Appears many well known shops are going to close under the Arcadia umbrella.
Why.... are they making a loss?
No. Their profits have been reduced by a third. But still making a profit. So they intend to close 260 stores which can only add to the dole queue and for shoppers to travel further or not spend at all in their remaining shops, if they can find one.
Okay their profits are down, but why can't they keep things going with what they have. Workers paying tax, NI etc. must be better for the deficit reduction long term.
I don't get the logic. I would understand if they were making a loss. So be it. Mr. Green would aid the current economic crisis by keeping these shops going or by reducing prices throughout the group, to get consumers through the doors.
|
The shops we want to close need their lease renewing, so they may be making a profit now, but probably won't under the new lease terms.
I am no fan of Green's though, I know two people who have personally crossed him and from what people have told me, and in their opinion only he is not a nice man.
|
Arcadia is closely held, therefore Sir Philip can do whatever he wishes with his own money. I've a feeling it's the BHS brand which is struggling but there is no reason to publish figures given the ownership structure.
I suspect that when these leases come up for renewal the company will be in a stronger position to negotiate favourable terms. So, all in all a good move by the owner pre-announcing their thinking I'd say ?
|
|
He is a Businessman, not a charity.
|
"Right chaps we need to get the lease costs down when they come up renewal. What can we do?"
"Well, you could make a public announcement that you won't be renewing them, that'll put the wind up the landlords and we'll be able to "reluctantly" renew them on much more favourable terms."
"OK, sounds like a plan, leave it with me..."
|
No not a charity.
Maybe it's this attitude that has got us into such a mess. And not just him. The system has been wrong for the past 40 years, and needs a change. More charitable company owners earning slightly less profit, but employing people might work and keep the coffers topped up to get us out of the current hole.
Quakers, Sunlight, Cadbury successful businesses and businessmen- it worked then so why not now. It's the me me generation like you MD that has sunk the economy over time.
Thinking about yourself, what if your taxes were to increase to pay these people dole money and others like them who are "shaved" whenever profits start to slip. You'd be moaning then I suppose.
I think company owners have a moral obligation to employ people to keep the merry go round spinning. Otherwise it stops and we all fall off, with a large knock on effect. What's wrong with keeping people employed with a reduced profit. Okay if you're going under then there is no option.
Last edited by: Mr. Ecs on Fri 25 Nov 11 at 18:59
|
Having been brought up with Quakerism I have the greatest regard for the likes of Titus Salt, Joseph Rowntree, George Cadbury, William Lever etc., not all Quakers of course, but don't forget they had profitable businesses. Lever for example was very clear that he was running a business, not a charity, and philanthropy was something done separately with personal wealth.
If Sir Green subsidises unprofitable bits of his business, who is he subsidising? The landlords? The suppliers? The customers? It doesn't stop with the employees, their wages might be the least of it.
As I said above, terminating leases is to a point business as usual. There will always be shops within any multiple that are unprofitable, and for the most part they are traded until the lease expires because the idle costs would otherwise increase losses. Until the lease expires, they are on borrowed time, and that's how it is.
A capitalist will use the money he saves by shutting loss making sites to invest elsewhere, either in existing units (which need a refit every few years at major cost), new units, or new businesses. Retaining unprofitable bits that have no hope of turning round just threatens more jobs, ultimately.
In any case, as I have already said too, Green is posturing to a large extent. As the leases come up he wants lower rents and intimating that he will just let them go, at a time when landlords will struggle to re-let, is a good way to soften them up. I have absolutely no doubt that's in his mind.
|
|
Listening to Theo (Dragons Den) P. on the radio this morning. His new shops are being opened at the moment. On one site the lease was up. Threatened to close. Landlord scrapped the fee, he justs pays the rates. He was quite critical of Greens' plans.
|
>> Quakers,
Failed
>> Sunlight,
Failed
>> Cadbury
Failed
>>successful businesses and businessmen- it worked then so why not now.
They failed - it dont work.
|
>> >> Sunlight,
>>
>>
>> Failed
Sunlight, Bourneville, Saltaire and New Lanark all succeded for a time. Unilever is still with us as was Cadbury until recently.
As a lover of he Western Isles I've a particular interest in the 'Soap King' - William Hesketh Lever. Perhaps in part as he was a dreamer but mostly because of history. The people wanted the land they'd been robbed of in the clearances; they had to get that back before considering factory jobs.
|
>> >> >> Sunlight,
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Failed
>>
>> Sunlight, Bourneville, Saltaire and New Lanark all succeded for a time. Unilever is still with
>> us as was Cadbury until recently.
Not any more - Swllowed by those companies who have less of a "social" conscience. Tho lets be honest Lever and Cadbury dumped the social conscience years ago.
Its a failed concept.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 25 Nov 11 at 22:23
|
>>
>> Its a failed concept.
>>
I agree in principle, though interestingly one of the most successful retailers on the high street in recent years, and the fastest growing food retailer, is the John Lewis Partnership...
|
Its a strange partnership tho, some partners are not as equal as other partners.
As recently as 1988, Pratts, a JLP store in Streatham had segregated toilets and dinning facilities, according to what level of "partner" you were.
|
THe John Lewis partnership is not really a partnership in the usually understood meaning. JLP "Partners' do not actually own the company but they do share in the profits by means of an annual bonus. The bonus is declared annually and is a percentage of annual salary. The same percentage rate is paid to all employees.
It is not a workers co-opertive and the management manages but compared to most companies they do provide effective channels for the staff to make their view known. One great idea they have is that all staff have a right ask questions of their management in their house magazine "The Gazette'. The questions can be anonymous but the management have to provide a written reply. Their letters page is a lot more interesting than the turgid propaganda sheet that passed for a staff magazine int the American owned company where I used to work!
|
|
I'd say they succeeded, by not failing for a long time, if indeed they did. Someone I know quite well is on the board of the Leverhulme Trust - which is still providing funding measured in tens of millions of pounds per year.
|
>> I'd say they succeeded, by not failing for a long time, if indeed they did.
>> Someone I know quite well is on the board of the Leverhulme Trust - which
>> is still providing funding measured in tens of millions of pounds per year.
How much does unilever pump into the trust each year?
|
>> How much does unilever pump into the trust each year?
Nothing, I imagine. The Trust has a sizeable shareholding in Unilever, plus other investments that provide its income. I believe the Trustee board is drawn from Unilever management.
|
>> >> How much does unilever pump into the trust each year?
>>
>> Nothing, I imagine. The Trust has a sizeable shareholding in Unilever, plus other investments that
>> provide its income. I believe the Trustee board is drawn from Unilever management.
As I figured, Unilever does not actually provide anything to the trust then, apart form paying some directors some extra bunce for sitting on the board of trustees.
|
>> As I figured, Unilever does not actually provide anything to the trust then, apart form
>> paying some directors some extra bunce for sitting on the board of trustees.
No extra bunce, though the trust has some full time employees as you would expect.
I suppose your point is that Unilever as a successful business hasn't failed but doesn't contribute. Your original point was that all the philanthropic companies "failed", but I think that's an odd way to look at it.
The companies weren't innately philanthropic, rather the owners. And there's a difference between providing good conditions and housing, and charitable giving. The Leverhulme trust was set up with Lever's personal wealth and shareholdings. Charitable as he was, he was no mug. I don't think he had much trouble with unions.
You can't say George Cadbury failed, he's been dead since 1922. He and his brother created Bournville, which unlike Port Sunlight (AFAIK) was not just for employees, so it's hard to argue self interest even if you wanted to. George was also political and campaigned for, among other things, the old age pension.
|
|
Whilst the business makes a profit overall most likely some shops are struggling to break even. Makes sense to ditch those if you can't get a rent reduction. BHS has lost its way in recent years and I think a lot of those stores must be in the frame.
|
BHS - British Home Stores. Someone told me as a child there used also to be the British Empire Stores (BES) so I've always thought it to be true, but I can find no reference on Google to such a thing.
Anyone know if that was so, or was the idea just a product of someone's febrile brow?
|
|
There was and still is a catalogue company called Empire Stores now part of Littlewooods I think. There also was once a grocery chain called Home and Colonial
|
|
I bet that's it. I found a history of Empire Stores based on your post, CG, and it was very interesting, although it was never called BES. Started by an Italian in fact. Thanks.
|
BHS owns the freehold to a tiny corner of the Manchester Arndale, that part of it is a dump with 1970's tiles and it looks a right mess, the rest of it owned by Capital Shopping Centres has been recladd and looks so much better.
BHS in Manchester is very out dated and very old fashioned, and is next door to lots of flag ship stores and quite frankly it does the image of BHS.
The Top Shop chains are a lot more modern but they are too indie for me, full of Apple owners and ten year old Audi A3 drivers.
|
Does any one remember C&A? We used to know them as Coats and Ats!
They are still about on the Continent of Europe. A Dutch company I think.
|
...Does any one remember C&A?...
I never understood why they shut in the UK.
The stores were doing reasonably well, if I recall correctly, and the company was profitable elsewhere in Europe.
|
>> The stores were doing reasonably well, if I recall correctly, and the company was profitable
>> elsewhere in Europe.
>>
Taken from Wiki:-
"C&A in the United Kingdom was a incorporated private unlimited company, which meant that it was not required to publish its financial statements"
The rest of the article blames the fall of C&A on its high rent high street locations when supermarkets started selling cheap clothes with a lower overhead base.
|
>> ...Does any one remember C&A?...
>>
>> I never understood why they shut in the UK.
>>
>> The stores were doing reasonably well, if I recall correctly,
No they were making peanuts - Apparently. As they were a private unlimited company they did not have to publish financial accounts.
and the company was profitable
>> elsewhere in Europe.
Its not doing at all well in Europe, they are thinking of shutting many shops.
|
|
I bought a pair of trousers (against my will, I may add) from C&A in Rouen when I found myself there in September. Still a nice enough shop.
|
from Wiki
The phrase "Man at C&A" was later used to typify someone who was "sartorially challenged"
|
>> I bought a pair of trousers (against my will, I may add)
Bit tight in the crotch?
|
Just because the group overall is making a profit the same cannot be said of each branch.
BHS is full of overpriced product IMO - loads of tacky xmas stuff that only sells at half price, and the clothes in the main are expensive compared to similar stuff that can be bought at other high street retailers. They have not really moved with the times and I dont think their stores and product line have really changed in over 10 years (probably far more)
Green also pointed out that shopping trends have changed and their internet business has grown by 20% so some of those customers are likely to have been people who would have spent their cash in the stores before.
He did also stress that these store would shut as the leases run out over a three year period so taking into account staff attrition the impact is probably nowhere near as bad as it sounds
|
|
Apparently Paddy had L & R in his Wellies and his Missus C & A in her underwear.
|
There will always be some stores that are in the wrong place or have the wrong costs. But that's business-as-usual.
Sir Green is just softening up the landlords for when the leases come up. He's not one to miss an opportunity to negotiate his rent down.
|
A subject fairly close to my heart. I've been around the business all my life. You know what does though never cease to amaze me?
If you walk down any high street or through any shopping centre there is a huge and often well displayed choice of clothing and accessories to choose from.
Retailers go to great lengths to suggest through their displays how their customers might wear their goods to best enhance their appearance. Indeed in many other, particularly continental european, countries the public seem to entirely understand this.
Then you look at your average Brit who seems despite this plethora of choice to prefer to get dressed in random items of no particular merit or connection and put them on with a shovel.
:-)
|
The sartorial elegance of the previous poster may judged when seen parading his frippery in Abington street.
;>)
|
"Then you look at your average Brit who seems despite this plethora of choice to prefer to get dressed in random items of no particular merit or connection and put them on with a shovel."
I take exception.. The only things I apply with a shovel are manure and makeup.
|
For me clothes have only two purposes.
(1) To preserve my decency.
(2) To keep me warm.
All else is vanity!
|
Me to Roger, despite being female!
Pat
|
|
It might even be a migraine.
|
...It might even be a migraine...
You need to keep your head warm.
A 99p beanie hat would be a good investment.
|
>> A 99p beanie hat would be a good investment.
I usually keep one in the pocket of my chinos this time of year.
|
>> >> A 99p beanie hat would be a good investment.
>>
>> I usually keep one in the pocket of my chinos this time of year.
DO NOT put a beanie in the back pocket of your chinos, terrible things could happen to you if the colour is wrong...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handkerchief_code
|
>> It might even be a migraine.
My quote for the day re shoes
"Why two pairs of shoes
When one pairs will do"
How ya feelin now humph? tuneful little ditty huh?
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 25 Nov 11 at 14:42
|
>> How ya feelin now humph? tuneful little ditty huh?
As Marge Simpson so memorably said about shoes:
download.lardlad.com/sounds/season9/york6.mp3
Last edited by: Crankcase on Fri 25 Nov 11 at 14:49
|
It's called individuality Humph, we don't all want to look like those 'things' in shop windows anyway.
For a start most of us are only 5' 1'' and not almost 6' tall.
Someone really should explain that to manufacturers.
Pat
|
>> For a start most of us are only 5' 1'' and not almost 6' tall.
>> Someone really should explain that to manufacturers.
>>
>> Pat
Most of us are NOT 5'1", Nicole is a shortass and she is 5' 4". At 5'1" you should be getting a star role in the dwarf throwing nightclub the English Rugby team went to!
|
My Mum always told me I was good stuff tied up in a little bundle!
Pat
|
Mind you, Humph's headache may well be cured once he knows I have to wear this
www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/olympics/article-2064729/Uniforms-unveiled-London-2012-volunteers.html
When I take up my "gamesmaker" role next year
|
"The polo shirt is made of 100 per cent recycled polyester, as is the jacket shell, while the outer and inner lining consists of partly recycled polyester, along with the trousers."
Oh for the love of... !!!
:-(
Going for a lie down.
|
Only the British could put Poppy red and Deep purple together and think it matches.
Pat
|
"When I am an old woman, I shall wear purple
with a red hat that doesn't go, and doesn't suit me."
Jenny Joseph
She was oh, so close.
|
Arcadia - RattleandSmoke
