HMV administration and returning goods?

DevCoder

But music industry sources have confirmed to the BBC that in an effort to save the retailer from going under, suppliers both big and small have been providing it with stock on far more generous terms than were being extended to its independent counterparts.

Whereas most record shops have to pay suppliers within 30 days of being invoiced, HMV has been granted a 60-day period. The goods have also been supplied on a sale-or-return basis, meaning that HMV does not pay for items unless its customers shell out for them.

Interesting method of trying to keep a company alive before insolvency.

dalesrider

krisdorey wrote: »

Interesting method of trying to keep a company alive before insolvency.

And the total reverse of what happened to Comet.

So its clear neither method helps retailer that cannot get the public to buy their products.

Zandoni

I love the way everyone accepts that it's OK for companies to take money for vouchers when they know the writings on the wall.

I'd like to see a system where stores have to ring fence any money received for vouchers.

But everyone accepts the theft so they get away with it.

arcon5

Zandoni wrote: »

I love the way everyone accepts that it's OK for companies to take money for vouchers when they know the writings on the wall.

I'd like to see a system where stores have to ring fence any money received for vouchers.

But everyone accepts the theft so they get away with it.

Why should gift vouchers be ring fenced and not for example rent money? Or stock money? Etc etc? The knock on effects to suppliers and LLs can be a lot more devastating than some gift vouchers.

Another short sighted post

peachyprice

Zandoni wrote: »

I'd like to see a system where stores have to ring fence any money received for vouchers.

But everyone accepts the theft so they get away with it.

Please explain, why do gift voucher holders deserve a higher status over any other creditor?

Why are they more important than the people they owe rent money to, the people they owe money to for stock they have bought on credit, the people they owe money to for advertising, the people they owe money to for cleaning, the people they owe money to for deliveries..............

All of those people are in the same situation as GV holders, all feel they have been stolen from.

OlliesDad

peachyprice wrote: »

Please explain, why do gift voucher holders deserve a higher status over any other creditor?

Why are they more important than the people they owe rent money to, the people they owe money to for stock they have bought on credit, the people they owe money to for advertising, the people they owe money to for cleaning, the people they owe money to for deliveries..............

All of those people are in the same situation as GV holders, all feel they have been stolen from.

Or even other customers who are due refunds for items returned just before the administration, or customers with faulty items that deserve a refund. Nobody deserves preferential treatment. If the money for GVs was ringfenced, the payout to everybody else would be far less.

Zandoni

Gift vouchers should be given preferential treatment above other creditors because customers are the important ones. and they usually have no prior knowledge of the shops collapse.

Most of the other creditors are companies who are more aware of the situation and keep on supplying them at their own risk.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/shopping/2013/01/asda-and-tesco-to-accept-hmv-vouchers-in-goodwill-gesture

peachyprice

Zandoni wrote: »

Gift vouchers should be given preferential treatment above other creditors because customers are the important ones. and they usually have no prior knowledge of the shops collapse.

Most of the other creditors are companies who are more aware of the situation and keep on supplying them at their own risk.

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/shopping/2013/01/asda-and-tesco-to-accept-hmv-vouchers-in-goodwill-gesture

What? Customers are no more important than anyone else, infact you could argue less so.

Other creditors livelihoods are runined when companies go into administration, the closure of someone like HMV or Comet has a knock-on effect, people totally employed by unrelated companies often lose their jobs as a result of being owed money when the company closes. Don't you think people who have been made redundant as a result of a company like Comet or HMV going into administration are a little more important that someone who didn't get their £20 worth of goodies?

As for the argument that suppliers had more of an idea so are less deserving, what a load of rubbish. The writing has been on the wall for HMV for months but people still CHOSE to buy gift vouchers, ignoring advice not to.

railbuff

regardless to you losing £20 in vouchers to EMI losing £20,000 in stock you both are classed as unsecured creditors and are in the same boat and at the end of the day will get the same rate of refund from the administrators. the only differerence is you losing £20 and while EMI loses £20,000 they may have to lay off staff at their end due to this.

Zandoni

peachyprice wrote: »

What? Customers are no more important than anyone else, infact you could argue less so.

Other creditors livelihoods are runined when companies go into administration, the closure of someone like HMV or Comet has a knock-on effect, people totally employed by unrelated companies often lose their jobs as a result of being owed money when the company closes. Don't you think people who have been made redundant as a result of a company like Comet or HMV going into administration are a little more important that someone who didn't get their £20 worth of goodies?

As for the argument that suppliers had more of an idea so are less deserving, what a load of rubbish. The writing has been on the wall for HMV for months but people still CHOSE to buy gift vouchers, ignoring advice not to.

My opinion hasn't changed at all, I'd even go as far to say that they should be prosecuted for knowingly selling vouchers that will not be cashed.