drat01 Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 (edited) In Chesterfield one of the largest shops has just announced it is closing link While some may think "ah well there is always the internet", major retail outlets like this are the heartbeat of town and city centres. They generate other business and trade Edited January 22, 2013 by drat01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 My missus's latest comments on the banking circus BTW she'd appreciate some votes on the poll (top right of page). The poll is somewhat lacking. I suggest adding a fifth option: "Flay them alive, marinade them in lime juice and salt, and feed them to fish". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 The poll is somewhat lacking. I suggest adding a fifth option: "Flay them alive, marinade them in lime juice and salt, and feed them to fish". Is that one of those High Street shops that have fish "feeding" on Women's feet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 My missus's latest comments on the banking circus BTW she'd appreciate some votes on the poll (top right of page). I've voted, but I understood almost none of the article. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 You see your argument goes against what messers Osborne and Cameron have been bleating about especially in regard to services etc and all that goes along with that. The fact that you do not purchase "major" items from the High street means bugger all in the whole scheme of things though does it, you can shop online but that is not something that all have the "privilege" of being able to do - I know a lot of people who cannot through many circumstances (e.g. lack of internet, lack of trust in the "systems", lack of credit cards) etc. Just because you don't like shops and don't like the people who frequent them again means nothing in the argument does it. As said the economy is very fragile and despite what Cameron, Osborne and their supporters would have you believe by the constant lies they tell, there is still a need for evolution rather than revolution in the way economies based on retail - which lets be honest certainly contributes a lot to the UK - are allowed to progress. They've had plenty of time to evolve. Internet spending has been on the rise for how long? It's been obvious to anyone with an inch of foresight that the major high street chains were in trouble. They didn't do enough to add value and to provide a product people want, and they're suffering for it now. What's the alternative? We continue to prop up failing businesses just because they happened to at one time be profitable? Were you there when it was the high street chains shutting out the mom and pop stores? Where butchers were getting abandoned in volumns to Asda's meat counter? Were you crying out then for them to all be saved? There's many a business that has gone to the wall so these big chains could flourish, now it's their turn to be the ones in trouble because something with a better product at cheaper prices has came along and they didn't see it coming. Or they did, and just didn't take it seriously enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 22, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted January 22, 2013 I've voted, but I understood almost none of the article. Doesn't matter - neither did I ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 I don't agree "Don", the rate of change that has hit the economy due to the changes over the past few years means that your statement re plenty of time is not valid IMO You seem to be basing your whole argument on "Internet" vs "High Street" which is not a realistic argument at all. As said evolution rather than Revolution, and to do that changes need to be managed in rather than just letting a whole load of retail outlets go bust and be damned by the consequences. Who is saying that you just need to prop up failing businesses either? but market conditions, something that the Gvmt has a distinct influence over which in turn generates growth and prosperity for the people have to be helped along. Austerity cuts have accelerated the demise of many businesses not least in the High Street. Your views that this may not be a bad thing because you don't like shops has no relevance IMO I am not sure I understand your point about high street stores closing mom and pop stores, because you are seemingly very happy for that to happen. The demise of the High street vs Online shopping to use your argument wont protect small businesses any more. Also as said but not seemingly considered is the circumstances we find ourselves in now re the UK and World economies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 My missus's latest comments on the banking circus BTW she'd appreciate some votes on the poll (top right of page). How do the minimum liquidity requirements work? I mean lets say you've got somewhere around the minimum, and then there's some catastrophe that requires you dip into your liquid reserves, you're then below the minimum... do you not then get screwed over for using your reserves for exactly what they're meant for? Is there some leeway period where they're given time to rebuild their liquid assets? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drat01 Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 (edited) But I have a match to get to - spend a bit of money at Villa Park and the surrounding outlets (and Yorkshire petrol stations to get me there) so catch you later Edited January 22, 2013 by drat01 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 22, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted January 22, 2013 (edited) How do the minimum liquidity requirements work? I mean lets say you've got somewhere around the minimum, and then there's some catastrophe that requires you dip into your liquid reserves, you're then below the minimum... do you not then get screwed over for using your reserves for exactly what they're meant for? Is there some leeway period where they're given time to rebuild their liquid assets? Stick that in as a comment, and let's see if she has an answer! (Serious suggestion, BTW). Edited January 22, 2013 by mjmooney Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villamark Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Ridiculous comment Read the thread maybe? and try and understand a bigger picture. Not really, have read the thread and you have not made a valid point on why shops are failing apart from it is the govermnets fault. HMV have been in trouble for years so have Blockbusters. It is not just the internet but retail parks, giant supermarkets which do their products as loss leaders. There are quite a few retailers that are doing well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheDon Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 I don't agree "Don", the rate of change that has hit the economy due to the changes over the past few years means that your statement re plenty of time is not valid IMO Sure they are. When you're talking about HMV, Jessops and Blockbuster the threats to them have been clear for years. HMV has been at risk every since Play was launched (who funnily enough are now dead as a direct retailer precisely because of Government intervention). Jessops have been at risk with the switch to digital, no one needs film processing which was a highly profitable part of their operation. They tried to switch to printing digital images, but no one really does that. They all just end up on facebook, or printed at home. They've still had their camera sales, but again the internet has pushed prices down there. Blockbuster, well, who rents anymore? Netflix, the cheap availability of many dvds, piracy. This was one that was always going to go. Their only chance was to become Netflix rather than be destroyed by it. Blockbuster had the brand name to be the market leader in streaming rentals. They just didn't position themselves for it well enough. I'm sorry but no amount of repeating "the economy is weak" is going to chance the fact that those 3 were on very very shaky ground, and have been for a while. You seem to be basing your whole argument on "Internet" vs "High Street" which is not a realistic argument at all. As said evolution rather than Revolution, and to do that changes need to be managed in rather than just letting a whole load of retail outlets go bust and be damned by the consequences. Who is saying that you just need to prop up failing businesses either? but market conditions, something that the Gvmt has a distinct influence over which in turn generates growth and prosperity for the people have to be helped along. Austerity cuts have accelerated the demise of many businesses not least in the High Street. Your views that this may not be a bad thing because you don't like shops has no relevance IMO No, I'm basing my argument on companies not seeing obvious threats, being all too happy to coast along doing what they've been doing without making changes that could potentially have saved them. The internet just happens to be the biggest enemy of the high street right now. I don't see how encouraging growth will change anything. If you give people more purchasing power they're not going to rent more dvds at blockbuster, they're not going to buy a few more cds from hmv, they're not going to go get a few photos developed at jessops, because they haven't been doing these things for a fair while now. The world has changed, and just like how we no longer have a blacksmith fitting horse shoes in every town, a great many people no longer need dvd rentals or film processing. I am not sure I understand your point about high street stores closing mom and pop stores, because you are seemingly very happy for that to happen. The demise of the High street vs Online shopping to use your argument wont protect small businesses any more. Also as said but not seemingly considered is the circumstances we find ourselves in now re the UK and World economies. The point is that this isn't new. The high street has been changing since there's been a high street. Businesses come and go, and there's no such thing as being too big to fail. If you don't change and adapt you can see your entire business model eroded out from under you. Does it suck that people will lose jobs? Sure it does. But lets not pretend that this wouldn't have happened if we weren't in a recession. Maybe they'd have been able to borrow to keep themselves going a bit long (although I doubt it, the banks aren't as short sighted as businesses appear to be), but the inevitable is that these were companies who have been on the way down for a long while. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villamark Posted January 22, 2013 Share Posted January 22, 2013 Sure they are. When you're talking about HMV, Jessops and Blockbuster the threats to them have been clear for years. HMV has been at risk every since Play was launched (who funnily enough are now dead as a direct retailer precisely because of Government intervention). Jessops have been at risk with the switch to digital, no one needs film processing which was a highly profitable part of their operation. They tried to switch to printing digital images, but no one really does that. They all just end up on facebook, or printed at home. They've still had their camera sales, but again the internet has pushed prices down there. Blockbuster, well, who rents anymore? Netflix, the cheap availability of many dvds, piracy. This was one that was always going to go. Their only chance was to become Netflix rather than be destroyed by it. Blockbuster had the brand name to be the market leader in streaming rentals. They just didn't position themselves for it well enough. I'm sorry but no amount of repeating "the economy is weak" is going to chance the fact that those 3 were on very very shaky ground, and have been for a while. No, I'm basing my argument on companies not seeing obvious threats, being all too happy to coast along doing what they've been doing without making changes that could potentially have saved them. The internet just happens to be the biggest enemy of the high street right now. I don't see how encouraging growth will change anything. If you give people more purchasing power they're not going to rent more dvds at blockbuster, they're not going to buy a few more cds from hmv, they're not going to go get a few photos developed at jessops, because they haven't been doing these things for a fair while now. The world has changed, and just like how we no longer have a blacksmith fitting horse shoes in every town, a great many people no longer need dvd rentals or film processing. The point is that this isn't new. The high street has been changing since there's been a high street. Businesses come and go, and there's no such thing as being too big to fail. If you don't change and adapt you can see your entire business model eroded out from under you. Does it suck that people will lose jobs? Sure it does. But lets not pretend that this wouldn't have happened if we weren't in a recession. Maybe they'd have been able to borrow to keep themselves going a bit long (although I doubt it, the banks aren't as short sighted as businesses appear to be), but the inevitable is that these were companies who have been on the way down for a long while. Pretty much agree with everything The DON has said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 23, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 23, 2013 Both Don and Drat have good points - for sure the changing nature of retail due to the internet is a major factor in those businesses struggling, and in one way, these businesses have "killed" many local record shops, video shops, corner shops and so on, with their agressive stance, changing the nature of the high streets all over the country, so in one sense, the biter bit. But, It's not all down to bad management, though that's a part of it. People are spending less money, meaning lower sales and lower profits, or losses and shops closing, businesses going under. It's a double blow, basically. Partly bad service, failure to adapt and partly the recessions and Gov't policy. It's not about direct intervention, to save Zavvi or HMV or whoever. It's about what measures are taken to help maintain the economy and the retail sector - all types of shops and businesses. Here, the Gov't is lacking and failing, as earlier posts have shown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awol Posted January 23, 2013 Share Posted January 23, 2013 (edited) It's not about direct intervention, to save Zavvi or HMV or whoever. It's about what measures are taken to help maintain the economy and the retail sector - all types of shops and businesses. Here, the Gov't is lacking and failing, as earlier posts have shown. The government can't 'legislate people richer' other than having the most cosmetic impacts through *cough* entitlements. That might put an extra fiver a week through Tesco's but won't see people buying widescreens or Nikon cameras. I'm interested though, apart from Peter's compulsory purchasing of high streets scheme, what should the government be doing to maintain the retail sector when disposable income levels are, on average, on par with those of a Church mouse whose wife has run off with all the cheese? Edited January 23, 2013 by Awol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted January 24, 2013 Moderator Share Posted January 24, 2013 <p> </p> <blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Awol" data-cid="859641" data-time="1358964510"><cite class="ipb" contenteditable="false">Awol, on 23 Jan 2013 - 18:08, said:</cite> <p>The government can't 'legislate people richer' other than having the most cosmetic impacts through *cough* entitlements. That might put an extra fiver a week through Tesco's but won't see people buying widescreens or Nikon cameras.<br /> <br /> I'm interested though, apart from Peter's compulsory purchasing of high streets scheme, what should the government be doing to maintain the retail sector when disposable income levels are, on average, on par with those of a Church mouse whose wife has run off with all the cheese?</p> </blockquote> <p> </p> Central Government could certainly stop legislating people poorer. They could make changes to VAT - it's been done before. And a while back Gov't did something to get car sales moving, by tax incentives. Local Gov't could act on rentals. they could act on parking charges in the high street, they could act on bus fairs, they could help retailers co-ordinate additional attractions in town centres, they could (central and local) stop the development of shopping malls and out of town centre developments to protect smaller and medium businesses. They could do loads of things. To say "nothing to do with us" is totally false, both for Central and local authorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villamark Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 They could really look at business rates for areas with high voids. Business rates are based on property values as of 1 April 2008, before the recession started. So you can have a retailer paying business rates on a unit which they have rented for £20,000 and the business rates are based on a rent of £60,000. The government have also delayed the business rate revaluation for 2 years, because it would be mean that rental values would be based on rents at 1 April 2013 for anywhere outside of London and certian hot spots would mean a reduction in business rates of 15-60%. This would mean less tax for the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 Stick that in as a comment, and let's see if she has an answer! (Serious suggestion, BTW). Noone did - so I have..... over to you Mrs Moonman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted January 24, 2013 VT Supporter Share Posted January 24, 2013 Noone did - so I have..... over to you Mrs Moonman Now I know that you are James Allen. She's replied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CI Posted January 24, 2013 Share Posted January 24, 2013 6m now unemployed in Spain or 26% of working pop More accuse in 18-24 yr olds - 56% unemployed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts