued losing value in October and fell below £94 on 15 October 2019, a 7% decline since the Labour Party announced on 23 September 2019 a plan to abolish private schools something that would have a detrimental effect on both the Group's business model and in the value of the real estate assets securing the bonds.[14]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by LauraHackett (talk • contribs) 16:18, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

[Untitled section #3]
We have made repeated edits on this page in order to provide what we consider some balance on the page. These have been repeatedly edited by anonymous posters. We see no benefit in continuing that process of edit and re-edit and so would appeal to a third-party moderator to review the material and then form a view as to what would be fair and balanced information on these points on the page. Our only intention is to ensure that the page is balanced and key content on it is placed in context. We would happily engage with any other editors in such a process.

LauraHackett (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you LauraHackett. Could you please specify which parts, if any, of the page are incorrect? Me and other users are concerned that the Alpha Plus Group (or persons close to Alpha Plus Group) are trying to use the Wikipedia entry as an advertisement tool and that this denies other users (including stakeholders such as bondholders, parents, staff) access to important information. Really sorry that the company is making losses, has bad press or that the bonds have fallen in price but you should focus on correcting any information that is incorrect and the company should focus on improving its results. We also appeal to an independent moderator to check whether any information is incorrect and would also be very happy to participate in the process. Look forward to hearing from you. BV
 * --BondVigilante (talk) 19:38, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
 * and — I'd recommend visiting the Third Opinion page and requesting a third opinion there. If that fails, I'm sure you can flag down a site administrator, and they'd be more than happy to help or give some advice.
 * (Just to let you two know, I reformatted this page to follow the standard layout of article talk pages to make it easier for everyone to track. (I did not change anyone's actual text.) If you want to add titles to the sections above, be my guest.) —TheHardestAspectOfCreatingAnAccountIsAlwaysTheUsername: posted at 07:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

@talk: Dear Bond Vigilante, Alpha Plus is not hiding the authorship of its Wikipedia entry. But you hide behind your username, and therefore other Wikipedians do not know what is your affiliation and what are your motives. If you are so certain that your contribution state facts and not your own opinions (reflected in the language you use), why are you removing the POV dispute that has been flagged on the entry? You are not an editor of Wikipedia and are involved in the dispute, therefore it is not for you to remove the tags from the page. Please review the wikipedia guidelines. Wikialphaplus (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)