BBC LDN wrote:I don't think we should cling on to outdated businesses just for old times' sake.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
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...
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?
Wow, back to this again. Actually, I never suggested anything of the sort. I didn't even come close to suggesting that, in fact.
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.
BBC LDN wrote:The key is knowing when to withdraw
The recession would suggest RBS are not the best judge of that.
Perhaps not - but that doesn't change any of the points made above.
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.