Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I'd never been in a BHS store until three weeks ago when I was shopping for pants and I never will again, and neither will anyone else probably. It looked like something from the USSR in the 50s.


But, however bad their pants, should that permatanned tax dodger 'Sir' Philip be allowed to dump its pensioners and sell out for a quid to some hedge fund vermin to asset strip and close?


Top Man my arse

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/103836-the-shame-of-bhs/
Share on other sites

Philip Green is just the reincarnate of the equally hideous Goldsmith senior. More interested in milking the profits than running stable business. And he has previous form too. But as usual, he will be able to continue doing what he has always done - hostile takovers followed by asset stripping - and ruining long standing companies.

For years, the BHS 'petite' range was the only place I could ever find trousers to fit my stumpy wee legs!


But more importantly, let's not forget that Philip Green was appointed by David Cameron in 2010 to run a government spending review and advise on 'efficiencies'. Praising Green's "sharp eye for detail", Cabinet Office Minister Francis Maude said at the time: "He's shown how he can turn around big complex businesses. Government is a huge complex organisation, and while it's not the same as a business, a lot of the same disciplines are needed". (And the then Chief Treasury Secretary Danny Alexander said the review would help the government "totally re-think" the way it spent public money).


https://politicalscrapbook.net/2016/04/the-man-accused-of-driving-bhs-to-bankruptcy-was-appointed-by-cameron-as-a-waste-watchdog/


Might help to explain the present state of the nation...

womanofdulwich Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I've always liked BHS for bedding and

> lighting.Never clothes.



I always thought of it as quite grand, because I have childhood memories of lots of posh looking lights in the old Peckham branch (Primark).

As I understand it, BHS was profit making on an operational basis until 2008 (Green bought it in 2000) but has made increasing losses ever since, and Green was looking for an exit since at least 2012. So it wasn't an asset stripping exercise, though he definitely milked it for revenue. On the pension issue, lots of companies have struggled to keep occupational funds in surplus (or more likely keep deficits reasonable) for the simple reason that there's a huge mismatch between liabilities and returns on fund assets, but the terms of the disposal and the current offer from Green are obviously inadequate and I would expect the Pensions Regulator to stick him with a massive bill - ?300 million is the figure being bandied about.

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> womanofdulwich Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I've always liked BHS for bedding and

> > lighting.Never clothes.

>

>

> I always thought of it as quite grand, because I

> have childhood memories of lots of posh looking

> lights in the old Peckham branch (Primark).




It did go through a period of being a go-to place for well designed lights. Once.


Its clothes have always been terrible (in my opinion). A sort of substandard (and even worse than) M&S.

Whatever you think of Green I don't think he bought BHS to kill it. Like Austin Reid it was a classic example of a business that failed to move and change with the times...and by the time they realised they'd lost most of the brand goodwill and alienated the younger generation, it was too late.

DovertheRoad Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Whatever you think of Green I don't think he

> bought BHS to kill it. Like Austin Reid it was a

> classic example of a business that failed to move

> and change with the times...and by the time they

> realised they'd lost most of the brand goodwill

> and alienated the younger generation, it was too

> late.




But it had been crap and totally out of touch for years ..... how can they not have realised?

As I said above, BHS was profitable every year up to 2008 (and I think the last dividend paid was in 2005), so suggesting Green bought it, asset stripped it and moved on is just wrong. Some have been saying that if profits had been reinvested rather than going out in dividends it would have survived, but that doesn't really stand up - it's not like it's a pharma or tech company that lives and dies by its R&D spend. Where there are serious questions to be asked is around the pension fund deficit during the period he owned it and at the time of the disposal, and those questions apply to Green and to the fund trustees, and their advisors.

Sue Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DovertheRoad Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Whatever you think of Green I don't think he

> > bought BHS to kill it. Like Austin Reid it was

> a

> > classic example of a business that failed to

> move

> > and change with the times...and by the time

> they

> > realised they'd lost most of the brand goodwill

> > and alienated the younger generation, it was

> too

> > late.

>

>

>

> But it had been crap and totally out of touch for

> years ..... how can they not have realised?


You'd think. But you'd be surprised. HMV, Woolworths, Nokia, Blackberry...the business world is littered with examples of once great companies that failed to look out and spot the world changing in sufficient time to re-engineer their business models.

It'll happen to Cath Kidston one day


Timmy Nasty-Pants will buy it hoping to make a wiz of cash by reviving the brand


But her naffness will stick in people's minds and Timmy will asset strip her, leaving and empty spotted rose print Tea-Pot with stale piss inside


A "Sussex rose' ironing board cover will blow from a skip into the road, the oncoming driver will swerve and kill the oldest cat in the street


"Kidston's Chaos kills cat' will be on every remaining red top


Cath will be photographed with Philip Green on his yatch

Seabag Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It'll happen to Cath Kidston one day

>

> Timmy Nast-Pants will buy it hoping to make a wiz

> of cash by reviving the brand

>

> But her naffness will stick in people's minds and

> Timmy will asset strip her, leaving and empty

> spotted rose print T-Pot with stale piss inside

>

> A "Sussex rose' ironing board cover will blow from

> a skip int the road, the oncoming driver will

> swerve and kill the oldest cat in the street

>

> "Kidston's Chaos kills cat' will be on every

> remaining red top

>

> Cath will be photographed with Philip Green on his

> yatch



Man, that must be a seriously strong drink in your hand tonight Seabag...

  • 1 month later...

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I never knew you were supposed to do due diligence

> for a sale. Is that really a thing?


I'll bet you don't - but that's one of the reasons MPs want him to pay

into the pension scheme - because he sold irresponsibly :)


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36536530



Edit - trivia is taking over - are they bringing Corbyn into it :)


"In an extraordinary exchange, Sir Philip stopped mid-sentence at one point to rebuke Richard Fuller MP for "staring" at him.

He said to Mr Fuller: "Sir, do you mind not looking at me like that all the time, it's really disturbing. You just want to stare at me, it's uncomfortable."

Mr Fuller replied: "I don't wish to make you feel uncomfortable, Sir Philip... I think it is another parliamentary colleague that is known for his death stare."

Nothing sensible will emerge from this - MPs too busy grandstanding and making look-at-me comments instead of asking sensible questions. Green will pay up re the pensions, tho' I wouldn't expect it to be full entitlement - just better than a PPF arrangement. The bigger questions about the essentially unpayable DB pension liabilities that are continuing to grow, and the even bigger questions about company law and directors/shareholders obligations and entitlements will go unasked, let alone answered.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...