225 Jobs gone with Hughes & Hughes

gandalf

Well another batch of jobs gone and one of the reasons given was the inability to renegotiate commercial rents.

This government are sleepwalking and not doing anything to ensure Irish businesses can continue trading.

Details here

WalterMitty

even more unemployed pushing up welfare bill and less taxation to pay Public sector wages. How public sector can moan about minor pay cuts in such an economic collapsewith deflation in prices is beyond me.

P. Breathnach

deadtiger wrote: »

Well another batch of jobs gone and one of the reasons given was the inability to renegotiate commercial rents...

Naturally, I am sorry for those losing their jobs but, as a bibliophile, I am sorry for myself as well: I like their bookshops, and found many of the staff were very interested and helpful.

changes

WalterMitty wrote: »

even more unemployed pushing up welfare bill and less taxation to pay Public sector wages. How public sector can moan about minor pay cuts in such an economic collapsewith deflation in prices is beyond me.

Walter read the OP again, rents are too high.... why are you talking about the damn Public Sector again :mad:

The_Honeybadger

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Naturally, I am sorry for those losing their jobs but, as a bibliophile, I am sorry for myself as well: I like their bookshops, and found many of the staff were very interested and helpful.

+ 1 so did I, thought they were great. The staff are the big losers though, what a shame, I think we will see more well established companies go over the coming months too. I'm a litlle surprised that landlords, even institutional ones haven't realised that reduced rents are better than empty retail units.

WalterMitty

changes wrote: »

Walter read the OP again, rents are too high.... why are you talking about the damn Public Sector again :mad:

It's just important to point out the two tier economy we have with the public sector permanent workers being in the much much better tier.

Anyway this is welcome in the long run as a new chain of book shops will start up and get cheaper leases/rents and emply people at lower wages and be able to sell at lower price to hard pressed consumers.

candysapple

talked to 1 of their staff a minute ago apparently they found out from RTE's website and haven't heard anything from the company

gandalf

candysapple wrote: »

talked to 1 of their staff a minute ago apparently they found out from RTE's website and haven't heard anything from the company

Man that is pathetic, absolutely pathetic.

Joey the lips

deadtiger wrote: »

Well another batch of jobs gone and one of the reasons given was the inability to renegotiate commercial rents.

This government are sleepwalking and not doing anything to ensure Irish businesses can continue trading.

Details here

3 reasom were given for there collapse..... I dont see what the goverment could do about 2 off them

1.today, the company said it had been operating in an environment of collapsing consumer demand due to the recession and exchange rate differential with sterling. How is this the govts fault.



The company also blamed the collapse in passenger numbers through Dublin and Cork airport where the much of the Hughes & Hughes business was generated through its concessions there Advertisement. Michael o leary blames the travel tax for this. However I disagree. I think its just down to the recession and lack of money to travel.

High retail rents and competition from internet booksellers were also factors in the company's downturn. High rents..... Right well maybe they can try something here but I dont know what. The internet.... Not much they can do here.

I loved Hughes and hughes as one of the posters said they are helpful but I think business like this will need to diverseafy other wise the internet will destroy it. I now order a lot of books on line or second hand from charity shops.

gandalf

WalterMitty wrote: »

Anyway this is welcome in the long run as a new chain of book shops will start up and get cheaper leases/rents and emply people at lower wages and be able to sell at lower price to hard pressed consumers.

You really should hang your head in shame because of that comment. 225 people unemployed should never be welcomed!

Cicero

Very bad day for jobs...80 jobs going at Vero Moda, Jack & Jones, Only and Name It.
PostBank pulling out leaving uncertainty for a further 260 people...

Sorry to hear of Hughes & Hughes---always nice staff whereever I purchased from

changes

Who are these people who will let companies go to the wall rather than negotiate a new deal.

What are they doing for the country. Nothing i'd say.

These people aren't too concerned about helping us out of the downturn.

The_Honeybadger

changes wrote: »

Who are these people who will let companies go to the wall rather than negotiate a new deal.

What are they doing for the country. Nothing i'd say.

These people aren't too concerned about helping us out of the downturn.

Investors, pension fund managers etc. Couldn't care less about the human cost, but like I said above I'm surprised it hasn't dawned on them that reducing the rent by (for example) 40% is better than reducing it by 100%, baffling really.

djk1000

This is a real pity, I wonder why they didn't try an examinership first?
As for problems renegotiating rents, their landlords are the airport authorities and probably a bank/pension fund for the Dublin city shop, shame on the landlords, they'd rather put hundreds out of a job than set the precedent of lower rents.

So that's the Dublin airport authority (controlled by government) with a hand in how many jobs lost now?

DublinWriter

I think that there were a number of factors at play here - a major one being the scandalous mark-up publishers and distributors get on books and magazines in this country.

Secondly, I don't think that H&H did a lot in terms of marketing to differentiate themselves from the pack. They were happy to coast in the good-times and subsequently hit a brick wall things got bad economically.

LionelNashe

Joey the lips wrote: »

3 reasom were given for there collapse..... I dont see what the goverment could do about 2 off them

You took the words right out of my mouth. "High retail rents" (as opposed to "Inability to renegotiate rents") was a 'factor' , but it would seem from the story that falling demand is the main cause.

According to this story Borders went into administration in the UK just 3 months ago because of "the increasingly competitive book market." and HMV Group, which owns Waterstone's, "suffered a half-year pre-tax loss of almost £25m, weighed down by the performance of Waterstone's.", so it would seem that times are tough for booksellers in general.

WalterMitty

mickeyk wrote: »

Investors, pension fund managers etc. Couldn't care less about the human cost, but like I said above I'm surprised it hasn't dawned on them that reducing the rent by (for example) 40% is better than reducing it by 100%, baffling really.

Because sometimes they would rather have place empty as lowering rent open flood gates for other retailers to ask for lower rents.

woodseb

hopefully some other firm will come in a replace some of the jobs - i can't see valuable concessions such as the airport just being left without bookshops

indiewindy

With an upturn a long way away, it makes no sense not to reduce or freeze rents. You dont see too many new shops opening apart from gold buyers or pawn brokers. H & H will be a big loss if they dont come out of receivership, great selection of books and superb staff.

dan_d

Ah crap, I really like them. Cheap alternative to Easons. (not discussing the relative prices of books here).

D'you think the Gov have noticed what's happened with all the jobs today yet? It's really bad....just when i getting a teeny bit hopeful.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

matsy1

They only moved their entire shop directly across the hall last week. The one thats near the old C gates.. Very strange.

ei.sdraob

and an argument was used in a parallel thread that without NAMA rents would collapse....

sigh

LionelNashe

LionelNashe wrote: »

You took the words right out of my mouth. "High retail rents" (as opposed to "Inability to renegotiate rents") was a 'factor' , but it would seem from the story that falling demand is the main cause.

According to this story Borders went into administration in the UK just 3 months ago because of "the increasingly competitive book market." and HMV Group, which owns Waterstone's, "suffered a half-year pre-tax loss of almost £25m, weighed down by the performance of Waterstone's.", so it would seem that times are tough for booksellers in general.

This is it basically - book selling isn't as profitableas it used to be. (or profitable at all?)

Duffy7

Sad news , I'm a big fan of Hughes and Hughes. As mentioned the staff are very helpful and also its a good place to find bargains.
I presume that the Starbucks in the Hughes and Hughes in Dundrum will be closing too, so you can add those jobs to the jobs lost total.

I don't know what the Government can do about rents in the retail sector but all over the pace jobs are being lost because of crazy rents.

Welease

ei.sdraob wrote: »

and an argument was used in a parallel thread that without NAMA rents would collapse....

sigh

Is it quiet as simple as that though?

Everyone is asking for rents to drop, but what about the owners of those buildings.. many of them had to pay top rate for the lands/development during the tiger era.
It may not be financially viable for them to rent a property at 20-40% less..

brian ireland

WalterMitty wrote: »

It's just important to point out the two tier economy we have with the public sector permanent workers being in the much much better tier.

Anyway this is welcome in the long run as a new chain of book shops will start up and get cheaper leases/rents and emply people at lower wages and be able to sell at lower price to hard pressed consumers.

lost my job last year still not working.

How can you make this comment? Real people with families and bills to pay worked in these shops. The reality is new book shops will open with less wages and the same priced books.
Shame on you Waltermitty for your heartless comments..

AARRRGH

indiewindy wrote: »

With an upturn a long way away

Unfortunately only the minority are aware of that.

One thing this recession has thought me is rich people are no smarter than poor people. They're just lucky/took a risk and it paid off.

It's very possible the landlords are totally clueless and think we'll have "recovered" (I know you can't recover to a bubble) by next year. They're morons, basically.

I find it sad that this country is falling apart and there is absolutely nothing I can do about it.

Welease

AARRRGH wrote: »

It's very possible the landlords are totally clueless and think we'll have "recovered" (I know you can't recover to a bubble) by next year. They're morons, basically.
.

I keep seeing people state that, but are they really morons?

A lot of the sites being used by places like H&H (and many other shops complaining) are in new sites that were built during the tiger years. The owners of those sites had to pay top whack to get them built (same as house buyers had to pay for their houses).. they may not be in a position to drop rents across the board. If they drop for one, the others will want a similar reduction, and the owner wont be able to make their repayments..

I have no figures to back this up, and I don't (thankfully) work in that sectors, but I imagine the people who can afford to build major shopping centre's etc. are not quiet as dumb as people are trying to make out, and the situation is also not quiet that simple.

Just my 2c

AARRRGH

Yep, I believe the theory that they are afraid to drop rents in case other tenants look for a reduction too, but surely they can now see the Celtic Tiger was a mirage and that our economy is already worse off than it was during the 80's?

That's true by the way, Ireland was better off during the 80's. That's how fecked we are.*

*EDIT: To elaborate, 30% of our population worked in 1986, and 30% of our population worked in 2006. However, in 1986 the country and its population had no where near as much debt as we do now, hence why we're now fecked.

Welease

AARRRGH wrote: »

Yep, I believe the theory that they are afraid to drop rents in case other tenants look for a reduction too, but surely they can now see the Celtic Tiger was a mirage and that our economy is already worse off than it was during the 80's?

That's true by the way, Ireland was better off during the 80's. That's how fecked we are.

I imagine they can see it far clearer than anyone else.. If your repayments to the bank are 50K a month and you have more and more empty units, it's not something you are gonna miss...

Just as many companies are considered dumb for signing high rent agreements, yes many rental companies were "dumb" for developing high finance developments.. problem is no one is in a position to take the hit....

cavedave

This is a shame for the staff of the shops. And it is not good for Ireland either. A knowledge economy in a country with no bookshops does not seem likely.

ei.sdraob

and an argument was used in a parallel thread that without NAMA rents would collapse....

sigh

Could this be like 'the producers'? Where the landlords make more money if they go out of business. This may not be the case with H&H but in general if a landlord cannot get someone to rent out their shop do they get some sort of bailout?

ardmacha

One thing this recession has thought me is rich people are no smarter than poor people.

You don't need enormous smarts to make it in a boom, but people who end the recession rich may indeed be a bit smarter.

MikeC101

DublinWriter wrote: »

Secondly, I don't think that H&H did a lot in terms of marketing to differentiate themselves from the pack. They were happy to coast in the good-times and subsequently hit a brick wall things got bad economically.

I agree with this to an extent. I know others are saying H&H had good staff, but to be honest I never noticed much of a difference between H&H and Waterstones or Hodges Figgis in that regard. Perhaps it depends on the individual shop, but between the ones in Dublin city centre, I didn't. Really the only difference that stood out was H&H had a much smaller range, and didn't stand out as specialising in anything in particular. The ones in the airport were pretty damn expensive too (but in fairness that's probably going to be the case with any bookshop in an airport).

With free shipping as standard for some online booksellers, and a massive difference in price for so many new releases (€8 online versus €20 euro in a bricks and mortar store for one book I looked at recently), I'm finding it close to impossible to justify buying from anything but the "bargain books" section in bookshops in Ireland.

rightwingdub

I was In hughes and Hughes in Dundrum last month and on some of the books they were offering up to 70% off some books, I bought 6 books and I reckon I got about 45% off their normal prices, stupid landlords not reducing their rents, its the celtic slump not the celtic tiger.

ei.sdraob

Welease wrote: »

Is it quiet as simple as that though?

Everyone is asking for rents to drop, but what about the owners of those buildings.. many of them had to pay top rate for the lands/development during the tiger era.
It may not be financially viable for them to rent a property at 20-40% less..

those guys might have made a bad investment decision, why are some peoples bad investment decisions have to be the problem of other people?

you buy a car for €20,000

few years later would you refuse to sell it for under that because its not "financially viable"?

is property somehow a "special asset" that defies the laws of supply and demand and/or depreciation?

jebus christ i taught the "property can only ever go up" mentality was dead

cavedave wrote: »

This may not be the case with H&H but in general if a landlord cannot get someone to rent out their shop do they get some sort of bailout?

if you cant sell a product or provide a service (rent would be seen as a service) you go bankrupt

seriously people come-on :cool:

has this whole bailout culture really made people forget the harsh basics of capitalism?

/

brian ireland

brian ireland wrote: »

lost my job last year still not working.

How can you make this comment? Real people with families and bills to pay worked in these shops. The reality is new book shops will open with less wages and the same priced books.
Shame on you Waltermitty for your heartless comments..

would you rather be unemployed or have a job with less wages bearing in mind a year of your life has passed by?
Book prices would come down if rents and wages costs decreased

oppenheimer1

ei.sdraob wrote: »

those guys might have made a bad investment decision, why are some peoples bad investment decisions have to be the problem of other people?

you buy a car for €20,000

few years later would you refuse to sell it for under that because its not "financially viable"?

is property somehow a "special asset" that defies the laws of supply and demand and/or depreciation?

jebus christ i taught the "property can only ever go up" mentality was dead




if you cant sell a product or provide a service (rent would be seen as a service) you go bankrupt

seriously people come-on :cool:

has this whole bailout culture really made people forget the harsh basics of capitalism?

/

The thing with land, unlike cars, is that they don't make it anymore. Since our economys work using fiat currency and money supply is always increasing, over the long term, property prices will always rise. Bubbles excluded of course.

If the supply of cars was fixed, like the case of Trabi in east germany, you would find that second hand cars actually cost more than new ones

ei.sdraob

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The thing with land, unlike cars, is that they don't make it anymore. Since our economys work using fiat currency and money supply is always increasing, over the long term, property prices will always rise. Bubbles excluded of course.

If the supply of cars was fixed, like the case of Trabi in east germany, you would find that second hand cars actually cost more than new ones

and there lies the second fallacy of the property market we heard so often of in last few years

we have enough zoned land to last us till the end of the century, and our population size and density is quite low

we have 300,000 empty homes (not counting holiday home or unbuild ones) in this country. these alone can house what another million people?

there is absolutely no reason why land here should be worth more (shocking eh?) than Netherlands one of the most densely populated countries thats also right bang in middle of things, oh and they do make more land in there

SLUSK

deadtiger wrote: »

Well another batch of jobs gone and one of the reasons given was the inability to renegotiate commercial rents.

This government are sleepwalking and not doing anything to ensure Irish businesses can continue trading.

Details here

Why should government step in and negotiate rent between two different private parties?

SLUSK

WalterMitty wrote: »

It's just important to point out the two tier economy we have with the public sector permanent workers being in the much much better tier.

Anyway this is welcome in the long run as a new chain of book shops will start up and get cheaper leases/rents and emply people at lower wages and be able to sell at lower price to hard pressed consumers.

Why would new chain of book shops spring up when people can buy books online?

ei.sdraob

SLUSK wrote: »

Why should government step in and negotiate rent between two different private parties?

you have a point, and as shown with Ryanair last week they are incapable of doing anything (which raises the question of why are they in power still)

but do remember what's responsible (at least partly) and will be responsible for more closures, and that's the whole "rent only upwards review" craic

Welease

ei.sdraob wrote: »

those guys might have made a bad investment decision, why are some peoples bad investment decisions have to be the problem of other people?

you buy a car for €20,000

few years later would you refuse to sell it for under that because its not "financially viable"?

is property somehow a "special asset" that defies the laws of supply and demand and/or depreciation?

jebus christ i taught the "property can only ever go up" mentality was dead




if you cant sell a product or provide a service (rent would be seen as a service) you go bankrupt

seriously people come-on :cool:

has this whole bailout culture really made people forget the harsh basics of capitalism?

/

But thats exactly the point... You are attempting to over simplify the situation..

How can property developer who needs to maintain high rental value be a moron, and the company who signs leases for more than they can afford is viewed as a victim? Thats not how it works.. they are both guilty of getting their sums wrong, and will pay the price.

To your point, if you can't sell enough of your product to cover your costs then you go bankrupt (i.e. they can't sell enough books)...
You seem to be saying in this case the government should step in to help... that in itself is bailout culture, and you appear to be asking for more...

cavedave

ei.sdraob
seriously people come-on

has this whole bailout culture really made people forget the harsh basics of capitalism?

That wasn't my point. I'll try asking it again.

I have heard of cases of landlords putting up rents this year by 40%. No one believes retailers will pay 40% more for rent this year. If after all the retailers leave the shopping center can the landlord say something like. "No one is renting my commercial real estate. I cannot pay off my debts. So I will sell my shopping center to NAMA as a bad debt. I will get paid 50% over the market rate so it is a good deal for me".


Are landlords raising rents as a poison pill to get their shopping centers into NAMA?

But yes in answer to your question. If the quote above is feasible the bailout culture has stopped capitalism working.

doc_17

I'm afraid that H&H won't be the last ones to go out of business this year. Our economy is being deflated and when that happens companies will go out of business. The goverment can't really do much (aside from that crazy upwards only rent cr*p).

ei.sdraob

Welease wrote: »

But thats exactly the point... You are attempting to over simplify the situation..

How can property developer who needs to maintain high rental value be a moron, and the company who signs leases for more than they can afford is viewed as a victim? Thats not how it works.. they are both guilty of getting their sums wrong, and will pay the price.

To your point, if you can't sell enough of your product to cover your costs then you go bankrupt (i.e. they can't sell enough books)...
You seem to be saying in this case the government should step in to help... that in itself is bailout culture, and you appear to be asking for more...

where did i ask for bailouts?

or the government to step in?

my problem is with the whole rent upwards review thing which is interference in the market

the book shop couldnt even attempt to negotiate a better rent since they are not allowed, you dont see a problem with that?

whiskeyman

I doubt their massive store in Dundrum Town Centre helped things.
Hardly a sinner in the place.
Really evident at Christmas as queues all over Easons, but the odd person in H&H.
So many times when I went in there to buy a book or paper, there was no one at the cash registers.

Massive blow all the same and terrible for all the staff.

P. Breathnach

cavedave wrote: »

... Are landlords raising rents as a poison pill to get their shopping centers into NAMA? ...

No, no, and no again. They cannot get their properties into NAMA, and even if they could, there is no advantage in it.

Welease

ei.sdraob wrote: »

where did i ask for bailouts?

or the government to step in?

my problem is with the whole rent upwards review thing which is interference in the market

the book shop couldnt even attempt to negotiate a better rent since they are not allowed, you dont see a problem with that?

Sorry my bad, i misunderstood your point.. apologies..

I do agreee that the upwards only rent reviews are rediculous, I don't understand the logic behind them, and can't fathom why anyone would believe they are a good idea.

But (and it seems we are in agreement), that should be the limit of outside involvement. We are not in a position to hand-hold every failing business in Ireland.

gandalf

SLUSK wrote: »

Why should government step in and negotiate rent between two different private parties?

In reality they shouldn't but should ensure that the market value is freed up to allow adjustments when demand isn't as high. Look at the domestic rental market because there is too much rental accommodation the price has come down and thats the way its supposed to work.

At the moment its almost like an artificial socialist type situation where the landlords are protected from the market. That should be removed and if some fail because they weren't prudent so be it. If rents are adjusted to demand levels and to current conditions then the costs should come down for everyone.

cavedave

P. Breathnach

No, no, and no again. They cannot get their properties into NAMA, and even if they could, there is no advantage in it.

Ok so thanks. I think there would be an advantage if you could though.
You have a shopping center you paid 100 million for. You get 10 million a year in rent (10%). The shopping center is now worth 30 million. Eventually rents will be 3 million (10%) you can only fight the market so long.

So now you get rid of all the renters by raising the rents. The 100 million is now a bad debt. The government in some way (though maybe not NAMA) will give the bank 30 million for your bad debt (and you will still owe them 100 million even if you will never pay it). You go to the bank and offer them 60 million as in they have to write off 40% of the debt. But they still get more than the government will pay them.

You now owe less money because your debts suddenly becamse bad through no fault of your own.

So buy making your shopping center a bad debt and using a bailout as leverage can a shopping center landlord make more form an empty shopping center? This pump and dump like scheme is in no way feasible?