• Welcome to the ShrimperZone forums.
    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which only gives you limited access.

    Existing Users:.
    Please log-in using your existing username and password. If you have any problems, please see below.

    New Users:
    Join our free community now and gain access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and free. Click here to join.

    Fans from other clubs
    We welcome and appreciate supporters from other clubs who wish to engage in sensible discussion. Please feel free to join as above but understand that this is a moderated site and those who cannot play nicely will be quickly removed.

    Assistance Required
    For help with the registration process or accessing your account, please send a note using the Contact us link in the footer, please include your account name. We can then provide you with a new password and verification to get you on the site.

A Question for Neil F

Davros

The Whippet
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
8,387
since you always provide spectacular financial analysis...

I was walking down the highstreet on saturday, and saw that Sports Direct had moved into the lot vacated by JJB when it went bust in October, just months after Sports Direct had had the opportunity to save JJB, but decided not to.

Obviously, this is a bit of a cheap shot move, and meant 12 people were made unemployed over xmas who needent have been, but probably for Sports Direct made perfect financial sense

It got me thinking, in an era where companies seem obsessed with satisfying external stakeholders, seeminly a number of companies that act like b@stards and with contempt for their customers and society alike (eg Sports Direct, Ryanair ... and especially their principle owners etc) appear to be doing quite well, and would more companies adopting an approach more focused on the bottom line, rather than external stakeholders, have left the economy (and the highstreet) in a better or worse state?
 
I got 10% off a pair of Adidas Samba and Adidas Mundial team at the weekend so it was well worth a visit.
 
since you always provide spectacular financial analysis...

I was walking down the highstreet on saturday, and saw that Sports Direct had moved into the lot vacated by JJB when it went bust in October, just months after Sports Direct had had the opportunity to save JJB, but decided not to.

Obviously, this is a bit of a cheap shot move, and meant 12 people were made unemployed over xmas who needent have been, but probably for Sports Direct made perfect financial sense

It got me thinking, in an era where companies seem obsessed with satisfying external stakeholders, seeminly a number of companies that act like b@stards and with contempt for their customers and society alike (eg Sports Direct, Ryanair ... and especially their principle owners etc) appear to be doing quite well, and would more companies adopting an approach more focused on the bottom line, rather than external stakeholders, have left the economy (and the highstreet) in a better or worse state?


Stick to playing footy
 
and would more companies adopting an approach more focused on the bottom line, rather than external stakeholders, have left the economy (and the highstreet) in a better or worse state?

When you say bottom line do you mean nett profit? In my experience, far too many small to medium business' try to become big, in terms of turnover and lose sight of their margins. I would much prefer to make 30% of 3 million T/O than 20% of 4 million. I've seen plenty of firms get in trouble chasing big low margin orders whilst forgetting what made them profitable in the first place.

As for Sports Direct, as far as I remember, he bought some of the stock and some of the prime stores. You can hardly blame him for that, he is in business to make money not help people out.
 
No comment necessary.:hilarious:

So why make one?
How about your own opinion on Davros's post - without just pasting a link to a Guardian page. I'm sure your adopted homeland has one or two financial concerns you are aware of.
 
So why make one?
How about your own opinion on Davros's post - without just pasting a link to a Guardian page. I'm sure your adopted homeland has one or two financial concerns you are aware of.

As far as Sant Cugat itself is concerned, most of the small, upmarket, owner occupied shops in the town centre are struggling to maintain their businesses. However not many retail outlets have actually closed down, as such,in contrast with somewhere like Southend High Street.
In general the places that have been most affected are the out of town shopping malls-there's one just outside Sant Cugat.They're ghost towns in terms of footfall(and I imagine profits) compared to what they used to be.No bad thing ,IMO, as I use them as little as I can.
FWIW,I think the traditional High Street model in the UK is dead.Rents and rates need to be reduced in order to attract independent owner occupiers into premises, which the major chain stores have vacated.That's precisely why High Streets in small towns in Cornwall and Devon for example, have continued to thrive.They're not so dependent on the major chains.They're also a joy to shop in, unlike so many of the concrete jungles in the UK.
 
As far as Sant Cugat itself is concerned, most of the small, upmarket, owner occupied shops in the town centre are struggling to maintain their businesses. However not many retail outlets have actually closed down, as such,in contrast with somewhere like Southend High Street.
In general the places that have been most affected are the out of town shopping malls-there's one just outside Sant Cugat.They're ghost towns in terms of footfall(and I imagine profits) compared to what they used to be.No bad thing ,IMO, as I use them as little as I can.
FWIW,I think the traditional High Street model in the UK is dead.Rents and rates need to be reduced in order to attract independent owner occupiers into premises, which the major chain stores have vacated.That's precisely why High Streets in small towns in Cornwall and Devon for example, have continued to thrive.They're not so dependent on the major chains.They're also a joy to shop in, unlike so many of the concrete jungles in the UK.

Not if you are in Helston where 3 out of town supermarkets have completely ****ed the town centre. Also Penznce will be going that way as SUFC`s owners are building the 4th or is it 5th out of town store there :thumbdown:
 
With my youngest at violin lessons twice a week and the oldest getting really into her aquarels at the moment, do I really have time to get involved in the local community? One cannot re-read Kafka enough these days - the lessons for our generation especially have never been more salient. Free Gaza now!
 
After a late night pilates session me and my chums were discussing things. Isn't it amazing that we can find £30bn to spend on Trident but we can't afford even basic woodwind lessons for all Primary school pupils? It's all Thatcher's fault.
 
Not if you are in Helston where 3 out of town supermarkets have completely ****ed the town centre. Also Penznce will be going that way as SUFC`s owners are building the 4th or is it 5th out of town store there :thumbdown:

I doubt if Woolworth's in Helston High Street is still vacant though.Or is it?
 
Successful retail companies seem to be those that strive to reduce costs and pass those savings on to customers. I don't know much about the sportsdirect market but Ryanair is a good example. It is a company notorious for poor customer service and taking liberties with fees (check-in, bags, payment method etc) but is one of the few airlines that make money. Despite the reputation people are still prepared to fly with them because they provide a cheap service. O'Leary drives a hard bargain on all aspects of cost and hence they can still keep prices lower.

One of the major mistakes that businesses make is over-extension. This is the point steveo made above about trying to expand at the expense of profitability. A lot of businesses expand too quickly and over-extend their capital position or allow the central functions (finance, legal, HR, admin etc) to become bloated such that overheads get pushed up. This leaves businesses very vulnerable to downturns where revenue will naturally fall.

I agree with Barna on the future of the British High Street. Rents, rates and parking charges will stifle any retail growth compared to the low cost environment of online retailing and shopping centre stores.
 
Successful retail companies seem to be those that strive to reduce costs and pass those savings on to customers. I don't know much about the sportsdirect market but Ryanair is a good example. It is a company notorious for poor customer service and taking liberties with fees (check-in, bags, payment method etc) but is one of the few airlines that make money. Despite the reputation people are still prepared to fly with them because they provide a cheap service. O'Leary drives a hard bargain on all aspects of cost and hence they can still keep prices lower.

One of the major mistakes that businesses make is over-extension. This is the point steveo made above about trying to expand at the expense of profitability. A lot of businesses expand too quickly and over-extend their capital position or allow the central functions (finance, legal, HR, admin etc) to become bloated such that overheads get pushed up. This leaves businesses very vulnerable to downturns where revenue will naturally fall.

I agree with Barna on the future of the British High Street. Rents, rates and parking charges will stifle any retail growth compared to the low cost environment of online retailing and shopping centre stores.

The Ryanair model is ironic in a way. So many people will tell you "I wouldn't deal with a company that has terrible customer service", but when push comes to shove, price is in many cases the deciding factor of a consumer decision.

It does make me think in a way, a lot of companies who spend fortunes on building a good image, and coming top of customer satisfaction surveys would perhaps be better of allocating the funds to making their product/service more cost effective, as price is seemingly the most decisive factor to the consumer?
 
The Ryanair model is ironic in a way. So many people will tell you "I wouldn't deal with a company that has terrible customer service", but when push comes to shove, price is in many cases the deciding factor of a consumer decision.

It does make me think in a way, a lot of companies who spend fortunes on building a good image, and coming top of customer satisfaction surveys would perhaps be better of allocating the funds to making their product/service more cost effective, as price is seemingly the most decisive factor to the consumer?

It depends on the demographic and the state of the economy though. Price is most important when there is little money about. Ryanair for example might be bad at customer service, but essentially it's the same thing as BA but dressed worse.

Customer service really applies to restaurants/hotels/hairdressers/ where price is not the be all and end all.
 
It depends on the demographic and the state of the economy though. Price is most important when there is little money about. Ryanair for example might be bad at customer service, but essentially it's the same thing as BA but dressed worse.

Customer service really applies to restaurants/hotels/hairdressers/ where price is not the be all and end all.

Not necessarily.I know people who would rather drive to Gerona to catch a Ryanair flight to the UK rather than catch a reasonably priced Easyjet flight direct from Barcelona.
 
Not necessarily.I know people who would rather drive to Gerona to catch a Ryanair flight to the UK rather than catch a reasonably priced Easyjet flight direct from Barcelona.

Thats what he said though Barna. To those people price is the be all and end all. Personally I flew with Ryan air once - never again.

Going back to Davros, people will always spend money on quality, suppose it depends what sort of people you are looking at.
When named sporting goods started to appear I can remember Puma being right up there. Within a few years they had become a cheap brand and no one was buying. Then they sort of re invented themselves at the higher end of things, with Nike and Adidas, and they appeared to become a more desirable brand.
I think value for money is the deciding factor. People will pay more if the are getting what they consider good value. Having said that plenty of people buy stuff in pound shops so assuming the realise if it’s a quid its going to be crap, then they are getting good value as well.
 
Back
Top