USC has gone into administration

The_Fat_el_Hombre

bo_drinker wrote: »

Never heard of them. £145 for a pair of jeans, thats why. I can get 20 pairs of jeans in Primark for that and still have change for a couple of pints.

...and if you wore any of those jeans you'd look like a tramp

I've never paid anywhre near £140 for a pair of jeans and never will, there's a happy medium somewhere. You can get some decent stuff in USC at times, at others it can be pretty sh*te

The_Fat_el_Hombre

kittiej wrote: »

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

Haha, the user name is a long story

carl1981

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

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.

I agree entirely - wouldn't be seen dead in an Armani suit, price to value ratio isn't there. If it's not Kiton, Brioni, Savile Row etc I won't wear it - designers like Armani, D+G, Boss make suits that are only slightly better than high st. brands (in other words baggy sacks of !!!!, fused, massive arm holes, etc) for much more ££

carl1981

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....

to be honest the same has happened to me at Woodhouse and Repertoire over the last week, stock control seems to be difficult when orders are only fulfilled at the end of the day in a "live" shop

jamie00353

My sympathy is with AquaPanther and this unfortunate position he/she is in. I think I should say - on behalf of many - that the information he/she has posted here has been informative.

My take, however....

I'm a retail manager for a high street brand, and I think its disgusting the way Sir Tom has been allowed to use the administration process to ditch stores.

Sure, its great not everyone will lose jobs. But Sir Tom HAS the money to sort this out. However, he has looted his own business.

Before putting USC in administration, Sir Tom used ANOTHER of HIS OWN companies to cherry pick profitable stores. This is f*****g outrageous and should be illegal.

Administration is a last ditch attempt. Sir Tom is a multi millionnaire. However because he shields himself behind many different companies, he can avoid his responsibilities.

Nobody is going to buy up these unprofitable stores in one go. Odds are these stores will be split - like woolies - and good people will lose jobs.

My local store - Chester - has a shop full of tatty sale t-shirts - certainly not enough designer gear to generate the £1m needed to sort the rent arrears.

I hope that the people who Sir Tom screwed will bounce back.

fc123

jamie00353 wrote: »

My sympathy is with AquaPanther and this unfortunate position he/she is in. I think I should say - on behalf of many - that the information he/she has posted here has been informative.

My take, however....

I'm a retail manager for a high street brand, and I think its disgusting the way Sir Tom has been allowed to use the administration process to ditch stores.

Sure, its great not everyone will lose jobs. But Sir Tom HAS the money to sort this out. However, he has looted his own business.

Before putting USC in administration, Sir Tom used ANOTHER of HIS OWN companies to cherry pick profitable stores. This is f*****g outrageous and should be illegal.

Administration is a last ditch attempt. Sir Tom is a multi millionnaire. However because he shields himself behind many different companies, he can avoid his responsibilities.

Nobody is going to buy up these unprofitable stores in one go. Odds are these stores will be split - like woolies - and good people will lose jobs.

My local store - Chester - has a shop full of tatty sale t-shirts - certainly not enough designer gear to generate the £1m needed to sort the rent arrears.

I hope that the people who Sir Tom screwed will bounce back.

I haven't much brain energy to post at the mo .......because I have a deadline next wk + designing, specking + making useless, pointless, but foxy, consumer goods and it is mentally and physically Exhausting . I am wrung out and only have the energy to read at the mo. Let's hope the scary, corp client loves it.


I am the poor Ba~~~~~d that ends up paying towards the landlords losses.

We have personal guarantees on the lease (without which, we couldn't have gotten the lease 11 yrs ago) and we are sitting ducks.

I have an invoice for £1000 + VAT sitting on the desk for the first part of our rent review process. What a crock of trumped up rubbish.
I would have been better off spending the ££££ on eyelash extensions, professional waxing plus a nice handbag.......at least I would look good as I try to fight the legitamate scamsters. Rent amounts, supposedly being paid, that I know for A FACT have been reduced by 40%. Cloaked by the Landlords.

Once I get my 'Useless (but very nice) range'' range finished, will update CarolT's commercial thread.


However, I know about trend cycles, consumer behaviour and and quite a bit about the whole manufacturing process for brands and the chains.

The commercial landlords are working within an outdated business model that works well when comm property prices rise forever. It works when companies can amass extra margin from unrestricted, low cost imports (but I am on board with Gens explanation of protectionism..I am not a protectionist any longer as I understand it better now).

The problem is that it will take a few years for the LL to re-jig their business model and sums....Tom Hunter and P Green (who, I confess, I am warming to a teeny, tiny bit) plus others have the wealth and power to jog them out of their old ways.


People like me have no power at all......we are just the serfs.

I disaprove, morally, of the whole administration/set up next day business, as manufacturers get shafted too, but it may be a necessary part of pushing change through.

Mind you, didn't help they all agreed to pay silly rent during the boom years either....but that's another story, for another day.

neverdespairgirl

carl1981 wrote: »

I agree entirely - wouldn't be seen dead in an Armani suit, price to value ratio isn't there. If it's not Kiton, Brioni, Savile Row etc I won't wear it - designers like Armani, D+G, Boss make suits that are only slightly better than high st. brands (in other words baggy sacks of !!!!, fused, massive arm holes, etc) for much more ££

Are Boss suits the really boxy-looking ones?

OH buys his work suits in one of the many suits-only shops in Holborn. Cost about £300 a go (he needs a 3 piece suit for work) and they adjust it, take the waist in, all the rest of it. They fit perfectly.

carl1981

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Are Boss suits the really boxy-looking ones?

OH buys his work suits in one of the many suits-only shops in Holborn. Cost about £300 a go (he needs a 3 piece suit for work) and they adjust it, take the waist in, all the rest of it. They fit perfectly.

I've only owned two (when the name was more important than the fit / quality), but yes, they are more generously cut. And they bubble like hell around the neck.

uzubairu

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Are Boss suits the really boxy-looking ones?

OH buys his work suits in one of the many suits-only shops in Holborn. Cost about £300 a go (he needs a 3 piece suit for work) and they adjust it, take the waist in, all the rest of it. They fit perfectly.

4 years ago my OH had to go to his cousin's wedding.
He is 30/32" waist (age 37 now).

It was really important to him that he looked smart.

We spent 2 weeks looking for an outfit and had great difficulty finding anything that fitted nicely AND lookked good.

• Trousers waist too big
• Inside leg too long or short
• Shirts and jackets too loose.

As a last resort, we walked into the Hugo Boss on King Street, Manchester.
£450 and 35 minutes later we walked out.
His outfit was stunning and fitted him like a glove.

We haven't needed to shop there since, but for the reasons stated above, he doesn't shop at Tesco, Primark or Asda etc. for his clothes.

He still looks for bargains, but cheap, baggy, ill-fitting clothes are not his thing.
Price to value ratio varies based on many factors.

My OH is in great shape and likes to look his best, so I don't think he is a chav.
He has more shoes than me (twice as many in fact). :rotfl:

mitchaa

carl1981 wrote: »

I agree entirely - wouldn't be seen dead in an Armani suit, price to value ratio isn't there. If it's not Kiton, Brioni, Savile Row etc I won't wear it - designers like Armani, D+G, Boss make suits that are only slightly better than high st. brands (in other words baggy sacks of !!!!, fused, massive arm holes, etc) for much more ££

Designer labels obviously cannot be tailored:rolleyes:

Any suit will look poor if it isn't fitted correctly.

Some people have very old fashioned views regarding todays fashions which has been made evident in this thread already.

A bit like having a 40-50'' slimline tv in comparison to the old 20'' CRT in the corner. Both do the same job of course, 1 will make your living room look hideous and the other will make it look nice and modern. Same can be said about clothing;)

IMO of course....It's good that we all have different tastes:p