HappydaysAgain
New member
Just noticed the FT advert where KPMG have been appointed. Clearly a fair sized business with 180 staff, which one would have thought should have made some money. Any ideas why they got into trouble ??
B.A. Peters PLC - In Administration
- Thread starter HappydaysAgain
- Start date
Bandit
Well-known member
This is my personal view :
I imagine its to do with the loss of the Fairline agency a couple of years ago and being stuck with a load of stock and orders which you have to discount heavily to sell , buying a load of stock Sealines, Bavaria, Rodman, Azimut etc and then losing the Sealine agency and being stuck with a load of stock and orders which you have to heavily discount to sell etc.
The above mixed in with some warranty problems, increasing interest rates, a flat secondhand market and the iminent demise of tax free diesel all make selling large motor boats challenging.
I imagine its to do with the loss of the Fairline agency a couple of years ago and being stuck with a load of stock and orders which you have to discount heavily to sell , buying a load of stock Sealines, Bavaria, Rodman, Azimut etc and then losing the Sealine agency and being stuck with a load of stock and orders which you have to heavily discount to sell etc.
The above mixed in with some warranty problems, increasing interest rates, a flat secondhand market and the iminent demise of tax free diesel all make selling large motor boats challenging.
Richard10002
Well-known member
Along with a failure to react to a situation which ought to have been fairly obvious to the Board, or whatever they used to manage the company.
Whatever happened to the "Dash for Cash", and "Batten Down The Hatches".
Sell assets, cut expenditure, close offices, whatever it takes to survive, then start from a new base.
Whatever happened to the "Dash for Cash", and "Batten Down The Hatches".
Sell assets, cut expenditure, close offices, whatever it takes to survive, then start from a new base.
gimmesunshine
New member
could it be flat market due to red diesel, first major casuality
150 odd staff now longer in employment - should point this out to Mr Brown and the other government idiots not living in real world of practicality
150 odd staff now longer in employment - should point this out to Mr Brown and the other government idiots not living in real world of practicality
Nautorius
Active member
No,
Red Diesel was not a factor. I agree with Richard, they should have battened down the hatches...instead they were opening up new Branches! What they needed was some financial prudence. Tragic case of management losing sight of the bottom line and trying to expand out of Trouble. Instead they should have accepted reality and laid a few off and closed some branches.
This is purely on the executive managements shoulders! The FD/CFO was either weak or not strong enough to rain in management! The MD/Chairman should have known better!
Cheers
paul
Red Diesel was not a factor. I agree with Richard, they should have battened down the hatches...instead they were opening up new Branches! What they needed was some financial prudence. Tragic case of management losing sight of the bottom line and trying to expand out of Trouble. Instead they should have accepted reality and laid a few off and closed some branches.
This is purely on the executive managements shoulders! The FD/CFO was either weak or not strong enough to rain in management! The MD/Chairman should have known better!
Cheers
paul
rubberduck
Well-known member
IMHO, red diesel, higher interest rates, crap weather & bad management all played their part. Good management combined with a bit of foresight would probably have saved the day.
Gludy
Active member
I agree with that RubberDuck.
IMHO even with those factors good management could have avoided the problem. However the red diesel combined with the other factors mentions have caused a depressed market place and that situation is going to get much worse. I do not even believe that the red issue has reached anywhere near its full impact and will not do so until people fill up at over £5 per gallon which is what the fuel cost will be over by November 2008.
Apart from Essex who seem to go from strength to strength and accept market forces, many of the larger dealer/brokers seem to me to be very inefficient and offer a poor service at a high price. I think a wind of change may be starting to blow through the marine sector.
IMHO even with those factors good management could have avoided the problem. However the red diesel combined with the other factors mentions have caused a depressed market place and that situation is going to get much worse. I do not even believe that the red issue has reached anywhere near its full impact and will not do so until people fill up at over £5 per gallon which is what the fuel cost will be over by November 2008.
Apart from Essex who seem to go from strength to strength and accept market forces, many of the larger dealer/brokers seem to me to be very inefficient and offer a poor service at a high price. I think a wind of change may be starting to blow through the marine sector.
D
Deleted User YDKXO
Guest
I agree with that except Peters did'nt 'lose' the agency. They were the sole distributor for Fairline and every other Fairline dealer (save for a few in some foreign markets) were obliged to buy their stock from Peters not direct from Fairline, an arrangement that originated from the early 1990's when Peters got Fairline out of a hole by buying a load of stock. This arrangement was disliked by other Fairline dealers for obvious reasons and Fairline eventually terminated the sole dealer arrangement with Peters but, as far as I understand, Peters were given the option to remain a Fairline dealer on normal dealership terms, something which Peters declined to do
IMHO, it was this refusal to accept reality and remain a Fairline dealer, albeit on standard terms, that did for them in the end. I talked to various Peters staff after the split and it was clear that their hearts were not in selling Azimut and particularly Sealine after so many years associated with Fairline and, like any business, if your staff are not commited to the cause, the business will fail
Apart from the employees who I'm sure most will find alternative employment, I feel very sorry for any customers who have placed deposits on new and secondhand boats and particular those that have paid in full for boats but not taken delivery. I can only hope that the administrator can find a buyer for the company as a going concern but I fear that what will actually happen is that the administrator will sell the assets to the previous directors and a phoenix company will emerge which will not have any liability for previous debts
IMHO, it was this refusal to accept reality and remain a Fairline dealer, albeit on standard terms, that did for them in the end. I talked to various Peters staff after the split and it was clear that their hearts were not in selling Azimut and particularly Sealine after so many years associated with Fairline and, like any business, if your staff are not commited to the cause, the business will fail
Apart from the employees who I'm sure most will find alternative employment, I feel very sorry for any customers who have placed deposits on new and secondhand boats and particular those that have paid in full for boats but not taken delivery. I can only hope that the administrator can find a buyer for the company as a going concern but I fear that what will actually happen is that the administrator will sell the assets to the previous directors and a phoenix company will emerge which will not have any liability for previous debts
peterb26
New member
Deleted User - paragraph 1 is spot on. And this says much about the mentality and attitude of Peters higher management.
I hope you are wrong on paragraph 2 Mike? That would be utterly disgusting.
Lastly, I'd like to see YBW offer up a central focus point for the poor people who have paid final payments and potentially lost them. At least this way they could have collective bargaining power and minimize their collective legal fees? We already have loads of "B A Peters" posts on here - what these people need is a single focal point.
I hope you are wrong on paragraph 2 Mike? That would be utterly disgusting.
Lastly, I'd like to see YBW offer up a central focus point for the poor people who have paid final payments and potentially lost them. At least this way they could have collective bargaining power and minimize their collective legal fees? We already have loads of "B A Peters" posts on here - what these people need is a single focal point.
[2068]
...
I'd be surprised if a "phoenix company" had any kind of success: the boating world isn't a big one, and reputation counts for a lot. Personally, I wouldn't be happy leaving my deposit with a company that had the same set of directors as the recently failed one.
If it was a totally new management team, that would be a different story.
dv.
If it was a totally new management team, that would be a different story.
dv.
Richard10002
Well-known member
[ QUOTE ]
could it be flat market due to red diesel, first major casuality
150 odd staff now longer in employment - should point this out to Mr Brown and the other government idiots not living in real world of practicality
[/ QUOTE ]
Whatever the reason, it would not be rocket science to see it coming. In my businesses, I have always identified and monitored some simple figures which tell me well in advance, (6 months -12 months), that something bad, or good, may be coming, and I have taken steps.
I appreciate that my businesses have been small, but big businesses have many more experienced heads, and much more money to invest in systems to do this job.
I suspect it was head in the sand, pride, greed, and all the other things which come before a fall.... and you can bet your bottom dollar that the big cheeses will still have their millions in the bank, their big houses, and their big boats and cars.... they may even end up running the company by another name, in a format which it should have been in well before it went under.
could it be flat market due to red diesel, first major casuality
150 odd staff now longer in employment - should point this out to Mr Brown and the other government idiots not living in real world of practicality
[/ QUOTE ]
Whatever the reason, it would not be rocket science to see it coming. In my businesses, I have always identified and monitored some simple figures which tell me well in advance, (6 months -12 months), that something bad, or good, may be coming, and I have taken steps.
I appreciate that my businesses have been small, but big businesses have many more experienced heads, and much more money to invest in systems to do this job.
I suspect it was head in the sand, pride, greed, and all the other things which come before a fall.... and you can bet your bottom dollar that the big cheeses will still have their millions in the bank, their big houses, and their big boats and cars.... they may even end up running the company by another name, in a format which it should have been in well before it went under.
Hurricane
Well-known member
[ QUOTE ]
it was this refusal to accept reality and remain a Fairline dealer, albeit on standard terms, that did for them in the end.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yep - I agree but Peters were'nt the only casualties in this decision - IMHO from that time on Fairline seem to have lost their way. They are today just following the market - particularly their flybridge models - still knocking out the SQ58!!! - I know there is a new one on the way - hope it will be at SIBS but too little too late - all other marques seemed to have addresses the mid cabin - to produce a boat like the SQ58 in todays market without one is simply stupid.
it was this refusal to accept reality and remain a Fairline dealer, albeit on standard terms, that did for them in the end.
[/ QUOTE ]
Yep - I agree but Peters were'nt the only casualties in this decision - IMHO from that time on Fairline seem to have lost their way. They are today just following the market - particularly their flybridge models - still knocking out the SQ58!!! - I know there is a new one on the way - hope it will be at SIBS but too little too late - all other marques seemed to have addresses the mid cabin - to produce a boat like the SQ58 in todays market without one is simply stupid.
Gludy
Active member
I think there are a lot of wise, sensible comments from forum members on this subject. In fact it seems to me that there is a lot wiser council on the forum than there ever was at Peters.
I also think that comments about Fairline not staying ahead of the game are appropriate.
Since entering the boating world I have been struck by just how bad most of the larger companies are poorly run.
I think an interesting sort out is coming.
I also think that comments about Fairline not staying ahead of the game are appropriate.
Since entering the boating world I have been struck by just how bad most of the larger companies are poorly run.
I think an interesting sort out is coming.
robind
New member
Reason? bad management!
sunquest
Member
Unfortunately so many businesses are run by bean counters whose only answer to low profits is to increase prices. The net effect is no business. If only they would listen to staff on the 'shop floor' who often have more common sense and logic than their Directors. Geoff
I agree there is going to be a sort out probably sooner rather than later.
I agree there is going to be a sort out probably sooner rather than later.
hshaky
New member
Shame about it but you cannot tell customers for many years that Firline are the best and then tell them Sealine are.
First thing we noticed that anything was wrong in the run up was when all Sealines suddenly disapeared from the Marina Sales berth.
First thing we noticed that anything was wrong in the run up was when all Sealines suddenly disapeared from the Marina Sales berth.
Seven Spades
Well-known member
[ QUOTE ]
Along with a failure to react to a situation which ought to have been fairly obvious to the Board, or whatever they used to manage the company.
Whatever happened to the "Dash for Cash", and "Batten Down The Hatches".
Sell assets, cut expenditure, close offices, whatever it takes to survive, then start from a new base.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is a great idea, however there are huge costs attached to it, the main one being the cost of redundancy.
Drifting into politics now, I am a firm believer that it is in the best interests of GB Ltd if employees had no rights at all, a mobile workforce is one where jobs are easily created, lost too but that does not matter.
Strong employment laws are an impediment to job creation and hugely damaging to businesses that are struggling. If a business needs to down size it faces huge costs at the very time when it may need the most help. Why does it not matter that jobs are easily lost, because business exist to make profits and the more profits they make the bigger and more successful the are and accordingly employ more people. Business do not down size unless they need to, so why burden them with costs when they can't afford it, its tough on the employees concerned, but it is even tougher on all the employees if the firm goes bankrupt as a result.
I feel the same way towards all equality laws, they are very one sided and do not do the businesses any good, I firmly believe that the vast majority of employers who lose at employment tribunals do so on technicalities. The person concerned are not wanted because they are not needed or are not good at their job business do not get rid of good valued employees wantonly.
Along with a failure to react to a situation which ought to have been fairly obvious to the Board, or whatever they used to manage the company.
Whatever happened to the "Dash for Cash", and "Batten Down The Hatches".
Sell assets, cut expenditure, close offices, whatever it takes to survive, then start from a new base.
[/ QUOTE ]
This is a great idea, however there are huge costs attached to it, the main one being the cost of redundancy.
Drifting into politics now, I am a firm believer that it is in the best interests of GB Ltd if employees had no rights at all, a mobile workforce is one where jobs are easily created, lost too but that does not matter.
Strong employment laws are an impediment to job creation and hugely damaging to businesses that are struggling. If a business needs to down size it faces huge costs at the very time when it may need the most help. Why does it not matter that jobs are easily lost, because business exist to make profits and the more profits they make the bigger and more successful the are and accordingly employ more people. Business do not down size unless they need to, so why burden them with costs when they can't afford it, its tough on the employees concerned, but it is even tougher on all the employees if the firm goes bankrupt as a result.
I feel the same way towards all equality laws, they are very one sided and do not do the businesses any good, I firmly believe that the vast majority of employers who lose at employment tribunals do so on technicalities. The person concerned are not wanted because they are not needed or are not good at their job business do not get rid of good valued employees wantonly.
[2068]
...
>the main one being the cost of redundancy
Much cheaper than redundancy, is to split the company. Create a new company and transfer an entire office to the new company, give them a bit of working capital, persuade a zealous manager to get some more from the Venture Capitalists for a "management buyout", and off they all sail into the sunset. Quite probably towards failure, but that's no longer your problem.
And yes, this happened to me /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
dv.
Much cheaper than redundancy, is to split the company. Create a new company and transfer an entire office to the new company, give them a bit of working capital, persuade a zealous manager to get some more from the Venture Capitalists for a "management buyout", and off they all sail into the sunset. Quite probably towards failure, but that's no longer your problem.
And yes, this happened to me /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
dv.