USC has gone into administration

awaytogoyet

mewbie wrote: »

No, but perfectly legal of course. Clear debts through administration, then pick up company having stuffed the creditors. Nice one. Is he a Sir yet? Oh well, I'm sure if he carries on like this he soon will be.

edit: Oh yes of course, he is a Sir. Standards and decency, gotta love these people.

Spot on Mewbie - things aren't always what they seem! This guy (worth over £1billion) owns a company that owns the chain (57 stores) - goes into administration - creditors stuffed - & another of his companies simultaneously & conveniently buys back all but 15 of the stores & starts trading again. Land/World of Leather (& many other furniture retailers) do that almost weekly. Legalised fraud, IMO! The real victims are their creditors, the consumers & sometimes the staff. It would be just like us going bankrupt, getting all our debts written off & the next day starting all over again under a different name. Nice work if you can get it :rolleyes:
The Media would have us believe that all these administrations are a sign of economic collapse - the end of the world is nigh etc. - when infact many will just be some very rich guy playing the system, screwing their creditors & getting even richer!

bo_drinker

Didn't they change the bankruptcy laws. One law for one etc etc etc.

claire6hy

i love that shop nooo!!!

huntersc

claire6hy wrote: »

i love that shop nooo!!!

Seriously? I thought it's a shop for chavs that want to buy overpriced clothes with massive labels on. Don't they stock £500 Stone Island jumpers and £300 YSL jeans etc?

Go to Sainsburys or George at ASDA. Jeans for £5, Jumper for £6, shoes for £10, you can kit out your wardrobe for £50 rather than £50k from places like USC.

Silly shop.

*EDIT*

Yes, I was right, look at this crap: http://www.usc.co.uk/G-Star%20Buck%20Teddy%20Knit/00116680303800,default,pd.html?cgid=MD

and £450 for a Diesel coat? http://www.usc.co.uk/Diesel%20Lelxlea%20Leather%20Jacket/00102010303010,default,pd.html?cgid=10000

Now that people have stopped getting silly credit and withdrawing equity from their houses these kinds of shops are bound to close down. The only people that shop there are those that buy on plastic. People with money would never dream of entering a place like that.

fc123

bo_drinker wrote: »

Didn't they change the bankruptcy laws. One law for one etc etc etc.

I posted this on another retail thread...looks like the laws are going to change soon. Perhaps that's why there is a but of a rush on at the mo?

New retail insolvency rules will improve communication

• Published: 23 December 2008 08:53
• Author: [EMAIL="JenniferCreevy@emap.com"]Jennifer Creevy[/EMAIL]
• More by this Author
• Last Updated: 23 December 2008 11:06
• Reader Responses

Jennifer Creevy is news editor of Retail Week

<LI class=increaseimg>

Increase image
[*]View all images
It's Christmas, but with the torrid time retailers and landlords have had this year, is it the season to be jolly? From the list of retailers that have collapsed into administration, it doesn't feel like it.

But from January, landlords could be handed some welcome respite. New retail insolvency regulations are set to come into force next year, designed to stymie quick sales of retailers in administration.

The new guidelines have been designed to crack down on pre-pack administrations, which can be the bane of landlords' lives. Pre-packs have come under intense scrutiny this year because the retailer put into administration is quickly bought out by its new owners with reduced liabilities, which often include stores.

Several retailers have been placed into pre-pack administration this year and most have been bought out with a reduced store portfolio. The burden of those unwanted stores then either falls on the retailer that previously leased the property or the landlord.

Some retailers are even blas! about putting their chains into pre-pack administration. Take Envy and Faith boss John Kinnaird for example. Before Envy went into pre-pack administration, Kinnaird told Retail Week that if landlords didn't agree to new, more flexible and probably cheaper rents, he would have to put the chain into pre-pack. And that is exactly what he did.

While nobody would argue retailers are having a tough time, there have been serious questions raised over the pre-pack method. Retailers should be talking to their landlords about their rents in these tough times and landlords should be listening and trying to help where they can. The relationship between retailer and landlord will not progress if it is based on threats.

Take MFI as an example. The furniture retailer has suffered for months in the difficult economic climate and its staff have had to work through two administrations. Last weekend, its stores were shut as the administrator failed to find a buyer.

MFI's situation is grim but it was made worse by the bitter rows between the retailer and its landlords. MFI threatened to abandon stores if it didn't get what it wanted and many said the way it went about negotiations only served to get landlords' backs up. And, at the end of the day, those negotiations achieved nothing.

The new guidelines will make it mandatory that administrators disclose detailed information to creditors before and after a pre-pack administration. This could lead to more communication between retailers and landlords. And as we face a tough year in 2009, communication will be essential so all parties survive the rough ride.

mewbie_2

huntersc wrote: »

People with money would never dream of entering a place like that.

I think they wear labels on the inside of their clothes.

huntersc

mewbie wrote: »

I think they wear labels on the inside of their clothes.

LOL, yes they do. :beer:

themanbearpig

All the rich/credit worthy chavs shop at USC.
Full of overpriced overly branded clothes, for people with no taste.

Good riddence.

ad9898_3

When I saw this thread I thought it said 'USA in administration', I was going to say, no need to post, we already knew that.:D

Gorgeous_George

Never heard of them.

Just like Woolies, it is sad and I sympathise with the workers. The people who should have run the company and who should have planned for the downturn will have done alright. These are the clowns that we were so worried we'd lose in the brain drain to America if we'd taxed them too much.

GG