USC has gone into administration

SingleSue

I must admit that I am so out of touch that I had never even heard of them...or quite a few other companies going bang either!

My fault though, I don't get out much.....

neverdespairgirl

fc123 wrote: »

I think it could be an academic thing too. The shorts in the summer are the worst. One pair are old army shorts, the crotch is 3 foot long.

Fortunately, my Dad doesn't do shorts. He does have 3 short-sleeved shirts he bought in 1982 when he and my mama went to New Orleans, and he wears those on holiday.

Cleaver

SingleSue wrote: »

I must admit that I am so out of touch that I had never even heard of them...or quite a few other companies going bang either!

My fault though, I don't get out much.....

If all you're missing is USC then you're better off staying in.

Cleaver

direwolf247 wrote: »

I find it funny how peole are being more cynical about USC but were were cursing everyone for saying how bad Big W was and telling them how many people are losing their job.

It's the simple case that USC sell clothes to a clientele that a small few on this forum think they are superior to. I didn't think people who posted regularly on forums where alllowed to feel superior to anyone. Now I know it's permitted I'm going to spend the evening picking some social groups that I can laud over. I'm going to start with pensioners.

The_Aquapanther

huntersc wrote: »

Neither does USC it seems...

Obviously not! If there were you'd still have a job.

I'd add that it's obviously a very poor business model especially taking into account your next point...

Yup. they are much lower. That's why USC are going out of business. It's also why it's better to buy them in ASDA, at a quarter of the price.

Or rather you're going into administration because demand has dropped? There's a difference

Point is USC were and are a failure. They add nothing to the high street or to society except for taking lots of money from people for stupid clothes.

You are nothing short of a joke son. Go back to playing Mall Tycoon or wherever you learned all your 'business knowledge'! :rolleyes:

The_Aquapanther

nemetor wrote: »

I'm a good USC customer, not a chav, just like nice clothes. Hopefully the retained stores survive in the longer term.

I'm sure lease charges have not helped long term profitability of the company as some commercial sites cost a fortune.

Long term USC could do more with their online service, last year I placed an order for over £250 and more than 50% of the order was cancelled due to out of stocks. Don't advertise what you don't have....

There has been, and will continue to be, a lot of money pumped into the website.
It was a shambles last year, but they have got together a good team and we hold back a lot of stock for them now! Shouldn't be that problem from now on!

kittiej

Doesn't sound like you keep your clothes on with a name like chlamydia - so I wouldn't worry if I were you love. lol

The_Aquapanther

Stead_eddy wrote: »

Thanks for checking I appreciate it! If you work at head office do you know if the companies that have been kept on will be operating as usual in the near future ie offering refunds? I bit the bullet today and swapped some of the things and got the value of the rest put onto a gift card which hopefully in future would allow me to get the money back somehow.

As you work at head office hopefully they'll keep you on then as there'll still be need to run the 40 odd stores Tom Hunter bought from the administration company. Might be worth mentioning this to the people who are being so critical...when you think about this quite possibly all he's done is use this as a way of ditching his least profitable stores while keeping the rest of the stores which are making profit.

The stores that are still part of Tom Huter's group will be operating as normal...including refund policy.

I don't think there will be 40 kept on...only sitting at 29 just now...but they are in nogotiations for some others.
USC would not have survived without him doing this...it was not just a way to ditch stores.
I agree with others, it does not look good...but he is not doing it to avoid paying creditors.
We cannot ignore supplier bills because we still need to keep in the good books with them, or they would not supply us for the stores we are keeping.
We are not ignoring the landlords as a lot of them own the shopping centres of stores that we are still in...we are talking to them to try to come to agreements on what to do which would help both sides. The last thing they want is for companies like USC to go down the pan, as we drive a lot of customers into their shopping centres...if they dissapear a lot of other shops would shut down too.
Anyone else that we are not dealing with now...there are 20 odd shops FULL of stock that the administrators are going to use to make some cash, and Tom paid MILLIONS to buy back the stores we have now. There will be a lot of money available to spread around.

huntersc

The_Aquapanther wrote: »

You are nothing short of a joke son. Go back to playing Mall Tycoon or wherever you learned all your 'business knowledge'! :rolleyes:

Oh dear, I almost missed this. Well I must say, I do find it exquisitely funny that you, a person working for a company that has just gone bust and likely to lose your job due to your firm's questionable business strategy and practices, is deriding my business knowledge. :rotfl::rotfl:

Do you fold clothes in a store or work in management? If you're involved in the management of that firm in any way then you have absolutely no shame!!

As I said before, and I meant it in a genuine way, I do hope that you find something else. Good luck to you.

neverdespairgirl

I;'ve never been in the chain, I don't think I know where my nearest is.

What I dispute is that Armani suits = successful businessman, and DB = how successful men want to look, en masse.