Peacocks in administration

A._Badger

The_White_Horse wrote: »

if you look at my local high street you would not believe that there is some kind of council "plan" regarding it. they could not have made a worse job of it. if the plan is to have the world's worst high street, then it is massively successful.

If you look at the one nearest me you would think that the council most definitely has a plan for it: to shut down every small business in sight.

Until local councillors and unelected 'officers' are held legally liable for their insane decisions and prevented from writing their own ridiculously overblown pay and expenses cheque, the UK's commercial and urban decay will continue unabated.

MrRee_2

We don't need High Streets of shops anymore ...... remember that High Streets are a relatively new invention - first we had the local cornershop, then we had the High Street, then it was Out of Town, now it's the Internet .......... things change.

If someone could guess the next step they could make themselves very rich indeed!

Lack of flexibility always is the end for businesses.

pqrdef

bendix wrote: »

but companies do not exist to employ people

Why not? It's as good a reason as any other, and was common enough in the past.

fc123

mazza111 wrote: »

Actually this year when I got the staff discount through, I actually bought more in bon marche than peacocks, which was unusual as bm are usually for older people. Sorry but a lot of their stuff is old(er) fashioned. But this year when I went in I managed to get some quite trendy stuff and some nice jumpers, but noticed the quality was a bit better than peacocks. BM was never a shop I went into, but was going with my elder sister.

So I dunno if it's cos I'm getting older or just the quality was better :rotfl:

Could be the older thing :rotfl:I was somewhere recently oohing over an item by a label that I would consdier 'older market'...then I remembered I am 'older market' now.

I am not very familiar with BM product but I thought it did a lot of larger sizes too and, unbeliveably, the size 16+ market is still very under serviced by the big chains considering about a third of female population is meant to be this size and above.

New Look and George @ Asda clean up on the plus size market. Though still 'fashion' led, it has different needs to the standard 6 - 14 market in that the cut has to be different plus weight distributes differently on humans so cutting plus size garments can be challenging especially for the mass market where one grade rule is used but doesn't suit all.

suburbanwifey wrote: »

Exactly! When you have to pay a fortune to park for even just two hours, its not worth the hassle, the stress or the petrol. I pay enough in council tax as it is without being charged to park to go spend my money. I instead choose to spend online where I most times get free delivery, no stress and no parking charges.

Councils are ruining town centres and putting shops out of business with ludicrous business rates and car parking fees which keep shoppers away.

I don't know about this mantra as it is rolled out now every time the 'death of the high st' topic comes up but, if our local surburban High St suddenly trebled it's parking capacity and made it free, cancelled all business rates (and raised the lost tax by adding it onto income tax instead) it still wouldn't be the bustling and profitable centre it once was.

Shopping habits have changed and, as comments in this thread and others show, online is mopping up a big chunk of spend that is unlikely to return to the high st.

Niche fashion online is booming as the younger customers hunt about for something that isn't a generic something available to all and made in the thousands and sold by a soulless chain retailer. Years ago (like the 70's + 80's) we did this locally as there was always an independent shop bucking the trends and now those types of retailers trade online. They now are able to sell all over the world too.

Hairdressers, nail bars, facial/waxing/grooming can't go online.

MrRee wrote: »

We don't need High Streets of shops anymore ...... remember that High Streets are a relatively new invention - first we had the local cornershop, then we had the High Street, then it was Out of Town, now it's the Internet .......... things change.

If someone could guess the next step they could make themselves very rich indeed!

Lack of flexibility always is the end for businesses.

There will always be 'real life' shops and a demand for them. Clothing/shoes was mentioned above. I just feel that there will be less of them and as for the big shopping centres that dominate the UK, all with the same clutch of shops, they will be next to feel the changes.
If I were them I would have a policy of cheaper lettings (shopping centre rents are insane esp for independents) on 15% of the units to encourage a bit of diversity and theatre into the place. Let a few retailers entertain as well as sell and not just be driven by intense densities (sales per linear foot), some niche product (that will never sell in the same volume as mass market product) and so on.

Interestingly, in clothing there is quite a lot of 'designing for internet selling compatability' going on. How the fabric and garment photographs, flexibility on fit and colour...like the product is developing to suit the market that it retails in rather than the other way around.
Was having a chat about this to a buyer the other day and how there buying for online varies to how they buy for their RL store.

The best thing internet selling does is remove the dreaded 'Hanger appeal' test and you can create a more creative garment if you don't have to take this into account.

dear me the above was a bit long sorry zzzzzz but so much gossip in the trade at the mo

ILW

pqrdef wrote: »

Why not? It's as good a reason as any other, and was common enough in the past.

Would you put your own money into a venture thats main aim was just to employ people?

Would you be prepared to lose it all as long as people went on being employed?

fc123

Todays trade press from Drapers. Still up for sale.

18 January 2012 | By Tiffany Holland
Debt-laden value clothing retailer Peacocks has hit the buffers after a last ditch attempt by chief executive Richard Kirk to save the business was derailed.



The administration of Peacocks, which is saddled with around £240m worth of debt, puts 9,300 jobs on the line.
KPMG has been appointed administrator. Drapers understands Peacocks is now likely to attract renewed interest from potential buyers due to its large debt pile being wiped out.

Kirk, backed by a secret investor, attempted to negotiate a deal with the company’s 17 creditors in a meeting this morning. However it is understood the anonymous backer pulled out of talks, derailing the negotiations.

It is understood Kirk is unlikely to mount another bid for the chain.
Meanwhile private equity firm Sun European is expected to rescue Peacocks’ sister chain Bonmarche. However, the deal is likely to result in the closure of up to half the 397-store portfolio, Drapers revealed today.
Restructuring specialist GA Europe is understood to be assisting Sun European on the deal, although the details of the relationship are not clear.
Peacocks’ administration has moved quickly following a collapse in talks last week when one of its key creditors, RBS, walked away.
On Monday notices of intent to appoint administrators were issued for both Peacocks and Bonmarche, while on Tuesday it emerged that Kirk was spearheading negotiations with a still-unnamed backer.
Richard Fleming, joint administrator and UK Head of Restructuring at KPMG, said:
“We are actively seeking a buyer for the 611 stores and 49 concessions and encourage interested parties to get in touch.”

I have added the Barrats update to this thread as I couldn't remember which thread it was on.

All a bit tricky but debt-lite and whatever stock is left is now 'free' it should survive for a while longer.

I c+p'd the comments too as makes some angry esp the suppliers who get caned.

Ziff buys bulk of Barratts stores

16 January 2012 | By Gemma Goldfingle
Owner of Barratts Priceless Group Michael Ziff has struck a deal with administrators to buy the bulk of its stores.



Ziff has bought 89 stores out of administration safeguarding 1,184 jobs. However, a buyer has not been found for 39 stores and 14 concessions so 680 additional redundancies have been made.
Deloitte joint administrator and partner Daniel Butters said: “We are delighted to have negotiated a deal, which will secure the employment of over 1,100 employees and ensure the Barratts and Priceless brands continue, especially given the adversity which has beset the High Street over recent months.”

It is the second time that Ziff has bought the footwear retailer out of administration. Stylo, which owned the Barratts and Priceless Shoes brands, put the retailer into administration nearly three years ago, closing down 220 of its 380 stores.

Ziff, who was chairman of Stylo, bought 160 stores from administrators in March 2009 after shop landlords voted down a restructuring involving a CVA.

Readers' comments (4)

• Anonymous | 16 January 2012 11:51 am
  This is an abuse of the pre-pack process. It is about time that there was legislation to ban the cynical misuse of pre-pack adm inistrations to offload liabilities. The accompanying pr always says that it is to sagfeguard jobs. What could be more cynical than to use fears about jobs to justify an unfair anti-competitive abuse?
  Unsuitable or offensive?
• Anonymous | 16 January 2012 12:59 pm
  Hear Hear, the law is plain wrong allowing suppliers to carry allow the risks but without any of the rewards.
  Unsuitable or offensive?
• Anonymous | 16 January 2012 1:42 pm
  At least you didn't use the ridiculous phrase you normally use, "rescued by". I always think - "yeah", rescued by a shark.
  Great. more blood in the water. Agree with others -alter legislation now.
  Unsuitable or offensive?
• Anonymous | 16 January 2012 7:29 pm
  As they say, this is the second time Mr Ziff has done this. Is it going to be three strikes and then you're out !!!!!! Something is very wrong about this whole process

fc123

pqrdef wrote: »

Why not? It's as good a reason as any other, and was common enough in the past.

But was it? There may have been more semblance of employer responsibility but the employers years ago needed a lot more 'hands' than now to complete similar tasks. The industrial revolution got rid of a lot of workers. I can only comment on the textile industry though as that's the only bit I know about.

ILW wrote: »

Would you put your own money into a venture thats main aim was just to employ people?

Would you be prepared to lose it all as long as people went on being employed?

He couldn't. No business runs like that. Without a heathy bottom line, there are no jobs as you wouldn't be able to pay anyone wages. And how many employees would work for free?

bendix

pqrdef wrote: »

Why not? It's as good a reason as any other, and was common enough in the past.

What utter rubbish. Companies have never existed to employ people - that they employ people is a means to an end; to generate a return for the owner or investors.

If you would like to name those companies that existed to employ people in the the past (seeing as how it was common), please enlighten us.

Honestly, the naievity of people is astounding.