John Lewis - Never Knowingly Having Retail Experience.

[Bornagain]

9 minutes ago, spygirl said:

I find these gormless management fuckwittery OTT statements nuts.

Stuff like- 50% of profits from new products.

Or - 50% of profits from zero carbon.

JL is a retailer. It sells toasters n shit to middle class people.

The org is entirely built on retail. It has no fucking experience of anything else.

Hows it going to get 40% of profits from non retail?

Is it going hire new people for these grand ventures?

Or are the store managers going to out in a couple of hours, painting rentals, on top of their 9to5?

Of course the easiest way to get 40% of profits from non retail is to destroy your retail profits.

And this goes back to retarded civil CS/3rd sector - they have no grasp of what profit is and how it can be fiddled n bent with.

If she said increase revenue to 40% non retail then I'd give her that. But she didnt, picking the most gormless metric.

Doomed, Doomed I tell you.....

(in my best Scottish accent)

[Myzsterious Mizz Jones]

Mumsnet has not let me down.

https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/4375697-Male-entitlement-in-the-John-Lewis-ad

I'm on a different planet to these people.

[sarahbell]

2 hours ago, Underwhelmed said:

what stupid cunts

 

So get john lewis insurance and have the entire house redone when your child gets excited and trashes it.

[SNACR]

1 hour ago, spygirl said:

I find these gormless management fuckwittery OTT statements nuts.

Stuff like- 50% of profits from new products.

Or - 50% of profits from zero carbon.

JL is a retailer. It sells toasters n shit to middle class people.

The org is entirely built on retail. It has no fucking experience of anything else.

Hows it going to get 40% of profits from non retail?

Is it going hire new people for these grand ventures?

Or are the store managers going to out in a couple of hours, painting rentals, on top of their 9to5?

Of course the easiest way to get 40% of profits from non retail is to destroy your retail profits.

And this goes back to retarded civil CS/3rd sector - they have no grasp of what profit is and how it can be fiddled n bent with.

If she said increase revenue to 40% non retail then I'd give her that. But she didnt, picking the most gormless metric.

You should write a book on business strategy.

[The Grey Man]

And...that add has been pulled.

The BS as to why?

Your choice of fuck wittery.

Nothing to do with a trans young person prancing around...for home insurance of course.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/tv/john-lewis-advert-featuring-dancing-21990489.amp

[The Generation Game]

7 minutes ago, The Grey Man said:

And...that add has been pulled.

The BS as to why?

Your choice of fuck wittery.

Nothing to do with a trans young person prancing around...for home insurance of course.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/tv/john-lewis-advert-featuring-dancing-21990489.amp

 

[SNACR]

1 hour ago, TheBlueCat said:

It was pulled because regulation of financial advertising is exceptionally tight. Thus demonstrating that Sharon White knows even less about financial services that she does about retail. Whoever thought that putting a career civil servant with absolutely no experience in retail of any type in charge of a struggling retail company was a good idea needs their head examining.

I swear with just three dots to join some on here would get a square.

Imagine there was a government ministry for department stores but because, you know that sounds a bit communist and the worker bees have been conditioned it’s a bad thing that needed fighting, instead you just call it John Lewis. 

All your John Lewis, why are they building houses, employing civil servants etc, perplexity solved and you don’t need to waste another second of your life on it.

[Libspero]

6 hours ago, SNACR said:

I swear with just three dots to join some on here would get a square.

Imagine there was a government ministry for department stores but because, you know that sounds a bit communist and the worker bees have been conditioned it’s a bad thing that needed fighting, instead you just call it John Lewis. 

All your John Lewis, why are they building houses, employing civil servants etc, perplexity solved and you don’t need to waste another second of your life on it.

Sorry,  what?! 

I think I need to dip into the alcoholics thread and come back again after a few cans of special brew to decypher the hidden meaning/insults in this one 

Edited October 31, 2021 by Libspero

[Harley]

I thought it was a real Durex ad!  Do you mean it was a pyss take?

[Stuey]

On 27/10/2021 at 22:55, The Grey Man said:

And...that add has been pulled.

The BS as to why?

Your choice of fuck wittery.

Nothing to do with a trans young person prancing around...for home insurance of course.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/tv/john-lewis-advert-featuring-dancing-21990489.amp

I remember the days when the MEN and the BEN would compete for attention...innit.

(Probably only Walkden and Farnworth way this, oh maybe Nob End too)

Edited October 31, 2021 by Stuey

[spygirl]

Genius.

Does anyone in JL actually know what they are doing?

John Lewis pays £5m after closing store 10 months into 20-year lease

John Lewis has agreed to pay £5m for closing its Sheffield city centre department store just 10 months in to a 20-year lease

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/business/john-lewis-pays-ps5m-after-closing-store-10-months-into-20-year-lease-3487281?fbclid=IwAR22pQCsWggtM9ksY2XV0C4XjwvvLRKJbJny4juaIUGTL638fhOajcyR2CA

Jubilant council chiefs say the cash will be used ’towards the future redevelopment of the site’.

But investigations into the cost of repairing the dilapidated building are ongoing - with some speculating it could be more than £10m.

The deal ends a 20-year saga which saw Sheffield City Council ‘bending over backwards’ to get the company to stay and be part of city centre regeneration plans.

It culminated in the authority buying the building from the firm for £3.4m last summer and renting it back on a 20-year lease for peanuts.

John Lewis then stunned the city when it announced it would close the store in June this year with the loss of 299 jobs.

The firm said it was one of eight it ‘could not profitably sustain’ after losing more than £500m last year. It has since returned to profit.

Negotiations over breaking the lease in Sheffield have now concluded.

Coun Mazher Iqbal, executive member for city futures, development, culture and regeneration, said it meant the authority had full ownership of the building and the agreement came ‘with no cost impact to the city’.

But he added investigations into the cost of repairs were ongoing.

“It is an anchor site within the Heart of the City masterplan, with so much potential and the council is 100 percent committed to creating something special that the city can be proud of.

 

 

 

“Earlier this year, we instructed sector experts Fourth Street, Queensberry and Arup, to start to examine the condition of the building, as well analyse the costs, market interest and sustainability of all of the available options.

“In the new year we’ll be launching a consultation to find out what the people of Sheffield think about the future of this important site in the city centre and what they’d like to see.

“There have been some really exciting developments on Heart of the City this year, we’re really seeing it take shape now, the vision coming together, and there’s more to come in 2022 – it’s a great time to be living, working in and visiting Sheffield.”

Last month, The Star revealed a major sports brand wants to open a £100m footballing experience in the building, with pitches on the roof.

 

 

 

The John Lewis site sits in the centre of the council’s £470m taxpayer-funded Heart of the City redevelopment which the authority says is ‘forging ahead’.

A report to the council’s Co-operative Executive committee on December 15 says it is set to complete in 2023.

‘About half' of the apartments in Burgess House on Pinstone Street have been sold. It is set to open in February.

Building work continues on a new Radisson Blu hotel, also on Pinstone Street, and a revamp of the old Embrace nightclub.

 

 

 

A ‘deal is also close’ for the space underneath Telephone House. Set to open in spring, campaigners have long hoped it will be a secure bike hub.

On Cambridge STreet, tenants have already signed up for a food hall and Leah’s Yard, which will be a hub for creative businesses and independent retailers. They are set to open in 2023.

 

[Bornagain]

10 minutes ago, spygirl said:

It culminated in the authority buying the building from the firm for £3.4m last summer and renting it back on a 20-year lease for peanuts.

John Lewis sold the building to the Council for £3.4m and then a few months later gave notice and paid the council £5m to get out of the lease.

So, essentially they gave the building and £1.6m to the council.

What on earth are they thinking ?

I simply can't believe that the newspaper report can be true - nobody is that stupid.

Or are they ?

[Option5]

13 minutes ago, spygirl said:

Jubilant council chiefs say the cash will be used ’towards the future redevelopment of the site’.

But investigations into the cost of repairing the dilapidated building are ongoing - with some speculating it could be more than £10m.

So it needs demolishing then.

[spygirl]

3 minutes ago, Bornagain said:

John Lewis sold the building to the Council for £3.4m and then a few months later gave notice and paid the council £5m to get out of the lease.

So, essentially they gave the building and £1.6m to the council.

What on earth are they thinking ?

I simply can't believe that the newspaper report can be true - nobody is that stupid.

Or are they ?

John Lewis Sheffield: Staggering £70m cost of repairing building revealed - as experts recommend demolition

Sheffield’s crumbling John Lewis could cost a staggering £70m to repair - prompting consultants to recommend demolition.

https://www.thestar.co.uk/business/john-lewis-sheffield-staggering-ps70m-cost-of-repairing-building-revealed-as-experts-recommend-demolition-3489166

That really would nto cost 70m. That publci sector fuckwits.

 

[Option5]

3 minutes ago, Bornagain said:

John Lewis sold the building to the Council for £3.4m and then a few months later gave notice and paid the council £5m to get out of the lease.

So, essentially they gave the building and £1.6m to the council.

What on earth are they thinking ?

I simply can't believe that the newspaper report can be true - nobody is that stupid.

Or are they ?

However, if they didn't  want an unprofitable store in a building that needed 10m spending on it they managed to get out from under it for 1.6 million.

It would appear that they're smarter than Mr Iqbal and his mates.

[sarahbell]

6 minutes ago, Option5 said:

However, if they didn't  want an unprofitable store in a building that needed 10m spending on it they managed to get out from under it for 1.6 million.

It would appear that they're smarter than Mr Iqbal and his mates.

Surprised Oldham council didn't buy it off them.

[Bornagain]

21 minutes ago, Option5 said:

However, if they didn't  want an unprofitable store in a building that needed 10m spending on it they managed to get out from under it for 1.6 million.

It would appear that they're smarter than Mr Iqbal and his mates.

Surely the building in a major city centre would have been worth something, even if only as development land.

John Lewis and the council took a view around a year ago that it was worth £3.4m.

John Lewis have given the building and £1.6m away to the council.

In my world, they have taken an asset worth £3.4m and turned it into -£1.6m.   A swing of £5m that presumably will appear as a loss in this years accounts.

I am no financial genius but it looks stupid to me, have I missed something ?

Edited December 11, 2021 by Bornagain

[sarahbell]

Just now, Bornagain said:

Surely the building in a major city centre would have been worth something, even if only as development land.

John Lewis and the council took a view around a year ago that it was worth £5m.

John Lewis have given the building and £1.6m away to the council.

In my world, they have taken an asset worth £5m and turned it into -£1.6m.   A swing of £6.6m that presumably will appear as a loss in this years accounts.

I am no financial genius but it looks stupid to me, have I missed something ?

Leasehold freehold repairing lease.
 

[Bornagain]

1 minute ago, sarahbell said:

Leasehold freehold repairing lease.
 

If my understanding is correct, John Lewis owned the building outright and then sold it to the council.

Prior to agreeing to a repairing lease they must have understood that major repairs were necessary so why did they agree to lease it at all, never mind 20 years.

Somebody does not know what they are doing.

[sarahbell]

Just now, Bornagain said:

If my understanding is correct, John Lewis owned the building outright and then sold it to the council.

Prior to agreeing to a repairing lease they must have understood that major repairs were necessary so why did they agree to lease it at all, never mind 20 years.

Somebody does not know what they are doing.

I think you're right, someone didn't have a clue what they were doing. But that'll be an army of well paid surveyors etc just like the councils have when they buy shopping centres for £9m to only discover they now have to buy the shops out and do millions of repairs on a building at the end of it's life.

[SpectrumFX]

Just now, Bornagain said:

If my understanding is correct, John Lewis owned the building outright and then sold it to the council.

Prior to agreeing to a repairing lease they must have understood that major repairs were necessary so why did they agree to lease it at all, never mind 20 years.

Somebody does not know what they are doing.

I think that it's safe to assume that none of them know what they're doing.

Any appearance of competence on either side will be blind luck.

[Option5]

Just now, Bornagain said:

Surely the building in a major city centre would have been worth something, even if only as development land.

John Lewis and the council took a view around a year ago that it was worth £5m.

John Lewis have given the building and £1.6m away to the council.

In my world, they have taken an asset worth £5m and turned it into -£1.6m.   A swing of £6.6m that presumably will appear as a loss in this years accounts.

I am no financial genius but it looks stupid to me, have I missed something?

Any city centre redevelopment has to be approved by the council, it can take years to get approval. In the mean time, the owners are legally obliged to keep the building safe.

This is an early 60s crumbly concrete eyesore so in reality demolishion is the only option.

JL could have been on the hook for millions over many years just to keep a closed store or spend millions clearing the site in in city where city centre shopping is dying a painful death.

If I were them I'd  have cut my losses and run as well, if it was a bargain a property developer would have snatched it up.

[Option5]

7 minutes ago, Bornagain said:

If my understanding is correct, John Lewis owned the building outright and then sold it to the council.

Prior to agreeing to a repairing lease they must have understood that major repairs were necessary so why did they agree to lease it at all, never mind 20 years.

Somebody does not know what they are doing.

20 years is probably the minimum for a lease of this type. JL could have done the sums and worked out that getting shut of the building to the council on a false promise, then factoring in the lease buy out clause was the cheapest option.

The building is a liability for whoever owns it.

[steppensheep]

I was going to revive the Debenhams thread, but may as well mention it here. I've noticed in my recent travels that loads of town centres still have a closed down, vacant, Debenhams in them. Seems pretty weird that they haven't been relet yet, especially as many places seem to be booming and untenanted sites are pretty rare. In particular I saw Nottingham central square has a depressing looking closed store which in an absolutely prime location that retailers should be scrambling for.

 

I assume it is something to do with the financial side. Maybe the landlords can't relet them until they've screwed every last penny out of the administrators?

[Funn3r]

2 hours ago, Option5 said:

20 years is probably the minimum for a lease of this type. JL could have done the sums and worked out that getting shut of the building to the council on a false promise, then factoring in the lease buy out clause was the cheapest option.

The building is a liability for whoever owns it.

Brilliant really, can't decide if the counciltaxpayer is being done or not, as they did sort of get 5M out of it.