Some good news
Banks led by RBS & owed £85m agree Opcapita takeover of rump of Game Group, preserving 333 stores & 3100 jobs. Announcement tmrw
from ……..
PESTON on TWITTER
31-Mar-2012 @ 21:26
High Street chain collapse sweepstake
What an odd thing to say. They're not doing it "for old times' sake". They're doing it because they believe they can turn a profit.
Who said anything about it being a "future-proof market"? Have you considered that RBS and other potential investors believe that there's still just a few years of life left in distribution through physical stores for the games industry, and have chosen to invest in ekeing out what they can, while they can?
Not every investment is designed to build a company that will last forever. Indeed, the venture capital industry is predicated on short-to-medium term returns, many of which don't rely in any way on the longevity of the underlying business.
If RBS, or anyone else for that matter, can save the business for a few more years, that's a great thing - not least because new opportunities may well arise to develop the business into new areas that enable it to last even longer. RBS will have a vested interest in exploring those opportunities, and determining if they're worth developing further, in order to extend the return on their investment.
The idea that we should simply let something die right now because of a belief that it will inevitably die at some point in the future is terribly naive and nonsensical, especially when it comes to investment. The key is knowing when to withdraw - not avoiding the investment in the first place.
Who said anything about it being a "future-proof market"? Have you considered that RBS and other potential investors believe that there's still just a few years of life left in distribution through physical stores for the games industry, and have chosen to invest in ekeing out what they can, while they can?
Not every investment is designed to build a company that will last forever. Indeed, the venture capital industry is predicated on short-to-medium term returns, many of which don't rely in any way on the longevity of the underlying business.
If RBS, or anyone else for that matter, can save the business for a few more years, that's a great thing - not least because new opportunities may well arise to develop the business into new areas that enable it to last even longer. RBS will have a vested interest in exploring those opportunities, and determining if they're worth developing further, in order to extend the return on their investment.
The idea that we should simply let something die right now because of a belief that it will inevitably die at some point in the future is terribly naive and nonsensical, especially when it comes to investment. The key is knowing when to withdraw - not avoiding the investment in the first place.
Well said!
When I was first heard the news I was bit surprised as I didn't think anyone would want to take on the task. However, it's a respected brand and there's still money to be made from the distribution of physical media. I agree that in a few years time, as technology continues to move on that it may then have to close but at least it keeps people in jobs and another shop on the already troubled high street.
When I was first heard the news I was bit surprised as I didn't think anyone would want to take on the task. However, it's a respected brand and there's still money to be made from the distribution of physical media. I agree that in a few years time, as technology continues to move on that it may then have to close but at least it keeps people in jobs and another shop on the already troubled high street.
Good Lord!
The employees in GAME certainly know their stuff, better than people at PC World and Currys, that is the thing I'd hate to see go, employees that know what they're on about.
-
bilky asko
- Posts: 1450
- Joined: Sat 08 Nov, 2008 19.48
Funnily enough, I would say the opposite in both cases. Perhaps the fact the stores I go to is a huge Currys PC World and a puny Game may say something about it.Philip wrote:The employees in GAME certainly know their stuff, better than people at PC World and Currys, that is the thing I'd hate to see go, employees that know what they're on about.
Many people would certainly share your opinion. I certainly don't buy games or peripherals on the high street either, but that doesn't mean there isn't a market for it.The 'old times sake' comment wasn't aimed at RBS, but at people who were saying it's a shame Game are going bust. I don't think it's a crying shame that high street games retail is going bust, because it's being replaced with something that I personally find superior.BBC LDN wrote:What an odd thing to say. They're not doing it "for old times' sake". They're doing it because they believe they can turn a profit.I don't think we should cling on to outdated businesses just for old times' sake.
Good grief. Have you not considered the possibility that GAME was poorly managed? Is it not possible that even though one group of directors failed to make the group profitable, it is still possible to restructure the business to turn it into a leaner and more efficient operation that can actually make money? There are endless stories of failing business being turned around by new owners, venture capitalists, even short-term administrators, just by correcting the mistakes made by the previous owners. If you're not able to appreciate that reality, I don't think you're well equipped to be commenting on this.If there was money in it, surely it wouldn't have entered administration with spiralling debts and suppliers refusing to do business with them? Obviously RBS think they can turn a profit, but that doesn't stop me thinking they're misguided.BBC LDN wrote:Have you considered that RBS and other potential investors believe that there's still just a few years of life left in distribution through physical stores for the games industry, and have chosen to invest in ekeing out what they can, while they can?
By your argument, BlackBerry pissing money up the wall chasing iPhone customers with an unattractive proposal would be a "good investment" - just because a company thinks there is money to be made, doesn't mean they're not idiots.
At least RIM have $3billion in the coffers to piss up the wall, and no company debt.
Regardless of the bad decisions that have left GAME in its current state, the rug is about to be pulled out from under their feet by the console makers.
I don't really understand why you've brought BlackBerry into this - I have to assume it's because you weren't very happy being put in your place in the other thread - but you clearly haven't grasped the point I was making if you think that that is a logical interpretation of my argument.
Also, this assertion that "the rug is about to be pulled out from under [GAME's] feet by the console makers" seems a bit random. Is this a reference to GAME not being able to acquire stock of major new game titles a couple of weeks back?
Wow, back to this again. Actually, I never suggested anything of the sort. I didn't even come close to suggesting that, in fact.Isn't that exactly what you were suggesting about BlackBerry? That you'd be relieved if they gave up, because they can't compete with iPhone and will inevitably die of they do?BBC LDN wrote:The idea that we should simply let something die right now because of a belief that it will inevitably die at some point in the future...
My opinion, since you asked so nicely, is that RIM should focus on making BlackBerry strong in the business and enterprise sectors, and not chase consumer-focused sales, since they've proven themselves to be very poor at that. The big difference between RIM and GAME is that, while RIM has a new CEO and has ditched a number of directors, its management structure remains populated by people that have risen from within the company. There's no new blood to bring in new ideas and make big decisions, and RIM executives have made no secret of the fact that they don't want outsiders coming in to the company and rocking the boat. That means that they're pretty much doomed to repeat their mistakes, especially since they evidently don't see any fundamental flaws in their strategy. This is different to GAME, which will not be managed by the same core team that failed to direct the company to profitability.
Perhaps not - but that doesn't change any of the points made above.The recession would suggest RBS are not the best judge of that.BBC LDN wrote:The key is knowing when to withdraw
It's also worth considering that RBS hasn't bought GAME; OpCapita has. RBS and six other banks - who are owned £85m between them - have approved the deal for PwC (formerly PricewaterhouseCoopers) to sell to OpCapita.
OpCapita isn't owned by RBS, and its staff have come from many backgrounds, including CitiGroup, Barclays Capital, and others. Its Managing Partner was formerly Managing Director of Deutsche Bank, and its senior team has extensive experience in the UK and European retail sector. That sounds to me like a team that's pretty well equipped to make decisions that will lead GAME to profitability, and know when to withdraw from their investment - perhaps by selling it on at a profit, perhaps by simply winding down the business when its day comes. Maybe they'll fuck it up too - who knows? - but it seems very small-minded to write off the whole deal based on your unknowing observations.
You seem to be condemning the whole GAME operation based on your opinion that because you don't buy stuff on the high street, no-one else wants to either - even though there's clearly some life left in the model; and on your belief that RBS, with its poor reputation, is running the show - when that's a misrepresentation of the reality here; and you're making ill-informed judgements and irrational points about the situation, while making irrelevant comments that are apparently intended to undermine my commentary on RIM, which frankly has nothing at all to do with this discussion.
If you feel compelled to keep trying to tear apart my comments, please make an effort to educate yourself first on a few of the points that you make before you make them - and perhaps avoid bringing in this RIM business from the other thread; by repeatedly trying and failing to score points on that front, it's just making you look petty.
I think Game have suffered from the same problem which dogged HMV - having too many stores. There are far too many city/town centres which had - as a minimum - the original Game store, the Game store which used to be an Electronics Boutique, and the Gamestation store which Game own.
That the administrators shut down 277 stores yet almost all towns which had Game/Gamestation before the administration still have at least one store left is very telling.
Yes there will need to be a review of the business model in order to continue to compete, but loosing the chain around their neck of a sprawling store estate with little justification for it has to be a big step in the right direction.
That the administrators shut down 277 stores yet almost all towns which had Game/Gamestation before the administration still have at least one store left is very telling.
Yes there will need to be a review of the business model in order to continue to compete, but loosing the chain around their neck of a sprawling store estate with little justification for it has to be a big step in the right direction.
-
DVB Cornwall
- Posts: 519
- Joined: Fri 24 Jun, 2005 21.42
Game ...
Can anyone comment on a suggestion, I heard, that the adminsitrators chose to close where HMV have a reasonable presence locally, so concentrating the estate where competition is thin?
Can anyone comment on a suggestion, I heard, that the adminsitrators chose to close where HMV have a reasonable presence locally, so concentrating the estate where competition is thin?
I think the situation is more as cwathen indicated - reducing a lot of the internal competition, stripping out competing Game/Gamestation locations it appears, in most cases, in Game's favour (I'd assume very soon the Gamestation brand will be dropped). I don't think HMV's dalliance with games has ever been considered competitive.DVB Cornwall wrote:Game ...
Can anyone comment on a suggestion, I heard, that the adminsitrators chose to close where HMV have a reasonable presence locally, so concentrating the estate where competition is thin?