Take over Clerys building?

jobeenfitz · 16-06-2015 01:48PM #1

Should Clerys Staff have taken over the building when informed about closure of shop.

I know the building and the operating company have been separated but it would make the owners sit up and maybe even force them to pay up.

As someone said on the radio this morning said "there is a bad smell about this saga".

There is a building worth millions but no money to pay staff and others what they are owed?

Is there something wrong with our laws that allows these things to happen.

LadyFenghuang · 16-06-2015 01:49PM

It would have had no beneficial consequences and very many awful ones.

The Moldy Gowl · 16-06-2015 01:50PM

But if the building is worth millions how will they pay the staff?
Chip off a few stones?

SEPT 23 1989 · 16-06-2015 01:52PM

all the concession companies cant get their stock back

liquidator went in on the Friday before the concessions were meant to be paid for the month

anncoates · 16-06-2015 01:53PM

Before we commandeer a large building in O'Connell Street again, think of the long term effects on the Wolfe Tones industry.

jobeenfitz · 16-06-2015 02:08PM

OK but should the owners be allowed to split up the trading company and the building thereby, at a later stage, no money to pay those that are owed? Was this split deliberate to avoid paying what is owed? It just seems wrong.

If people just walk away every time this happens it will always continue.

Are we just making it to easy for the vultures to come in and clean us out?

16-06-2015 02:14PM

When was ownership of the building and the operation of the shop split?

It's not that unusual of a situation - it would be similar if the building was leased or mortgaged.

smash · 16-06-2015 02:29PM

jobeenfitz wrote: »

Should Clerys Staff have taken over the building when informed about closure of shop.

I don't understand this mentality. They going to sit there shouting "How dare you go out of business...." ?

jmayo · 16-06-2015 02:30PM

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

all the concession companies cant get their stock back

liquidator went in on the Friday before the concessions were meant to be paid for the month

Listening to the concession owners today with Sean O'Rourke, there is already a wiff of dodgyness about this whole affair.

The money they earned was supposed to be held "in trust" by Clerys and then this week they were due to be paid less the amount clerys keep as part of their contract.
Funny the rug was pulled last Friday and now they are being told there is no money.
They are supposedly unsecured creditors.
And to add insult to injury they can't get their stock back.

It is this type of mullarkey that will mean people will be less likely to sign concession agreements because they will know they could be on a hiding to nothing.

If anyone should mount a sit in it is the concession owners.

Deleted User wrote: »

When was ownership of the building and the operation of the shop split?

It's not that unusual of a situation - it would be similar if the building was leased or mortgaged.

But were all the debts heaped on the operating company with the knowledge that it was destined to be insolvent ?

Once again there is a bit of stench eminating from this.

Iwasfrozen · 16-06-2015 03:37PM

jobeenfitz wrote: »

Should Clerys Staff have taken over the building when informed about closure of shop.

I know the building and the operating company have been separated but it would make the owners sit up and maybe even force them to pay up.

As someone said on the radio this morning said "there is a bad smell about this saga".

There is a building worth millions but no money to pay staff and others what they are owed?

Is there something wrong with our laws that allows these things to happen.

How would "taking over" the shop force the company to pay money they don't have?

Maybe if the staff were willing to work for less their employers wouldn't have went out of business in the first place.

NachoBusiness · 16-06-2015 03:43PM

It was never the same since the Tsunami of 2013.

jobeenfitz · 16-06-2015 03:47PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

How would "taking over" the shop force the company to pay money they don't have?

Maybe if the staff were willing to work for less their employers wouldn't have went out of business in the first place.

I don't know if staff were well paid or not. I don't know anyone working there.

Taking over the shop may not be the solution? Maybe there are better ways of dealing with this?

The possibility that something stinky went on here (possibly legal but wrong) may differentiate this to most other closures?

I am not saying they should take over the building. I am really just asking a question about stuff I really don't fully understand.

Forgotten password 99 · 16-06-2015 03:52PM

Joe would have known what to do.

uch · 16-06-2015 04:13PM

Even if they Burnt it out, they'd probably be doing the new owners a favour as it'd be easier to get planning if it was derelict I'd Imagine. Still shocking carry on all the same

P_1 · 16-06-2015 04:14PM

Wasn't that why they hired some goons when closing it up, to prevent another Game/La Senza. Sadly the vultures have cottoned on to that

jmayo · 16-06-2015 05:25PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

How would "taking over" the shop force the company to pay money they don't have?

Maybe if the staff were willing to work for less their employers wouldn't have went out of business in the first place.

And what about the staff working for the concession holders who were making money ?
Some of these concession holders were employing over 10 people each.

Does anyone know what are the legalities here where people and companies cannot access their property i.e. their stock.

What happens if your car is in a garage and it is closed down ?
Surely they cannot prevent you from accessing your property in a timely manner ?
And if you incur costs can you sue the liquidator for damages ?

SEPT 23 1989 · 16-06-2015 05:38PM

jmayo wrote: »

And what about the staff working for the concession holders who were making money ?
Some of these concession holders were employing over 10 people each.

Does anyone know what are the legalities here where people and companies cannot access their property i.e. their stock.

What happens if your car is in a garage and it is closed down ?
Surely they cannot prevent you from accessing your property in a timely manner ?
And if you incur costs can you sue the liquidator for damages ?

it happened plenty of times on building sites after the crash,the gates were locked and the contractors could not get at their own machines or tools

Valetta · 16-06-2015 05:40PM

Title to goods has to be established, and this takes time.

16-06-2015 05:41PM

Taking over buildings generally = waste of everyones time, except the lawyers moving the applications for injunctions to haul them out.

Youngblood.III · 16-06-2015 05:58PM

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Maybe if the staff were willing to work for less their employers wouldn't have went out of business in the first place.

Moronic post, wages had feck all to do with Clerys closing.

BabySlam · 17-06-2015 09:23PM

Valetta wrote: »

Title to goods has to be established, and this takes time.

Sadly, Enda Kenny says these "unsecured creditors" need to get legal advice to see if the "new" companies act can aid them....what waffle.

jobeenfitz · 17-06-2015 09:26PM

BabySlam wrote: »

Sadly, Enda Kenny says these "unsecured creditors" need to get legal advice to see if the "new" companies act can aid them....what waffle.

He has been waffling in the Dail for over four years now, probably gonna be re-elected and waffle waffle waffle til the end of time.

fryup · 18-06-2015 09:36AM

anncoates wrote: »

Before we commandeer a large building in O'Connell Street again, think of the long term effects on the Wolfe Tones industry.

don't get it

Red Alert · 18-06-2015 10:13AM

The sad fact is that Clery's demise started long before last week's rather sour events. The store was already tired and out of date 20 years ago, visibly looking shabby. Bad range of stock, poor layout and I suspect a lot of very old-fashioned work practices that were there to appease the unions. In effect it was like Macy's in the US with only a single branch, with no real reason to visit it, unlike BT's or Arnotts. As such I'm not sure what occupying the building would do.

seamus · 18-06-2015 11:02AM

Good article here on what they did and how they are getting away with not paying redundancies despite the new owners clearly having plenty of money to do it.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/kathy-sheridan-the-closure-of-clerys-when-the-shutters-come-down-1.2251829

In reality, the writing was on the wall when the company went into receivership and was bought out in 2012. Companies bought in receivership don't continue operating in the same way they did before, they get restructured or encapsulated before being sweated and sold off.
But one wouldn't expect your average worker to know how to recognise when this is coming.

This is one of the few cases where I think there is some logic in occupying the shop or otherwise taking peaceful action to try and force the new owners' hand.
This one isn't as simple as, "Oh, it went out of business, c'est la vie". It was pretty clear that this closure was a long time in the planning, with the ultimate goal of closing the shop quickly and with minimal expense, without any attempt to save the business or give the staff a chance to help.

The company who bought it in 2012 specifically restructured the business in such a way that they could present it to be sold on in a state that allowed for the retail business to be wound up with no fuss, and thus the building to be free of encumberances. There was no fight to save the retail business or those jobs.

In fact, the exact opposite - the staff were told there was a minor problem in the engine room, to stay up on the top deck while it's being sorted out. Meanwhile the captain and his men left in the lifeboats while the ship filled with water.

The staff in this case can be justifiably angry about how they've been treated, and an occupation of the building may not be a bad idea.

I expect the plan is to develop the building into a five-star hotel. I can't really see any other use for it.

anncoates · 19-06-2015 12:30AM

fryup wrote: »

don't get it

You probably never will. Best to just move on.

endacl · 19-06-2015 12:37AM

fryup wrote: »

don't get it

Big anniversary next year? Lots of beerbellies in cheap white shirts, black berets, and shades? Marching from place to place? Carrying flags? Being all idiotic patriotic?

Massimo Cassagrande · 19-06-2015 01:11AM

The Staff got paid for years. Eaten bread is soon forgotten. How dare you pay me every week for years and then suddenly stop?? Damn you Clerys, damn you to hell...

mikemac1 · 19-06-2015 07:10AM

seamus wrote: »

I expect the plan is to develop the building into a five-star hotel. I can't really see any other use for it.

What I heard from a business lecturer from DIT on the radio is:

Ground floor: Opened up including out the back and it'll be a mall type development with retail tenants

First floor: office space. Maybe a high profile company wants this high profile location.

Upper floors: a hotel.

Sounds very possible and may work. The new owners aren't in the business of losing money

stoneill · 19-06-2015 07:25AM

Massimo Cassagrande wrote: »

The Staff got paid for years. Eaten bread is soon forgotten. How dare you pay me every week for years and then suddenly stop?? Damn you Clerys, damn you to hell...

Jasus -
Ever locked out from your job before?

inforfun · 19-06-2015 08:36AM

Massimo Cassagrande wrote: »

The Staff got paid for years. Eaten bread is soon forgotten. How dare you pay me every week for years and then suddenly stop?? Damn you Clerys, damn you to hell...

It all depends on the way they **** you out of your job.
What happened here was a very dirty trick.

I have no problem with people making (a lot) of money but it all depends on how they do business. Some of these investors/vultures i wouldnt mind seeing in a lot of pain.

Take over Clerys building?

Comments