Showing posts with label Henry Young. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Henry Young. Show all posts
Tuesday, 24 May 2011
Oddbins: tale of two shops + Deloitte's report
Oddbins: Farringdon Fine Wine shop
Quick trip today up to the Holborn Viaduct area of London to look at two contrasting Oddbins shops. Firstly Farringdon, the shop under the Holborn Viaduct, which was the original fine wine branch. This is one of the five acquired recently by Simon Baile's ExCellar chain. There were signs of activity inside presumably in preparation for reopening.
Other shots of Farringdon store (above and below)
The old Chancery Lane branch is just a short distance away – closed and for the moment it has no new owner. It would seem that the Chancery Lane staff and Oddbins' senior management did not part on the best of terms.
A report (20th May 2011) from the administrators at Deloitte can be downloaded from their site here.
Sunday, 22 May 2011
From Oddbins to Nobbins: some reflections
The old Inverness branch, which used to have a fine selection of malts
(On 4th April 2011 Oddbins Ltd, a UK national wine merchant chain, went into administration owing over £22 million including £8.6 million in tax and excise duty. Oddbins was founded in 1963. In the 1970s Dennis Ing and Nick Baile bought the company. Then in the 1980s it was bought by Seagrams, who sold it to the French drinks company Castel in 2002. In what proved to be the final change of ownership Simon Baile, Nick Baile’s son, and Henry Young acquired Oddbins in August 2008 through Ex Cellar Investments Ltd.)
Who’s to blame?
“Beware the son!” warned a senior member of the wine trade in mid-April during this year’s Decanter World Wine Awards.
There are plenty of examples of sons of successful fathers driven to emulate or cap their father’s achievements. All too often it ends in disaster as Oddbins has for many – staff, suppliers plus UK citizens through the £8.6 million owed to HMRC.
When Simon Baile bought Oddbins in August 2008 was he blinded by sentiment? Did he do his due diligence properly? Did he have a carefully considered plan detailing how he was going to reverse the decline of Oddbins under Castel and how he would find a way of being different from the supermarkets that would also be profitable?
It is all too facile to blame the supermarkets and the public’s love of a bargain for the final collapse of Oddbins. It won’t wash. In August 2008 the challenge posed by the supermarkets was known all too well – wine merchants Unwins had already collapsed and Threshers (First Quench), the UK’s largest wine merchant chain, was decidedly sickly and would be in administration just over a year later. Baile and Young should have been well aware what they were taking on. Baile’s subsequent complaints about hidden clauses in the deal with Castel, which gave Baile and Young Oddbins without putting any of their own money up, only suggest that they failed to do the necessary due diligence and didn’t read all the small print.
In a deal typical of the era Oddbins lent them the money to buy itself through their company – ExCellars Investments Ltd. This arrangement was memorably described in the High Court on 4th April as ‘a whitewash procedure’.
It may well have been that Baile and Young hoped that once they had secured Oddbins that they could attract investors to join them. It wasn’t their fault that the long boom hit meltdown in September 2008 just a month after they struck the deal. But even given the changed landscape were they able to offer enough to attract investors in the changed times? Did they offer equity in exchange? Did their apparent reluctance to put their own money on the line deter investors? Did investors have sufficient confidence in Baile’s abilities?
Did they decide that he was trying to punch well above his weight – that he was out of his depth as subsequent events appear to bear out?
Did they decide that he was trying to punch well above his weight – that he was out of his depth as subsequent events appear to bear out?
The lack of investment is now all too clear. Oddbins is often feted for its quirky charm. But, today, looking at the state of the shops, admittedly now closed, it is obvious that they were shabby, run-down and badly in need of a facelift.
Unrealistic discounts and virtually no net presence
Baile and Young chose to offer significant discounts for buying a dozen bottles or more, while putting a high price on smaller purchases. This was later reduced to a discount on six bottles.
This policy might have worked if the shops had good car parking facilities along the lines of the Majestic Wine Warehouse model. However, the majority of the Oddbins stores were on the high street with no parking facilities, so few people could take advantage of the discounts. Inevitably customers felt they were paying well over the odds for single bottle purchases.
Although this pricing policy was widely criticised, Baile and Young stuck with the principle.
The net
Oddbins failed to embrace the net, leaving the field open to more nimble and switched on operators like Naked Wines. I suspect that Baile just did not understand its potential. Soon after the Baile-Young takeover the Oddbins’ the majority of the wines shown on the Oddbins’ site were listed as unavailable, which immediately gave the impression, rightly or wrongly, that the company was having problems sourcing stock.
2010: on the slippery slope
Oddbins’ financial position deteriorated sharply during 2010.
Oddbins’ balance sheet plunged into the red during 2010 dropping £6.3 million in 10 months. By October their net assets were in deficit by £2.6 million.
The trading position of the stricken drinks company deteriorated dramatically during the 2010. In December 2009 the company’s balance sheet showed net assets, after removing the debt owed by Ex Cellars Investments Ltd, of £3.7 million. By February 2010 this had dropped to £2.15 million and continued falling to £491,000 in June and by September it was minus £1.85 million before dropping nearly another £1 million by mid-October. It is understood that the equivalent position in 2009 was a surplus of around £3.4 million.
Over the same 10-month period amounts owed to trade creditors increased as did the debt to HMRC for unpaid duty and PAYE. It is also known that an increasing number of UK agencies and importers as well as producers around the world were either declining to supply or requiring cash with orders.
The balance sheet suggests that Oddbins was in very serious trouble by October-November 2010. It may well be that Simon Baile and Henry Young pinned many of their hopes on being able to trade into a more favourable position by a spectacularly good Christmas.
It is understood that, under Castel, Oddbins had typically seen a big spike in sales, believed to be in the region of £2 million, close to Christmas. Under the new regime this had not happened in either 2008 or 2009. But perhaps 2010 would be different!
However, putting a big promotional campaign together for Christmas 2010 would doubtless have been a real challenge given the number of suppliers now declining to supply as well as those who had been supplying presumably getting increasingly concerned, angry and frustrated that their bills were not being paid despite assurances that their accounts would be settled.
In the event there was no big 2010 Christmas campaign. Instead there were complaints from the staff of shortages of stock that would get steadily worse in the chain’s last few months.
Early in 2011 Baile and Young called in Spectrum Corporate Finance to try to save the business. But it was too late: the debts were around £22 million including £8.6 million owed in tax and excise duty.
Was the CVA viable?
It is now apparent Deloitte, the administrators, have only been able to sell of the Oddbins’ branches piecemeal with the largest chunk (37 shops) going to EFB, which will trade as Whitalls. Baile has now bought five shops. Clearly even the slimmed down version of Oddbins has not been considered to be viable. This must surely call into question the assumptions made in the CVA. Had the CVA been accepted, it seems all too likely that Oddbins would have run up further debts. HMRC (Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs) look to have been right to reject the CVA.
Oddbins – winners and losers
Now that the Oddbins’ saga appears to be nearing its end, it’s time to take stock and consider the winners and losers.
The staff
The staff has long been some the real assets of Oddbins. Alone among their competitors, Oddbins were the only wine street chain in their heyday to get their staff training right. They attracted keen, knowledgeable and enthusiastic staff – ready to share their enthusiasm with clients. A number of the current leading members of the UK wine trade served their apprenticeship at Oddbins.
Sadly the staff appear to have been the most notable losers in the Oddbins debacle. Some of those made redundant have worked for Oddbins over many years and some clearly feel betrayed by Baile as comments on twitter and my Jim’s Loire blog show. (http://jimsloire.blogspot.com/2011/05/simon-baile-acquires-five-shops-from.html)
Simon Baile and Henry Young
Financially Baile and Young must be counted as winners. Both drew salaries of £150,000 a year – admittedly not a huge salary but considerably higher than shop managers. Three of Young’s daughters worked for the company.
However, the debacle has certainly bruised their reputations both men with their disillusioned ex-staff and the wine trade, in particular those suppliers owed substantial sums by Oddbins.
Suppliers
Several wine importing companies took very big hits in the collapse of Oddbins – prominent among them Hatch Mansfield (£310,000) and Pol Roger UK (£273,612). Some companies feel that they were misled over the true position of Oddbins in 2010 and report that promises of payment were made to them that were not realistic.
A director of one of major creditors told me that they will be happy to supply Whitalls, especially as Emma Nichols, ex-Oddbins, is joining them as wine buyer. They will, however, be more reluctant to supply ExCellars.
ExCellars Ltd
The company, which was founded in September 1998, had two stores (Ashtead and Paris) in August 2008 when Simon Baile bought Oddbins. During his tenure with Oddbins Baile added another two branches to ExCellar – Claygate and Fulham Road, London. Very recently Baile has bought a further five stores from Deloitte, the administrators, taking the chain to nine stores. The additional stores are Canonbury, East Sheen, Farringdon, Surbiton and Summertown (Oxford).
It will be interesting to see how Baile manages the expansion of ExCellars – what staff he can attract and how easy it will be to find suppliers prepared to sell to him on favourable terms.
Will lessons from Oddbins be learnt?
When I spoke to Baile on 17th May he appeared to indicate that it would be more of the same: "Our first task is to get the shops, which have now been shut for a few weeks, trading again, to get a team together and get energy back into the stores. We intend to continue to do what we do best: to offer interesting wines from small independent growers."
Some of the signs are not promising notwithstanding that ExCellars Ltd has been trading since 1998. The pricing policy is the same as Oddbins, the website is dated and the company has been slow to comply with UK company law.
Pricing
ExCellars offers a discount on six bottles but single bottle purchases tend to be expensive. The 2009 MD from Henri Bourgeois costs £24.99 a bottle on six bottles the price is reduced to £19.99. See www.excellar.net/onlinePriceList.html However, the same wine can be bought for £18 from wine2laydown.com (www.wine2laydown.com)
Internet
The current ExCellars Ltd site is clunky, old fashioned and kept up to date – there are still tastings listed from earlier this year. To date wine cannot be bought on-line.
UK company law
On 11th January 2011 UK Companies House issued a first gazette against ExCellar Ltd for failing to file its accounts on time so being in breach with UK company law. This is the first step to dissolving a company. The offending accounts were speedily filed and the dissolution notice has been withdrawn.
Baile has declined to talk of the finance required to fund the expansion but the five shops will need to be restocked, renovated and rebranded.
À suivre!
Saturday, 16 April 2011
Oddbins: Baile and Young's bid rumoured to have collapsed
Champagne offers@High Street Kensington
There are rumours that Simon Baile and Henry Young's startling bid to buy back Oddbins from administrators Deloitte has either collapsed or is seriously shaky. Oddnonymous (Twitter), who says they have worked for Oddbins for 10 years, is clear that it has collapsed. I understand that the sales director informed the regional and area sales managers that Baile's bid had failed yesterday.
If this is the case, then their bid may have collapsed because Baile-Young have lost the confidence of their staff and suppliers or alternatively they have been unable to secure the necessary financial backing. I understand that while Baile and Young were in charge there were several unsuccessful attempts to attract external capital.
Talking to Nick James, md of Pol Roger UK, he made it clear that if Baile-Young returned they would only supply Champagne to Oddbins on a cash with order basis and the price would be raised to claw back some of the money Oddbins owes them.
Tuesday, 12 April 2011
Oddbins: 2010 plunging into the red
Closed branch on Monmouth Street, Covent Garden, London
Oddbins’ balance sheet plunged into the red during 2010 dropping £6.3 million in 10 months. By October their net assets were in deficit by £2.6 million.
The trading position of the stricken drinks company deteriorated dramatically during the 2010. In December 2009 the company’s balance sheet showed net assets, after removing the debt owed by Ex Cellars Investments Ltd, of £3.7 million. By February 2010 this had dropped to £2.15 million and continued falling to £491,000 in June and by September it was minus £1.85 million before dropping nearly another £1 million by mid-October. It is understood that the equivalent position in 2009 was a surplus of around £3.4 million.
Over the same 10-month period amounts owed to trade creditors increased as did the debt to HMRC for unpaid duty and PAYE. It is also known that an increasing number of UK agencies and importers as well as producers around the world were either declining to supply or requiring cash with orders.
Comment
The balance sheet suggests that Oddbins was in very serious trouble by October-November 2010. It may well be that Simon Baile and Henry Young pinned many of their hopes on being able to trade into a more favourable position by a spectacularly good Christmas.
It is understood that, under Castel, Oddbins had typically seen a big spike in sales, believed to be in the region of £2 million, close to Christmas. Under the new regime this had not happened in either 2008 or 2009. But perhaps 2010 would be different!
However, putting a big promotional campaign together for Christmas 2010 would doubtless have been a real challenge given the number of suppliers now declining to supply as well as those who had been supplying presumably getting increasingly concerned, angry and frustrated that their bills were not being paid despite assurances that their accounts would be settled.
Yesterday I emailed Simon Baile some questions (see below) on Oddbins’ financial situation in autumn 2010. I have yet to receive a response but, if and when I do, I will post it on Jim’s Loire.
Questions to Simon Baile
a) Last autumn what steps did you plan to take to improve Oddbins’ increasingly precarious financial position? Were these steps put into effect?
b) Perhaps you were hoping that buoyant Christmas sales would turn around the situation? Did you have any large promotions planned for Christmas 2010? If so, were they successful?
c) Did the increasing difficulty of finding suppliers prepared to sell wine to Oddbins hamper your plans for Christmas?
d) Given Oddbins’ financial position in the autumn 2010 why did you continue to assure suppliers that they would be paid?
Closure notice@Monmouth Street
Thursday, 7 April 2011
Oddbins: Simon Baile gets bill for 28,000 Euros from Fontvert
The bill sent by Château Fontvert to Simon Baile
Oddbins – some further reflections
The latest edition of Off-Licence News (1st April 2011) carries an interesting analysis by Nigel Huddleston called Where it all went wrong for Oddbins. Nigel highlights five fundamental factors that played their part.
1. The supermarkets who have ‘strangled margins, leaving specialists’ caught between trying to compete head-on with prices and brands, or pursue a high-risk strategy based on high-value wines and customer service.’ Nigel also highlights the widening gap between the buying power of the supermarkets and other retailers.
1. The supermarkets who have ‘strangled margins, leaving specialists’ caught between trying to compete head-on with prices and brands, or pursue a high-risk strategy based on high-value wines and customer service.’ Nigel also highlights the widening gap between the buying power of the supermarkets and other retailers.
2. Hidden agenda – previous owners used Oddbins to sell their own brands and that through its history Oddbins has rarely been profitable.
3. The new independents – these have taken over the ground vacated by the multiple retailers. Many of them owned or staffed by Ex-Oddbins people.
4 Failure to embrace the web – unlike its various competitors, including supermarkets but also Direct Wines, The Wine Society, Majestic, Virgin Wines and Naked Wines, Oddbins has never successfully embraced the web.
5. The Majestic effect – Majestic has successfully captured Oddbins’ constituency – ‘high earning, inquisitive, discerning customers. It has also become ‘the destination chain for graduates’ wanting to get into the wine trade. ‘Today’s wine industry is peppered with people who cut their teeth in the Oddbins of the 1970s and 1980s, but in 10 or 20 years it will be former Majestic staff helping to fashion its future.’
*
Nigel’s analysis makes grim and sobering reading for anyone contemplating buying the whole Oddbins’ portfolio from the administrators, especially if you couple that with the results from a recent wine pages poll on 'do you shop at Oddbins'. Admittedly only 260 voted but wine-pages is inhabited by people who would doubtless shop at Oddbins as it was back in the 1990s. 55% said that they don’t shop at Oddbins, 21% do occasionally, 17% would if there was a branch near them (there will be fewer branches now) and only 5% shop there frequently. Possibly most damning of all – only one of the voters admitted to buying online!
For the now shrunken chain to work it requires an imaginative new approach and considerable investment as there probably has been little investment for at least 10 years.
There have been strong rumours starting from last weekend that Simon Baile and Henry Young are amongst those looking to buy Oddbins from the administrators. Harpers wine & spirit are running a story on this today. Majestic are also rumoured to have considered Oddbins but felt that the shops are in the wrong locations.
If Baile and Young do regain control of Oddbins they can’t just hope that more of the same will succeed. It won’t and the debts will start to grow again, always assuming anyone will be prepared supply them.
Finding suppliers is likely to be a serious problem for a ‘Young-Baile’ consortium. Certainly Fabrice Monod of Château Fontvert in the Lubéron won’t be amongst them.
Monod holds Baile ‘personally responsible’ for the £22,119 they are owed. In a bitter letter to Baile he accuses him of lying: “What we cannot accept is the fact that you lied to us, bluntly, straight in our face when we treated you at Terroirs, a fancy London restaurant, on a business dinner Thursday 25th of November 2010, after a long day of tastings in your shops and you said” “you will be paid, we are just reviewing our policies for next year”.’
Monod also alleged that ‘your staff lied to us three times saying the transfer was on its way’.
Monad holds Baile ‘personally responsible for our debt regarding our wines and this is why you will find enclosed a bill of our due.’ The bill is for 28,173.55 €.
Baile has refuted the allegation.
Were there last autumn other anxious suppliers last who thought they had been reassured by Oddbins' directors that they wuld paid?
I suspect that there will be many small suppliers who will only supply on the basis of cash with order. Equally companies, who have taken a large hit from Oddbins, are unlikely to extend credit or to be able to afford to do so. Then there are companies, for instance Moët Hennessy, Patriarche and the Symingtons, who saw the writing on the wall and refused to supply. Again it will have to be cash with order at best. And what of the HMRC? What terms will they want from Young-Baile?
A senior member of the wine trade told me that Young-Baile would probably want to reduce the number of shops to around 50. "They will need about £250,000 to stock each shop, so that's £10 million to get the business running again. Who is going to give them credit?"
Tuesday, 29 March 2011
Oddbins: the questions as a creditor I would want answered
This is the list of questions I submitted on Monday morning to Simon Baile, managing director of Oddbins, as yet I have had no replies. Not entirely surprising as he is doubtless very busy but if I was a creditor I would want answers to these questions before Thursday's meeting.
Questions for Simon Baile
Acquisition of Oddbins Limited
1. Could you clarify the total payable to Nicolas UK Limited for the acquisition of Oddbins Ltd in 2008? I see from Companies House records that a loan of £22, 077,042 was agreed between Ex Cellars Investments Ltd and Oddbins Ltd on 1st August 2008.
2) How much has been repaid and how much remains outstanding?
3) How much capital has Ex Cellars Investments Ltd, its shareholders and directors put into Oddbins UK Ltd to the present date?
CVA
4) Will Ex Cellars Investments Ltd, its shareholders and directors be making any contribution towards funding the CVA or will the £4.7 million due to be paid into the CVA’s over its duration be funded entirely by sales etc. generated by Oddbins Ltd?
Staff
5) The list of creditors includes some 140 + employees or ex–employees who appear to be owed approximately £686,232. This figure is approximate as it is not always clear who among the creditors are staff/ex-staff. There are also a number of individuals whose claims are to be confirmed. What is the correct figure please?
6) What is the total amount of redundancy monies owed to ex-staff? Is this a preferential debt or are they unsecured creditors? Are they too due to receive 21p in the £?
HMRC
7) Is it correct that last November HMRC insisted on ‘immediate payment’ of duty on leaving bond?
8) Do you expect HMRC to impose any conditions if they vote for the CVA?
Trading following the CVA
9) If the CVA is accepted it is expected that most suppliers would operate on a cash-with-order policy and if HMRC is demanding immediate payment of duty, then how will Oddbins Ltd manage to trade at a profit? The company’s accounts to 31.12.2009 shows that average payment trade creditors was 75 days and still Oddbins Ltd racked up losses of over £20 million?
British Gas
10) What is the estimated debt owed to British Gas?
Dispute with Castel
11) When the court case expected to be settled?
Debt owed to Oddbins Ltd by Ex Cellar Investments Ltd
12) If the CVA is accepted what will happen to this £17.53 million debt?
*
£8,116,042 million debenture – a question I might have asked
I did not ask about the current status of the £8.1 million debenture between Oddbins Ltd and Nicolas UK Ltd 'supplemental to an acquisition agreement between 1) Nicolas UK Ltd, 2) Ex Cellars Investments Ltd, 3) Simon Baile and Henry Young' on 1st August 2008. A number of Oddbins shops, including some in Aberdeen, Dunfermline and Old Coulsdon and mortgaged against this debenture.
See also: Oddbins – time to pull the plug!
Oddbins: time to pull the plug!
On Thursday morning at the Mermaid in Blackfriars, London Oddbins' many creditors (owed more than £20 million) – ex-staff, suppliers and HMRC (Her Majesty Revenue and Customs) – will be asked to approve the CVA (Creditors Voluntary Arrangement).
Time surely to put sentiment aside and vote against the CVA. Thus forcing Oddbins into administration.
Oddbins is in terminal decline. Even if the CVA is passed where is the finance to retock the increasing empty shelves? What conditions are HMRC imposing on duty payment? Where is the staff morale after 120 were made redundant to chop Oddbins back to its 'profitable core'?
On Friday in Harpers wine & spirit Graham Holter raised some very pertinent issues:
'Oddbins suppliers are effectively being asked to finance the rescue of the business, some trade observers say – and helping to write off a £17.5 million bill for owners Simon Baile and Henry Young.'
Putting your money where your mouth is
Despite racking up debts of £20 million Simon Baile still maintains that Oddbins is a very good, solid business'. If this is the case why hasn't the parent company – Ex Cellars Investments Ltd – its shareholders and directors – Simon Baile and Henry Young – put finance into Oddbins Ltd? Are they contributing any finance now in its hour of need?
Rather than finance going into Oddbins the company has had to pay off installments on the debt incurred by Ex Cellars Investments Ltd when they bought Oddbins Ltd in August 2008. In April 2007 Oddbins had already given Nicolas UK Ltd an unsecured loan of £17.7 million as asistance to buy shares.
Rather than finance going into Oddbins the company has had to pay off installments on the debt incurred by Ex Cellars Investments Ltd when they bought Oddbins Ltd in August 2008. In April 2007 Oddbins had already given Nicolas UK Ltd an unsecured loan of £17.7 million as asistance to buy shares.
Keeping your suppliers in the picture?
From: an interview with Baile in The Drinks Business yesterday:
When asked why he had not communicated the chain’s problems to suppliers in January, Baile said: “At that point we had a strategy in place that would allow the business to improve. However, once it became clear that this was not going to happen, we had to make a decision.”
Baile doesn't spell out what the improving 'strategy in place' was, but it might have been to just gloss over the mounting debts. It would be very interesting to know what concerned suppliers have been told and promised over the past few months.
In early December 2010 Richard Verney, Oddbins respected head buyer, quit the company to 'pursue new challenges outside of the company' according to the official press release. Four months later we have heard nothing of these 'new challenges'.
Isn't there perhaps another explanation for Verney's decision to quit Oddbins. Aware of the company's increasingly parlous financial state and concerned that Oddbins might be unable to pay their suppliers for orders placed, Verney decided that enough was enough and that he could not honourably continue.
Des Cross the finance director/commercial director also left Oddbins in December.
Ex-staff as creditors: £686,231
When asked why he had not communicated the chain’s problems to suppliers in January, Baile said: “At that point we had a strategy in place that would allow the business to improve. However, once it became clear that this was not going to happen, we had to make a decision.”
Baile doesn't spell out what the improving 'strategy in place' was, but it might have been to just gloss over the mounting debts. It would be very interesting to know what concerned suppliers have been told and promised over the past few months.
In early December 2010 Richard Verney, Oddbins respected head buyer, quit the company to 'pursue new challenges outside of the company' according to the official press release. Four months later we have heard nothing of these 'new challenges'.
Isn't there perhaps another explanation for Verney's decision to quit Oddbins. Aware of the company's increasingly parlous financial state and concerned that Oddbins might be unable to pay their suppliers for orders placed, Verney decided that enough was enough and that he could not honourably continue.
Des Cross the finance director/commercial director also left Oddbins in December.
Ex-staff as creditors: £686,231
Understandably there has been a focus on wine trade debtors as well as the £8.571 million (£3.04 m in PAYE/VAT and £5.529 m in duty) owed to the tax authorities. Less attention has been paid to Oddbins staff who have been made redundant. There are at least 140 individuals on the 18 pages of debtors. If all of them are staff or ex-staff they are owed £686,231.The sums owed to individuals vary from a few pounds up to over £40,000 for some long-serving staff. At 21p to the £ they will receive £144,108 assuming the CVA proposal works.
Over the weekend I was offered the opportunity to put some qustions to Simon Baile and I duly sent them in on Monday morning. As of this evening I'm still awaiting a reply.
Please see next post for the list of questions I would want answered if I was an unfortunate Oddbins' creditor.
Under the terms of the CVA Oddbins' directors have agreed not to take any bonus payment until 2013 and to freeze their pay (£151,000 for highest paid director according to last set of filed accounts and a total of £301,000) for 18 months and only award increases in line with RPI until beginning of 2013.
Shrinking Oddbins
Shrinking Oddbins
2008 Oddbins: 158 shops. March 2011: 89 shops. August 2011: ?
2008 Ex Cellars: 2 shops. 2011: 4 shops.
The vote
With no apparent new investment going into the business accepting the CVA is surely only a short-term measure that may just build up further debt. Better to vote against and go into administration while there are still some assets left? It might also allow part/parts of the business to be sold as a going concern with some Oddbins jobs saved.
2008 Ex Cellars: 2 shops. 2011: 4 shops.
The vote
With no apparent new investment going into the business accepting the CVA is surely only a short-term measure that may just build up further debt. Better to vote against and go into administration while there are still some assets left? It might also allow part/parts of the business to be sold as a going concern with some Oddbins jobs saved.
Updated 30th March 10.50am
It appears that the estimated pay out of 13.6p cited in the CVA proposal has now been cut to 7.5p. Does this means that Oddbins is in an even more precarious state than that portayed in the CVA or is tomorrow's vote looking tight and this reduction is to help persuade creditors to vote for the CVA? **
Please see next post for the list of questions I would want answered if I was an unfortunate Oddbins' creditor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)

















