Sir Philip Green vs Select committee

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

I expect thousands of people had their pension payments stolen, I know that one of my brothers had the misfortune to have this happen to him. Business that stole his money used it to open the next business in different name.

Just because something is illegal does not stop it happening!

This weeks statement of the obvious

[avinalarf]

walm said:

avinalarf said:

Anyway.......not so subtle difference between crap management and a management that cynically manipulates events by asset stripping a company,in every conceivable legal way,so as to leave it in a perilous and irrecoverable position.

I genuinely don't know but I would be surprised if SPG did anything like traditional asset stripping.
I thought the BHS he bought was pretty similar to the BHS he sold, wasn't it?
(Except for the rather obvious point that it was facing unbeatable competition from Amazon, ASOS, Primark, H&M and Inditex.)

No it wasn't.
Underinvestment,properties sold ( to his wife ) and leased back, very large dividends taken,ok at the time the company was doing alright but we all know it's gonna rain some day.
He could still have had a good piece of cake and eaten it if he hadn't been so greedy.
However Greed is Good.....isn't it ?
And it's certainly not illegal.

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

This weeks statement of the obvious

As opposed to this week's vague assertion without evidence by you...?

[crankedup]

walm said:

crankedup said:

But I thought that we had so many brilliant CEO and business people that a least one of them would have had a look. After all BHS had so much wrong apparently waiting to be fixed. Did Green just give up on it. Besides which BHS was doing OK years back, did he not foresee the drop, such is his brilliance

Plenty did have a look.
Mike Ashley for example.
BHS did have so much wrong but the question isn't whether it was "waiting to be fixed" or whether it was so fundamentally broken that it was unfixable by anyone!
He may well have foreseen the drop and that's why he sold it for £1!!!!!

There is no doubt that he has run some excellent businesses.

Just because a business has existed or still exists doesn't mean it SHOULD!!

Examples:
HMV
Jessops
Comet
Focus
MFI

etc... etc...

High street retail is probably the toughest business out there at the moment.

Yes I agree, my point is, wondering why it was that green, the high street wizard, did not see that BHS was on the decline. Waiting so long to take action to sell the name was without value. Obviously he would have been making an attempt at rebranding and updating up until the decision not to throw good money into bad.
The electrical stores on the high st is understandable as it has been relatively easy to bung this stuff online, same as dear old MFI, understand that B&Q are having a wobble now.
Clearly if the BRS brand could have been turned around I guess that would have happened, such a shame to see it go. Along with Woolies as well.

[kiethton]

avinalarf said:

kiethton said:

speedyguy said:

kiethton said:

Because no amount of investment would fix that sinking ship - amongst others their offer was dated and the leases on the stores were often onerous

Were the onerous and expensive leases owned/transferred to his wife's 'company'?

No and neither were the freeholds - they were purchased first refusal at market value...funds going to the BHS group

Keithon...you're a market analyst......respect for that.
Green may be many things.....but he is not stupid.
I am a life long retailer.
Of the many events changing the retail scene,over the past ten years,acknowledged by everybody in the industry,especially in clothing but also in most other products,two have been game changing.
1) The purchasing of products through the Internet.
2) The shrinkage of the " middle market " in pricing.
Neither were addressed by Green vis a vis BHS.
A person might therefore ask........why was that ?

Exactly, to move the brand mid-market would cannibalise sales from other brands (some of his own) which each filled a specific niche. BHS was doomed form the start - its target market have been ageing and passing away.

Following the rise of the internet (its not just that but also the polarisation of shopping and shifting habits) the format was dated and badly located, the offer was confused for the locations with specialist competitors (able to locate together in convenient, free to park, retail parks) offering better products cheaper.

For high street sales there has been polarisation - shoppers typically go to to convenience or destination locations. Centre of town high street locations where a good number of BHS stores are, are caught in the middle - neither convenient to get to or located in a mega mall for comparison browsing. The leases are also long, so can't be broken easily, upward only rent reviewed (so when agreed in 06/07 despite rents falling 50% they can't go down for the remainder of the lease...) but the stores are also too big (inefficient).

The format/offer was going to fail, I personally was surprised it lasted as long as it did. It would have failed under Green or Chappell, with the Arcadia group having no/little cross guarantee it'd all be in the same boat and the sale delayed (with cash & loans left) propping up the inevitable.

With people criticising the dividends taken they need to realise they were taken when the company was profitable (pre GFC) when people were buying anything, spending more than they earned on credit - under these circumstances BHS could survive, when people tightened their belts and core demographic moved on they couldn't. Its like my other analogy on the previous page - they needed to change but they were not able to do so, some for reasons within their control but the balance beyond it.

[walm]

avinalarf said:

No it wasn't.
Underinvestment,properties sold ( to his wife ) and leased back, very large dividends taken,ok at the time the company was doing alright but we all know it's gonna rain some day.

Was capex definitely < depreciation?

And a sale and leaseback scheme is just a way of buying some time.
As long as he didn't do a sale and leaseback to pay a dividend - it's just leverage.
And obviously he shouldn't be selling property at below market - which I doubt he did.

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

crankedup said:

This weeks statement of the obvious

As opposed to this week's vague assertion without evidence by you...?

I do hope that you find it exceedingly annoying!!

[avinalarf]

Talking generally,and not about SPG,and with respect to all of you.
I think you are being rather naive.
Look at a man's history.
Recognise that there are a small clique in this industry that "work " in a certain manner.
Then draw your conclusions.
Maybe it'll just be a PoV but at least it will then be based on the "evidence".

[sidicks]

avinalarf said:

Talking generally,and not about SPG,and with respect to all of you.
I think you are being rather naive.
Look at a man's history.
Recognise that there are a small clique in this industry that "work " in a certain manner.
Then draw your conclusions.
Maybe it'll just be a PoV but at least it will then be based on the "evidence".

It's not about naivety, it's about knowledge of the finances of the company (and pension scheme) and how that involved over time.

[Murcielago_Boy]

avinalarf said:

Talking generally,and not about SPG,and with respect to all of you.
I think you are being rather naive.
Look at a man's history.
Recognise that there are a small clique in this industry that "work " in a certain manner.
Then draw your conclusions.
Maybe it'll just be a PoV but at least it will then be based on the "evidence".

This may well be the case and I don't deny that, but you MUST understand that the situation isn't black and white.

- Dividends paid while a) company was profitable and b) pension scheme in surplus.
- Financial crash of 2008 butchers the DF pension scheme massively.
- Trustees running the scheme + regulator, asleep at the wheel
- Those BHS properties sold, were HIS to sell anyway (as he owned BHS)
- BHS was on it's knees when he acquired. Highly likely that without him 11,000 employees would have lost their jobs sooner!

Calling him Fat and UGLY is childlike. This a complex situation and that ought to be recognised, whether the guy is "unpleasant" or otherwise.

Worth also pointing out that without Mike Ashley, there'd be no Sports Direct and none of the THOUSANDS of jobs he's created from thin air, (and rescued by buying companies like Lonsdale and Slazenger etc) creating hundreds of millions of pounds of tax receipts for HMRC coffers. Sports Direct is a single, functioning, profitable business and Ashley has no hints of asset stripping, corporate raiding nor the hallmarks of Phil Green. The two men are not comparable.
One is perhaps a "financial engineer" that extracts wealth that came from money.
The other is genuine entrepreneur that single-handedly created a VAST company out of a semi detached house in Slough- like him or loathe him Mike Ashley is wealth creator.

[avinalarf]

Remember SPG wanted M&S..
So it may well possibly have been......bye bye M&S.
Gents, I'm not a SPG hater,albeit not keen on his style.
Like Mike Ashley he has built an empire providing many housands with a job,respect for that.

Edited by avinalarf on Thursday 18th August 16:41

[avinalarf]

Murcielago_Boy said:

avinalarf said:

Talking generally,and not about SPG,and with respect to all of you.
I think you are being rather naive.
Look at a man's history.
Recognise that there are a small clique in this industry that "work " in a certain manner.
Then draw your conclusions.
Maybe it'll just be a PoV but at least it will then be based on the "evidence".

This may well be the case and I don't deny that, but you MUST understand that the situation isn't black and white.

- Dividends paid while a) company was profitable and b) pension scheme in surplus.
- Financial crash of 2008 butchers the DF pension scheme massively.
- Trustees running the scheme + regulator, asleep at the wheel
- Those BHS properties sold, were HIS to sell anyway (as he owned BHS)
- BHS was on it's knees when he acquired. Highly likely that without him 11,000 employees would have lost their jobs sooner!

Calling him Fat and UGLY is childlike. This a complex situation and that ought to be recognised, whether the guy is "unpleasant" or otherwise.

Worth also pointing out that without Mike Ashley, there'd be no Sports Direct and none of the THOUSANDS of jobs he's created from thin air, (and rescued by buying companies like Lonsdale and Slazenger etc) creating hundreds of millions of pounds of tax receipts for HMRC coffers. Sports Direct is a single, functioning, profitable business and Ashley has no hints of asset stripping, corporate raiding nor the hallmarks of Phil Green. The two men are not comparable.
One is perhaps a "financial engineer" that extracts wealth that came from money.
The other is genuine entrepreneur that single-handedly created a VAST company out of a semi detached house in Slough- like him or loathe him Mike Ashley is wealth creator.

Not childlike .....it's the truth.
Are you aware of how they conduct themselves,to all and sundry ?
I have no respect for anybody that treats another like ste,especially when they have power over that person.
See my post re.MA written before I saw your post.

Edited by avinalarf on Thursday 18th August 17:16

[stuttgartmetal]

BHS was so outdated
MandS like forty years ago, but just never changed
It was stodgy
Like Grace Brothers
Olden, ancient, stuck in a time warp
Like Woolworths was
Debenhams looks very similar.
MandS moved upmarket
Primark now do all the stuff MandS was pushing years ago.
Cheap pants t shirts etc
MandS profits dropped last year
They may need to rein in some over expansion they seem to have undergone

Green
He's just a greasy trader
Clever clever clever
No morals
I bet he sleeps like a baby though
Not for long though
He looks well out of shape

[stuttgartmetal]

That probably needs updating n all

[avinalarf]

stuttgartmetal said:

That probably needs updating n all

I deleted my post,to which you refer,as in retrospect it was a bit near the nuckle

[Thankyou4calling]

stuttgartmetal said:

BHS was so outdated
MandS like forty years ago, but just never changed
It was stodgy
Like Grace Brothers
Olden, ancient, stuck in a time warp
Like Woolworths was
Debenhams looks very similar.
MandS moved upmarket
Primark now do all the stuff MandS was pushing years ago.
Cheap pants t shirts etc
MandS profits dropped last year
They may need to rein in some over expansion they seem to have undergone

Green
He's just a greasy trader
Clever clever clever
No morals
I bet he sleeps like a baby though
Not for long though
He looks well out of shape

M and s has always been upmarket in so much as it has NEVER sold the cheap stuff Primark sell. They certainly haven't undergone any recent expansion either.

Have you been in a Debenhams? They are doing OK.

Your stuff about BHS is right.

[stuttgartmetal]

Everyone bought their pants at MandS forty years ago
Regarding Primark, don't confuse comparison with quality
MandS are top quality and Primark don't compare to MandS on the same level
They still produce a quality product

A friend highlighted to me that a bic biro compared to a Parker was still quality.
The comparison is irrelevant
Bic crystal biros do everything yo want them to, and do it well
Parker are better, but that's comparison.

Primark moved into the market previously championed by MandS
If you look far back enough.

[Derek Smith]

Jockman said:

Sorry to hear that, Derek.

I believe the law has now been changed so that this cannot happen again?

Thanks. You are right, I believe. I researched it with the help of a solicitor of my then employer who was only too happy to help. If seemed that the problem was proving intent. In my case - and I'm not suggesting it is in any way similar to Green - the 'company' holding the pension rights, and little else it turned out, was sold on at a sum that did not reflect its liabilities. The new owner supposedly tried its best with a bad job but went broke, taking my money with it. I forget the actual sum but if the assets were divided equally among the creditors I would have got around 15p in the £. As HM government got first dibs I got nothing.

At the time it was obvious that the owner of company A was business friends with the new purchaser. An approach to the fraud squad, with the suggestion that it was blatant fraud was met with an 'of course'. However they said that if I could prove it I'd get a job in their squad. Of course I couldn't. There was careful claim and counter claim from the parties. We had a case against other assets the original company still had but the cost of getting them back via the courts would have exceeded the monies.

It was a crime, of that there is no doubt. The only problem was that there was no way it could be proven without the cooperation of either company, and that wasn't forthcoming. There were figures and data, but there was much that had been accidentally lost by one side or the other that it was unproveable.

[Welshbeef]

sidicks said:

One of the signs of a good CEO is to know when to stop throwing good money after bad!

At a different level this is exactly the same with personal cars you could keep one going forever question is should you

[Derek Smith]

There seems to be the suggestion that if a person has not broken a law then everything is OK. I'm not sure civil court lawyers will fully endorse that point of view.

Civil courts sit there to help those wronged but they provide little practical value for use plebs. A court case is not there for the likes of those struggling to get compensation. Look up Midland Bank v Green and then suggest that the courts are fit for purpose. Or, if technical language leaves you cold, go for Jayndice v Jayndice which, although fictional, was based on a real case.

My union took someone to court over my pension (and that of many others) but were unable to continue with the case.

So just asking naff questions like what law did he break is nonsense. Or, indeed, stating that no one's done anything wrong is laughable. I was obliged, by my contract, to hand money to a company which then, to put it mildly, frittered it away. It was, at best - and it wasn't that good - crass incompetence.

Sure it didn't break any laws so whoopy do. So what else is new. However, if there was an actionable case against the man for what he did or did not do - and I'm not suggesting there is, or that there is not - then at a rough estimate, what are the chances of any of the claimants getting their full amount?

Let's try an analogy:

I was, together with thousands of others, owed a substantial amount of money, at least to me. I was told this in 2010. The facts were clear and there could be no reasonable excuse to prolong paying out what they owed. This was noted by a person who had retired from the fire service. It had a union but there were not enough fire officers to take the case through court. So the government told the union to clear off. They approached the police which, although it had no union, did have a government run federation and although its freedom of movement was limited, it was allowed to look after the interests of past members. So joint funding meant a success? Well yes but only after the case went to appeal after appeal, all on grounds that our lawyers said would not be upheld. The government was flying a kite.

I got paid out in 2016, the suggestion being 'with interest', but it was paid at base rate, so the government got money from us and I got less than I was entitled to. And the federation had costs that were not funded by the court.

So the government were aware that they were underpaying but carried on doing so despite this. Then, when they were caught, they delayed payment by all means possible.

They did not break the law. I would assume you would agree that it was wrong though.

As an addendum, the government, under the generous leadership of May as home secretary, they briefed against the police, suggesting that they had, somehow, too much money, and then stopped federation officials, who are, after all, working for the 'management' side as the federation is imposed on the police, taking time off to do their federation duties. Nasty and vicious were the nicest things I think of when I see May.

So no more of this rather stupid 'What law did Green break'. I don't know whether there's a civil case possible against him, but I know that the odds of it being affordable by pensioners, especially those who have lost theirs, is pretty low.