HMV going into administration

Rory1 wrote: »

It is very clear from this thread that a lot of people dont understand the risks of vouchers.

It's also clear that many on this thread think it quite acceptable for a big company like HMV to take people's money under false pretences - right up to the day before administration as I understand it - but it's wrong for the little guy to stand up and be counted. I've never made a purchase in HMV, as far as I can remember, but if I had been caught in the present fiasco I would have had no problem doing the same thing and brought my two pre-teens with me!

Now that I think about it, I had a similar problem with a shop in the South East a couple of years ago that owed money for goods but continued to make excuses as to why he couldn't pay - you know the one, wife has the cheque book, cheque is in the post.....I turned up at his shop and when the excuses started I said that's okay I'll take the equivalent amount in other items from the shop. He was caught and could only grin and bear it.

branie wrote: »

Bcause they are easy to buy, and very cheap. I'm not tight by the way

How are they cheap? You pay €20 for a €20 Euro voucher? You are not saving any money?

oppenheimer1

branie wrote: »

Bcause they are easy to buy, and very cheap. I'm not tight by the way

Surely a cash gift is even better? They are even easier to obtain than vouchers, and can be spent anywhere.

JustAddWater

Hogzy wrote: »

HMV have done nothing wrong, absolutly nothing. People really need to be made aware of their consumer rights in regards to vouchers. Terms and conditions arent there for the laugh.

Hogzy wrote: »

Im sure if HMV had the choice they would allow you to cash in the vouchers, but they cant because their stock is now in control of the receivers.

They HAD got a choice yesterday, HMV Ireland were confirmed not to be in examinership yesterday, they were open as usual and it's extremely doubtful with the UK situation that they did not foresee their receivership or at least examinership, less than 24 hours later

They had nothing to stop them taking vouchers yesterday, nothing at all, except a decision from higher up that they were not allowed to. NCA, confirmed all of this so it's an absolute fact that they could legally and should have morally have at least allowed vouchers yesterday.

now because they are in receivership, the stores are closed. So for all those with vouchers, it's impossible to use them and unlikely they will see a cent returned

HMV Ireland made the decision not to accept vouchers. Plain as... Not deloitte, not anyone else, HMV Ireland (probably under orders from HMV UK Directors/Upper Management)

Regardless of reasons of who, what, when, how, why, which, blah blah for having vouchers, people were told those vouchers were not being honoured for no legal reasons whatsoever

That is the complete opposite of "nothing wrong"

Judgement Day wrote: »

It's also clear that many on this thread think it quite acceptable for a big company like HMV to take people's money under false pretences - right up to the day before administration as I understand it - but it's wrong for the little guy to stand up and be counted. I've never made a purchase in HMV, as far as I can remember, but if I had be caught in the present fiasco I would have had no problem doing the same thing and brought my two pre-teens with me!
.

Why is it not acceptable to sell them day before administration? When should stop selling them? 1 month ago, 2 months ago, 1 year ago? If they stopped selling vouchers they would have to stop accepting credit from suppliers and would have to close the doors at same time.

books4sale

Block BUster in the UK now gone down the drain also.

Let's face the facts, all these retailers involved in dvd and cd sales are finished. That includes all the Irish ones too. Expect them all to be cleared out within the next 5 years.

On the subject of online versus high street, went into Easons today to buy a book, the mark up was a whooping 14 euro more than the Amazon. Madness! you know I wouldn't mind paying a few euro more for the convenience but a 14 euro / 45% mark up was flaming robbery. Turned on my heels, headed home and ordered on Amazon an hour ago.

Its no wonder consumers are turning online, I don't blame them.

JustAddWater wrote: »

They HAD got a choice yesterday, HMV Ireland were confirmed not to be in examinership yesterday, they were open as usual and it's extremely doubtful with the UK situation that they did not foresee their receivership or at least examinership, less than 24 hours later

They had nothing to stop them taking vouchers yesterday, nothing at all, except a decision from higher up that they were not allowed to. NCA, confirmed all of this so it's an absolute fact that they could legally and should have morally have at least allowed vouchers yesterday.

now because they are in receivership, the stores are closed. So for all those with vouchers, it's impossible to use them and unlikely they will see a cent returned

HMV Ireland made the decision not to accept vouchers. Plain as... Not deloitte, not anyone else, HMV Ireland (probably under orders from HMV UK Directors/Upper Management)

Regardless of reasons of who, what, when, how, why, which, blah blah for having vouchers, people were told those vouchers were not being honoured for no legal reasons whatsoever

That is the complete opposite of "nothing wrong"

Well yesterdays debacle was wrong on HMV's part and its a big f*ck up from management and i think HMV should be held accountable for that but I dont see the consumer getting any benefit unfortunatly. But yesterday aside, the whole thing about companies in administration not accepting vouchers is all part of business.

Rory1 wrote: »

Why is it not acceptable to sell them day before administration? When should stop selling them? 1 month ago, 2 months ago, 1 year ago? If they stopped selling vouchers they would have to stop accepting credit from suppliers and would have to close the doors at same time.

Clearly you have no understanding of common morality or business ethics, along with much of the ruling class in this country, which is why we are where are.

pastorbarrett

Here's why I appreciate vouchers- generally, my money goes (quite sensibly, given my circumstances) toward the cost of my daily living- humdrum stuff like light, heat, food, phone bills, travel expenses and so on. Nothing unsual there...and so vouchers permit me (in fact offer me no other choice!) than to pick up that box set, game, set of headphones, record I've wanted for ages but couldn't justify spending cash on! Sounds a bit Catholic come to think of it, but they definitely have appeal for me.

Also, if you're unsure if should buy game x or y for your gamer cousin, a voucher is a safe and not inconsiderate gift.

Judgement Day wrote: »

Clearly you have no understanding of common morality or business ethics, along with much of the ruling class in this country, which is why we are where are.

With respect, I do. I also have a little understanding of company law and how a business works, what it can and cant do.

Judgement Day wrote: »

Clearly you have no understanding of common morality or business ethics, along with much of the ruling class in this country, which is why we are where are.

If you dont like the way capitalism works, feel free to move to China, North Korea or Cuba. Then see how far your common morality, business ethics and consumer rights go.

A_Sober_Paddy

Staff in the Limerick store are staging a sit in... apparently they've not been paid...another Game situation me thinks...

P_1

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Surely a cash gift is even better? They are even easier to obtain than vouchers, and can be spent anywhere.

For some reason, cash gifts are seen as rude by a lot of people, doesn't make any sense to me but some people seem to think so.

A_Sober_Paddy wrote: »

Staff in the Limerick store are staging a sit in... apparently they've not been paid...another Game situation me thinks...

THats a bit quick. They only went into receivership today. I would be in full support of the staff though if they arent going to be paid. A lot of the HMV stores are profitable (according to BBC news) so I would imagine they will sort something out.

Hogzy wrote: »

If you dont like the way capitalism works, feel free to move to China, North Korea or Cuba. Then see how far your common morality, business ethics and consumer rights go.

Am I missing something here? What on earth are you trying to say here?

Judgement Day wrote: »

Am I missing something here? What on earth are you trying to say here?

In terms of business we live in a dog eat dog world. If a business fails then creditors will be paid in order of their priority. Thats how business in nearly all capitalist countries work.

Judgement Day wrote: »

Am I missing something here? What on earth are you trying to say here?

Let me explain. What happened to HMV vouchers is part of capitalism - if you agree to give credit to a company by buying a voucher, you are an unsecured creditor of the company. If company goes bust, you have lost your money.

Defiler Of The Coffin

Rory1 wrote: »

It was a terrible example for the Granddad to give to his grandchildren. What are kids supposed to learn from this? When you do something stupid like hold on to gift vouchers for a company that is in real trouble and the company bust, you go in and steal the goods.

The man had already paid for his goods and HMV screwed him over. The kids can learn not to put up with nonsense like this.

You say people were stupid to hold on to these vouchers. Do you think HMV were wrong to give them out knowing that there was an imminent threat of receivership?

Boombastic

Hogzy wrote: »

In terms of business we live in a dog eat dog world. If a business fails then creditors will be paid in order of their priority. Thats how business in nearly all capitalist countries work.

Why are the staff sitting in then? they need to just get in line. Other creditors are more important than them...

Defiler Of The Coffin

Hogzy wrote: »

If you dont like the way capitalism works, feel free to move to China, North Korea or Cuba. Then see how far your common morality, business ethics and consumer rights go.

Consumer rights go pretty far in capitalist countries actually.

Interesting how you think that we should simply move away instead of trying to improve a system when it fails

carpejugulum

Hogzy wrote: »

In terms of business we live in a dog eat dog world. If a business fails then creditors will be paid in order of their priority. Thats how business in nearly all capitalist countries work.

I know, right. Instead, money should be magicked from air and given to everybody! Oh wait, we tried that too.

Boombastic wrote: »

Why are the staff sitting in then? they need to just get in line. Other creditors are more important than them...

I dont know why they are sitting in? They are jumping the gun a bit. I highly doubt their payday was today tbh. Employees are preferential creditors and would rank above voucher holders. In terms of priority it usualy goes

1. Secured Creditors (eg. banks share a mortgage over fixed property)
2. Preferential Creditors (Employees, people who have a claim in tort etc)
3. Unsecured Creditors (people with vouchers)
4. Shareholders

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

Consumer rights go pretty far in capitalist countries actually.

I think we have a lot of consumer rights. I think your misreading what im getting at.

Interesting how you think that we should simply move away instead of trying to improve a system when it fails

What do you suggest? That people with vouchers should be paid before employees and suppliers?

carpejugulum wrote: »

I know, right. Instead, money should be magicked from air and given to everybody! Oh wait, we tried that too.

Unfortunatly that wasnt magic'd from air. It was magic'd from our pockets.

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

The man had already paid for his goods and HMV screwed him over. The kids can learn not to put up with nonsense like this.

You say people were stupid to hold on to these vouchers. Do you think HMV were wrong to give them out knowing that there was an imminent threat of receivership?

He had not paid for goods, fact. He had bought a voucher. There is a difference. I dont think it is a good example for kids.

There was nothing wrong with HMV selling vouchers last Sunday. If they stopped selling vouchers a month ago, all other creditors would refuse to provide more credit - ESB turn off the electricity, cleaners would stop cleaning etc.

Hogzy wrote: »

I dont know why they are sitting in? They are jumping the gun a bit. I highly doubt their payday was today tbh. Employees are preferential creditors and would rank above voucher holders. In terms of priority it usualy goes

1. Secured Creditors (eg. banks share a mortgage over fixed property)
2. Preferential Creditors (Employees, people who have a claim in tort etc)
3. Unsecured Creditors (people with vouchers)
4. Shareholders

Aren't you missing the wretched Revenue from the top of the list?

grudgebringer

nlgbbbblth wrote: »

2012
69% of new album sales were on CD
29% download
2% vinyl

60% of the 69% were bought to rip and place on download sites :P

Judgement Day wrote: »

Aren't you missing the wretched Revenue from the top of the list?

Well Im glad the revenue would be at the top of that list. At the end of the day the tax payer looses out if revenue isnt paid.

Rory1 wrote: »

He had not paid for goods, fact. He had bought a voucher. There is a difference. I dont think it is a good example for kids.

There was nothing wrong with HMV selling vouchers last Sunday. If they stopped selling vouchers a month ago, all other creditors would refuse to provide more credit - ESB turn off the electricity, cleaners would stop cleaning etc.

Did you work in HMV's PR Dept? I've never heard anything like it. It's alright to steal customers money right up to the end just so that word wouldn't get out to their suppliers, cleaners etc. that they were in trouble? Elsewhere you and others said that the dogs in the street knew that they were bunched - so presumably the suppliers did too?

Judgement Day wrote: »

Did you work in HMV's PR Dept? I've never heard anything like it. It's alright to steal customers money right up to the end just so that word wouldn't get out to their suppliers, cleaners etc. that they were in trouble? Elsewhere you and others said that the dogs in the street knew that they were bunched - so presumably the suppliers did too?

Stop using these sort of words to describe HMV's actions. HMV didnt steal anyones money. People went in and asked to buy a voucher. Suppliers definetly knew. But at the end of the day if the suppliers cant supply, then they dont make money. Its in their interest to supply. It just means the supplier has to be more careful. I would imagine HMV's suppliers have a clause that would allow for the stock to revert back to the supplier if HMV default on payment.

The main issue I would imagine is the cost of credit for HMV went out of control given the fact they were on the brink. Meaning their profits were getting eroded more and more until it just isnt worth trading anymore because no profit is being made.