Phones4U in administration
Discussion
gpo746 said:
Sheepshanks said:
Justin Cyder said:
They were a trade supplier to O2, Voda & EE. O2 bailed in January, Voda last week & EE were the last contract remaining. It therefore sent them into last ditch crisis talks with EE, which I imagine will be revealed to have broken down over a takeover bid.
This is in no way any kind of in the know schtick, just me following the story in the papers over the past few weeks.
I don't get the comment about them being a "trade supplier"? This is in no way any kind of in the know schtick, just me following the story in the papers over the past few weeks.
Perhaps I'm missing something about how the business works, but surely it's the other way around, and they were just a distributor/reseller? That's a pretty s
tty business generally.Assuming they (4U ) operated in that way they would effectively be delivering a connected customer to the network and so would supply them with a customer ?
If you get me.
I would have thought though that in the case of EE they would have had to get their stocks via EE ?
I know (again based on a few years ago) that a Carphone Warehouse deal on Vodafone or O2 that the handset will be unlocked. I think it also applied to Orange deals to.
John Caudwell should just be glad he sold up when he did and became a billionaire.
The industry has changed so much and the 3 networks have all the power, contracts are routinely now 2 years instead of one year. deals are much better for upgrades rather than new connections, people are keeping phones for longer..
When I first starting selling orange phones in Stoke in the mid-nineties, you needed to buy the phone from Orange upfront for about £300 and you would get around £500 back when the phone was connected directly to orange. Orange and one2one were connected directly (but coverage was worse), cellnet and voda were a minefield..
From one of the articles linked to on another page from the telegraph, the company's debts and the associated repayments, meant that they had to make a certain amount on each connection to pay the debts off, so there was no way that this was viable going forward and no way the networks would pay more than they had to per connection.
seems that the private equity owners loaded the company with debt when they bought it, milked it dry and now the company is worthless.
I wonder how much is owed to the networks and landlords, the staff will get nothing but at least they have the knowledge that Tesco/BT etc could use
The industry has changed so much and the 3 networks have all the power, contracts are routinely now 2 years instead of one year. deals are much better for upgrades rather than new connections, people are keeping phones for longer..
When I first starting selling orange phones in Stoke in the mid-nineties, you needed to buy the phone from Orange upfront for about £300 and you would get around £500 back when the phone was connected directly to orange. Orange and one2one were connected directly (but coverage was worse), cellnet and voda were a minefield..
From one of the articles linked to on another page from the telegraph, the company's debts and the associated repayments, meant that they had to make a certain amount on each connection to pay the debts off, so there was no way that this was viable going forward and no way the networks would pay more than they had to per connection.
seems that the private equity owners loaded the company with debt when they bought it, milked it dry and now the company is worthless.
I wonder how much is owed to the networks and landlords, the staff will get nothing but at least they have the knowledge that Tesco/BT etc could use
hornetrider said:
Who would have purchased those bonds yielding 10%? Sounds like private equity at its best/worst
BC Partners took £200m out of the business in the last year by issuing more shares.
Stopped to the bone, future debts unmanagble = they walk away with lots of. £
Mobile operators have been increasing their direct (to customer) channels for years. All be direct one day
BC Partners took £200m out of the business in the last year by issuing more shares.
Stopped to the bone, future debts unmanagble = they walk away with lots of. £
Mobile operators have been increasing their direct (to customer) channels for years. All be direct one day
Chris14 said:
I find Caudwell's bleating in the press very annoying. Like most people who make money there was a real element of luck and good fortune in his success - he made the most of the opportunity, sold out - loading the company with debt and with a flawed strategy.
Dislike the man himself but think your wrong there.When he sold it the company was really healthy.
Butter Face said:
About 3 years ago P4U switched to mostly unbranded handsets on all networks. Made keeoing stocks a lot easier and more flexibility. My info is also a bit out of date but I think they had most of their stock was unbranded.
I really should learn how to multiple quotes in a post, then I could reply to this in my one above.Thanks for that Butter Face it would make a fair bit of sense that. Know it went on with Voda/O2 obviously along the way Orange and T Mobile must have come round to that way of thinking too.
Fidgits said:
Voda have done nothing wrong. They ended the contract with a notice period, which they are entitled to dogpo746 said:
...Actually it was the thatcher government that started all that...
...along with the unseasonably warm weather we're enjoying and the alarming pregnancy rates among weather girls on BBC South East...someone has to be blamed.Cast your thinking back to those glorious pre-texting days of the early 1980's and you're looking at the birth of mobile, with the potential for monopoly or cartel arrangements from day 1. The multi-tier route to market was - IIRC - an attempt to implant competition and thereby avoid raucous rip off shouts from bleating consumers (although that came later).
Whatever happened to London Car Telephones? Always remember their radio jingle (borrowed from Blondie) which was never off the airwaves for a while.
Chris14 said:
I find Caudwell's bleating in the press very annoying. Like most people who make money there was a real element of luck and good fortune in his success - he made the most of the opportunity, sold out - loading the company with debt and with a flawed strategy.
There are also rumours that he paid a few people to take prison time for him for some fraudulent dealings within the early days of the group.... all 'alleged' and not founded whatsoever of course and I certainly don't believe them (for any legal bods reading)The Don of Croy said:
gpo746 said:
...Actually it was the thatcher government that started all that...
...along with the unseasonably warm weather we're enjoying and the alarming pregnancy rates among weather girls on BBC South East...someone has to be blamed.Cast your thinking back to those glorious pre-texting days of the early 1980's and you're looking at the birth of mobile, with the potential for monopoly or cartel arrangements from day 1. The multi-tier route to market was - IIRC - an attempt to implant competition and thereby avoid raucous rip off shouts from bleating consumers (although that came later).
Whatever happened to London Car Telephones? Always remember their radio jingle (borrowed from Blondie) which was never off the airwaves for a while.
Mobile networks, contracts and supply of hardware was structured by the gubmint to prevent a BT monopoly.
The Crack Fox said:
HTP99 said:
I avoided them like the plague, there was just something about them that screamed old school and can't be trusted, I think it was the sales guys that would stand outside in their crappy, ill fitting suits and spiked up hair, trying to grab anyone that wandered by to shout at them about their latest "great deal" it was all a bit amateurish and dodgy salesman and very unprofessional.
All phone shops are like that, aren't they? Ie; bloody awful and staffed by apes.Over in another thread
This One:
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
An established poster - tonker makes specific reference to a fraud that he believes has the input of staff in it:
This One:
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
An established poster - tonker makes specific reference to a fraud that he believes has the input of staff in it:
gpo746 said:
Over in another thread
This One:
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
An established poster - tonker makes specific reference to a fraud that he believes has the input of staff in it:
Wouldn't shock me, there were some proper fraudsters working within that company.This One:
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
An established poster - tonker makes specific reference to a fraud that he believes has the input of staff in it:
P4U didn't tolerate them though, they had a massive Security and Investigation department, lots of ex CID officers (supposedly) getting paid very well to weed out those doing the dodgy stuff.
I remember them having to visit a store I was looking after because one person had been taking part exchanged mobiles and flogging them on eBay and another had been refunding stuff back into his own card.
That's apart from the mysterious amount of 'cashback' that went though tills that never got to the customer.
Shame really as the company did reward hard work very well, but they did seem to reward frauds too.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff