Major Retailers Closing

kiddy_guy

marvin wrote: »

Some of what is below is fact the vast majority is IMHO.


For those of you looking for likely failures look for 4 things
1. Large dept profile, a business that owes little or nothing will probably survive.
2. Removal of supplier credit insurence, without this it tends to eat up the cash in the business and means covering the debt payments is harder.
3. Declining market due to the current financial crisis, the things we would like but don't actually need.
4. Poor customer relations and reputation, does not matter so much when times are good but becomes more of value when the customer is looking for value.

Match any 2 or 3 of those (in the case of DSGI all 4) and you will have a business in real trouble.

Many of the weaklings have already gone there may be a few to follow and I have no doubt we will see a reduction in the number of stores that the chains hold. Its never good to ditch under performing stores when times are good. Why not use the mother of all recessions to do a bit of surgery which in times of boom looks like management failure in times of recession is seen as good management. Its a very strange world.

Most astute post of the entire thread. Points 1-3 and arguably point 4 too, and you've got 1 retailer beginning with a D

sydneybean

zarazara wrote: »

i'm not obsessed with B&Q

eek :eek: no sorry!! i tried to quote Mcgogins(sp) very new to this, and obviously did it wrong!! very very sorry!:D

poppy10_2

tirano wrote: »

Another one goes, Miller Brothers
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/07/miller-brothers-woolworths-administration

And also their internet arm qed-uk.com

marvin

debbiedevon wrote: »

Hi! I have quite a few Woolworths shares my Nan left me when she died. She bought them for her 21st in the 1930s and I didn't have the heart to sell them. However, does it mean that any shares I have are now worthless?

Any advice gratefully recieved - Debbie

1Yes and maybe no 2 no and 3 no.

1.The shares are currently valued at 0p and have been delisted from the London Stock Exchange as of the 24th Dec 2008. They can be relisted in the future if the board of Woolworths Group PLC decide it is within the rules and it is worthwhile doing so and not a better option to wind up the company. They can also be relisted on a different market even in a different country. None of this can be decided until all of the dust has settled from the colapse of the two business's that went into administration.

2.If the shares are as old as you say they are then they are probably no longer shares in Woolworths as they have been through a few owners since then. I would suggest some serious research on them and find out what they are in reality and what you actually own shares in if anything.

From what I unserstand until 1982 the company was owned by the american company FW Woolworth before the separation and sale. In 1982 Woolworths was purchased by Paternoster Stores Ltd which later became Kingfisher and in 2001 Woolworths Group PLC was demerged from Kingfisher (robbed of any true value which probably ultimately meant they would never survive and did well to get to this point).

The American branch closed up shop a long time ago as woolworths became a very nondecript cash holding company before taking the name of its largest business Foot Locker.

So the shares could now be in Kingfisher and if so you would have got so many shares in Woolworths Group PLC when demerged as well as keeping the Kingfisher shares. However due to age and as the stores were sold not relisted on their own I suspect you may actually hold shares in Foot Locker instead.

However some expert research needs to be done to ascertain what the real situation is.

3. If you stillhold share certs in Woolworths that are that old get them framed put them on Ebay they will fetch a fortune! (Theory not fact)

marvin

tirano wrote: »

Another one goes, Miller Brothers
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jan/07/miller-brothers-woolworths-administration

Not the first time for Miller Bros but probably the last as it was for MFI.

savvykaz

I think 2009 is going to be a very sobering year on the high street.
I think probably 10-20 retailers (mostly smaller ones) will go eg.
BHS
JJB
Barker & Stonehouse
Evans
Lush
Clintons cards

mumps

I worked for M & S in the late 60s, my first job. I shopped there as a young mom in the 70s. I think its funny how people are saying the quality has gone down. In the 60s we (teenagers) used to say how their clothes were only for oldies and they were designed to "fit where they touched" or "elephant dresses" and I can tell you we had plenty of returns. There were usually several suppliers of clothes and regular customers knew the supplier codes on the tickets and would only buy from the supplier they liked. So much for consistent quality. I can remember taking a childs jumper back in the 70s as after one wash it looked like a rag. Don't get me wrong, I like M & S and I have always done some shopping there. I remember queuing up when we closed on a Saturday to get unsold food for a few pennies. My mom loved it, we never knew what was for dinner on Sunday till I got home with the left overs.

Don't even mention the shoes, in the 60's they were plastic, horrible and over priced. We all hated working on the shoe counter.

They were brilliant employers, good pay and conditions. i don't know how that compares to now.

Yorkshireparkin

savvykaz wrote: »

I think 2009 is going to be a very sobering year on the high street.
I think probably 10-20 retailers (mostly smaller ones) will go eg.
BHS
JJB
Barker & Stonehouse
Evans
Lush
Clintons cards

BHS are going no where as they are owned by Sir Philip Green outright and he has billions. They may close some less profitable stores down but they will be ehere this time next week.

JJB have been teetering on the brink for a long while.

I doubt Lush will go under, though they may struggle. Evans are about the only High Street store that caters to the 16-32 market so will always have a customer base. Clintons, I agree, will most likely be gone by the end of the year as they are overpriced.

Not sure about Barker and Stonehouse, I have never been into their stores, aren't they a small concern though? Only 8 stores I think. It will depend on their level of debt. I do expect SCS and Land of Leather to go though.

Yorkshireparkin

mumps wrote: »

I worked for M & S in the late 60s, my first job. I shopped there as a young mom in the 70s. I think its funny how people are saying the quality has gone down. In the 60s we (teenagers) used to say how their clothes were only for oldies and they were designed to "fit where they touched" or "elephant dresses" and I can tell you we had plenty of returns. There were usually several suppliers of clothes and regular customers knew the supplier codes on the tickets and would only buy from the supplier they liked. So much for consistent quality. I can remember taking a childs jumper back in the 70s as after one wash it looked like a rag. Don't get me wrong, I like M & S and I have always done some shopping there. I remember queuing up when we closed on a Saturday to get unsold food for a few pennies. My mom loved it, we never knew what was for dinner on Sunday till I got home with the left overs.

Don't even mention the shoes, in the 60's they were plastic, horrible and over priced. We all hated working on the shoe counter.

They were brilliant employers, good pay and conditions. i don't know how that compares to now.

Now their shoes, I like, especially the Footglove range as they tend to do 1/2 sizes and last, or at least mine do!

mumps

Yorkshireparkin wrote: »

Now their shoes, I like, especially the Footglove range as they tend to do 1/2 sizes and last, or at least mine do!

I agree footglove are great, not like the stuff they did in the 60s.