High Street chain collapse sweepstake

User avatar
martindtanderson
Posts: 527
Joined: Tue 23 Dec, 2003 04.03
Location: London, UK
Contact:

JAS84 wrote:I don't get it. What does Captain Janeway have to do with that? :?
The look of disdain on her face, is obviously the poster's reaction to that bad joke/pun.
Image
Alexia
Posts: 2999
Joined: Sat 01 Oct, 2005 17.50

martindtanderson wrote:
JAS84 wrote:I don't get it. What does Captain Janeway have to do with that? :?
The look of disdain on her face, is obviously the poster's reaction to that bad joke/pun.
Less the pun, more the fact that JAS84 needed to point it out when Whataday had already ho-ho-hoed it.
Alexia
Posts: 2999
Joined: Sat 01 Oct, 2005 17.50

http://www.theguardian.com/business/201 ... e-shopping

An interesting article on Argos, including perception, business model etc.
Whataday
Posts: 361
Joined: Fri 22 Aug, 2003 00.08
Location: Cardiff
Contact:

lukey wrote:
Whataday wrote:I'm going to call out New Look not to last the next 12 months.
Really? It seems to be where lots of she-people get their not-quite-Primark level of shite, and does quite well out of that.
New Look has HUUUUUGE debt. We're talking over £1 billion in total.
User avatar
WillPS
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue 22 Apr, 2008 18.32
Location: Carlton
Contact:

Whataday wrote:
lukey wrote:
Whataday wrote:I'm going to call out New Look not to last the next 12 months.
Really? It seems to be where lots of she-people get their not-quite-Primark level of shite, and does quite well out of that.
New Look has HUUUUUGE debt. We're talking over £1 billion in total.
Debt isn't in and of itself a problem so long as the company is able to service it. Sometimes it can be a good thing as the lender will want the business to stay alive in order to see a return on that debt; if they were to go in to administration they'd likely see only pennies in the pound.

That they were lent that much in the first place suggests they are doing OK.
Image
Whataday
Posts: 361
Joined: Fri 22 Aug, 2003 00.08
Location: Cardiff
Contact:

WillPS wrote:Debt isn't in and of itself a problem so long as the company is able to service it. Sometimes it can be a good thing as the lender will want the business to stay alive in order to see a return on that debt; if they were to go in to administration they'd likely see only pennies in the pound.

That they were lent that much in the first place suggests they are doing OK.
£1 billion debt is £1 billion debt, and it's over five times the amount of profit generated annually, with a crucial payment due next year.

They weren't lent that much, a lot of it is interest generated from the sort of dreadful PIK notes that brought Peacocks down.
User avatar
marksi
Posts: 1892
Joined: Wed 07 Jan, 2004 05.38
Location: Donaghadee

Until very recently I didn't know that New Look did men's clothing. I thought it was a women's only retailer. Still never been in a shop. I can only assume their marketing is a complete disaster if they can't even communicate what products they sell.
User avatar
WillPS
Posts: 2456
Joined: Tue 22 Apr, 2008 18.32
Location: Carlton
Contact:

Whataday wrote:
WillPS wrote:Debt isn't in and of itself a problem so long as the company is able to service it. Sometimes it can be a good thing as the lender will want the business to stay alive in order to see a return on that debt; if they were to go in to administration they'd likely see only pennies in the pound.

That they were lent that much in the first place suggests they are doing OK.
£1 billion debt is £1 billion debt, and it's over five times the amount of profit generated annually, with a crucial payment due next year.

They weren't lent that much, a lot of it is interest generated from the sort of dreadful PIK notes that brought Peacocks down.
The point remains that the bank will want to see a return on that investment - and the best return they'll get from a business with healthy operating profits (£200m if what you say is correct) is not going to be from forcing them in to administration.
Image
wells
Posts: 747
Joined: Sun 31 Jul, 2005 14.52

marksi wrote:Until very recently I didn't know that New Look did men's clothing. I thought it was a women's only retailer. Still never been in a shop. I can only assume their marketing is a complete disaster if they can't even communicate what products they sell.
I think it's only the larger stores and only a small section of them still.
Critique
Posts: 980
Joined: Mon 17 Aug, 2009 10.37
Location: Suffolk

I question how long QD will last now, as last week one of the two local stores here closed down, literally within a couple of days. I think it was announced on Monday, with everything being 50% off, and by Friday it was closed. Walking past you can see all the lights still on, even the tills still turned on, but the shelves completely empty. Apparently the other QD will remain open, but it was a very sudden close and perhaps a sign of things to come?
User avatar
madmusician
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon 11 Dec, 2006 19.11
Location: Worcester, UK

Critique wrote:I question how long QD will last now, as last week one of the two local stores here closed down, literally within a couple of days. I think it was announced on Monday, with everything being 50% off, and by Friday it was closed. Walking past you can see all the lights still on, even the tills still turned on, but the shelves completely empty. Apparently the other QD will remain open, but it was a very sudden close and perhaps a sign of things to come?
I heard it was because the head company decided very suddenly not to renew the lease, which expired on the property. A bit odd how it happened so fast, but I suppose with two QDs in the town, it's natural to want to shut one down if you are consolidating the business (the one that has remained open used to be a "Buy Right" back in the day - anyone know if there was a merger, or if QD just took over this particular store?)

I remember, when the current British Heart Foundation shop (opposite the aforementioned Buy Right/OD) was QD 'back in the noughties'. They had a nasty gas explosion there once, ISTR...
Post Reply