Comet
 

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:39:29 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:38:17 +0000, Scott
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:33:53 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:23:39 +0000, Scott
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:05:07 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 13:40:47 +0000, Scott
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:29:14 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 12:45:38 -0000, "David"
wrote:



"JohnT" wrote in message ...


"David" wrote in message
...
Drove passed Comet on the way to Tesco this morning on the retail park and
Comet was closed.
Comet website still down too.
Have they had a computer disaster I wonder?

It is a cash flow disaster. The website has been closed down as they are
unable to acept orders because they can't trade when insolvent.

****

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...at-1pm-1412909
Back at 1pm.?

Their advice to use vouchers isn't going to improve Comet's cash flow.

That is not the purpose. It's to avoid holders of these vouchers
losing out and having to join the queue of unsecured creditors.

The purpose of opening Comet is not just so that people can cash
vouchers.

Now you are being disingenuous. The advice did not come from Comet.
It came from the Daily Mirror. The purpose was to assist readers of
the Daily Mirror.

That was blindingly obvious. My reply was clear enough.

And blindingly obvious !

So why your reply?

Fair enough. Forget my reply. I think we both know what we both
mean.

What do you think will happen next? Management buyout. Trade sale.
Maplins? Or has the Internet won?

Comet
 

In article , Tony sayer wrote:
Seems the real problem is online shopping for such products and I've
done it myself now with some household goods in preference to traipsing
down to them or curry's in the Cambridge traffic ..

You seem almost ashamed of this, but what would you expect any shopper to
do, except what's most advantageous to them? It's only the same as what
businesses do, the ones that survive at any rate.

A generation ago, little corner shops were lamenting the advent of
supermarkets. Then it was out of town hypermarkets taking customers away
from the town centres. Now it's the internet taking trade away from
traditional face to face shopping. Times change. You can't wind history
back to the way it was.

Rod.
--

Comet
 

In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Tony sayer wrote:
Seems the real problem is online shopping for such products and I've
done it myself now with some household goods in preference to
traipsing down to them or curry's in the Cambridge traffic ..

You seem almost ashamed of this, but what would you expect any shopper
to do, except what's most advantageous to them? It's only the same as
what businesses do, the ones that survive at any rate.

I'd agree that business often behaves in equivalent ways. But that does
raise the question of the real meaning in practice of "advantageous to
them".

Since it can be "advantageous" to be able to go into a shop and try out /
examine competing products as an aid to decision (also sometimes getting
info from the shop staff), it means may be "advantageous" to buyers to
*have* such places open with the stock to examine.

Thus what might be "advantageous" for a one-off case may turn out in the
longer term if universally adopted to be the opposite for those wanting to
decide what to buy.

So just as business is often short-term and short-sighted, so can be some
behaviours of would-be-consumers.

A generation ago, little corner shops were lamenting the advent of
supermarkets. Then it was out of town hypermarkets taking customers away
from the town centres. Now it's the internet taking trade away from
traditional face to face shopping. Times change. You can't wind history
back to the way it was.

You can, however, act in the ways that you think "advantageous" - but
having thought though the long term implications of how you proceed
beforehand. That can sometimes mean paying more in a local or specialist
shop - partly for their help, partly to make more likely they'll still be
there in future to let you investigate future items. History isn't some
kind of God-predetermined fate we are all tied down by. It depends on how
well all behave and think. You can't guarantee the outcome you'd like that
way. But if enough people think about this and act accordingly, it might
have some effects that we'd prefer in the long run.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Comet
 

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:19:20 -0000, Roderick Stewart
wrote:

A generation ago, little corner shops were lamenting the advent of
supermarkets. Then it was out of town hypermarkets taking customers away
from the town centres. Now it's the internet taking trade away from
traditional face to face shopping. Times change. You can't wind history
back to the way it was.

I think you'll find the Taliban are having a really good try in Afghanistan and
Pakistan.


--

Comet
 

"Scott" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:39:29 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:38:17 +0000, Scott
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:33:53 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:23:39 +0000, Scott
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:05:07 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 13:40:47 +0000, Scott
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:29:14 +0100, Martin
wrote:

On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 12:45:38 -0000, "David"
wrote:



"JohnT" wrote in message ...


"David" wrote in message
...
Drove passed Comet on the way to Tesco this morning on the retail
park and
Comet was closed.
Comet website still down too.
Have they had a computer disaster I wonder?

It is a cash flow disaster. The website has been closed down as
they are
unable to acept orders because they can't trade when insolvent.

****

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...at-1pm-1412909
Back at 1pm.?

Their advice to use vouchers isn't going to improve Comet's cash
flow.

That is not the purpose. It's to avoid holders of these vouchers
losing out and having to join the queue of unsecured creditors.

The purpose of opening Comet is not just so that people can cash
vouchers.

Now you are being disingenuous. The advice did not come from Comet.
It came from the Daily Mirror. The purpose was to assist readers of
the Daily Mirror.

That was blindingly obvious. My reply was clear enough.

And blindingly obvious !

So why your reply?

Fair enough. Forget my reply. I think we both know what we both
mean.

What do you think will happen next? Management buyout. Trade sale.
Maplins? Or has the Internet won?

Comet are now formally in administration.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20187877
Maplin have indicated that they may have an interest in a few Stores, but
are not candidates for a take-over. The "Management" are the vulture fund
who took over Comet. Probably, in the long run, the customers have won
because Comet has been a dreadful Company for quite a few years.

--
JohnT

Comet
 

On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 18:40:06 -0000, "JohnT"
wrote:


"Scott" wrote in message
.. .
On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:39:29 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:38:17 +0000, Scott
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 16:33:53 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:23:39 +0000, Scott
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 15:05:07 +0100, Martin wrote:

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 13:40:47 +0000, Scott
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Nov 2012 14:29:14 +0100, Martin
wrote:

On Fri, 2 Nov 2012 12:45:38 -0000, "David"
wrote:



"JohnT" wrote in message ...


"David" wrote in message
...
Drove passed Comet on the way to Tesco this morning on the retail
park and
Comet was closed.
Comet website still down too.
Have they had a computer disaster I wonder?

It is a cash flow disaster. The website has been closed down as
they are
unable to acept orders because they can't trade when insolvent.

****

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news...at-1pm-1412909
Back at 1pm.?

Their advice to use vouchers isn't going to improve Comet's cash
flow.

That is not the purpose. It's to avoid holders of these vouchers
losing out and having to join the queue of unsecured creditors.

The purpose of opening Comet is not just so that people can cash
vouchers.

Now you are being disingenuous. The advice did not come from Comet.
It came from the Daily Mirror. The purpose was to assist readers of
the Daily Mirror.

That was blindingly obvious. My reply was clear enough.

And blindingly obvious !

So why your reply?

Fair enough. Forget my reply. I think we both know what we both
mean.

What do you think will happen next? Management buyout. Trade sale.
Maplins? Or has the Internet won?

Comet are now formally in administration.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20187877
Maplin have indicated that they may have an interest in a few Stores, but
are not candidates for a take-over. The "Management" are the vulture fund
who took over Comet. Probably, in the long run, the customers have won
because Comet has been a dreadful Company for quite a few years.

Any European or US companies looking for an entry to the UK? Best Buy
took a look but pulled out rapidly. Any big players in Germany, I
wonder.

Or thinking more laterally, most of these units are in retail parks. I
wonder of a supermarket would be interested. Waitrose seem to be on
the expansion trail. An aspiring entrant to the UK marketplace? Or
the existing 'big four' wanting to fill gaps by selective
acquisitions.

Comet
 

In article , Jim Lesurf wrote:
You can, however, act in the ways that you think "advantageous" - but
having thought though the long term implications of how you proceed
beforehand. That can sometimes mean paying more in a local or specialist
shop - partly for their help, partly to make more likely they'll still be
there in future to let you investigate future items. History isn't some
kind of God-predetermined fate we are all tied down by. It depends on how
well all behave and think. You can't guarantee the outcome you'd like that
way. But if enough people think about this and act accordingly, it might
have some effects that we'd prefer in the long run.

You appear to be suggesting that we should buy things in shops at higher
prices than we could obtain elsewhere in order to ensure that the shops
remain in business. In other words, we should subsidise businesses as if
they were charities. I don't understand how this would be in my interests,
as long as I can obtain the items elsewhere. If you really think people
should behave like this, good luck persuading enough of them to care.

Rod.
--

Comet
 

In article en.co.uk,
Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , Jim Lesurf wrote:
You can, however, act in the ways that you think "advantageous" - but
having thought though the long term implications of how you proceed
beforehand. That can sometimes mean paying more in a local or
specialist shop - partly for their help, partly to make more likely
they'll still be there in future to let you investigate future items.
History isn't some kind of God-predetermined fate we are all tied down
by. It depends on how well all behave and think. You can't guarantee
the outcome you'd like that way. But if enough people think about this
and act accordingly, it might have some effects that we'd prefer in
the long run.

You appear to be suggesting that we should buy things in shops at higher
prices than we could obtain elsewhere in order to ensure that the shops
remain in business.

You appear to be misunderstanding what I actually wrote. I was simply
pointing out that in some cases we may judge it "advantageous" to buy "in
shops" if we decide that will be "advantageous" for us with respect to
future dealings, etc, and we judge that worth the higher up-front price.
Just a matter of extending the scope of our judgement beyond an atomised
decision. The decision will then depend on the specifics of the case and
the preferences of the person making the choice. The "cost" of actions
often involves more than the price on the ticket.

It may or may not be to our advantage that a particular shop or type
of shop "remains in business" because that may be convenient for us
in future, or ensure competition. Matter of judgement in each case.


In other words, we should subsidise businesses as
if they were charities.

No. afraid you are now setting up a straw man argument. Sorry that you
haven't understood my actual point.

I don't understand how this would be in my
interests, as long as I can obtain the items elsewhere.

Yes, I can appreciate your lack of understanding. Your comments made that
plain. :-) However I hope you can now see the argument is not as you
presumed.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Armstrong Audio http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/Armstrong/armstrong.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

Comet
 

Roderick Stewart wrote:


You appear to be suggesting that we should buy things in shops at higher
prices than we could obtain elsewhere in order to ensure that the shops
remain in business. In other words, we should subsidise businesses as if
they were charities. I don't understand how this would be in my interests,
as long as I can obtain the items elsewhere. If you really think people
should behave like this, good luck persuading enough of them to care.

If you can only obtain it in one other place, they will increase their
prices once the competition has gone.

Also, there are benefits in terms of quality of life and crime reduction
in having a vibrant high street.

Comet
 

Scott wrote:
On Thu, 01 Nov 2012 10:58:47 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
David wrote:
News headline Comet going into administration, did I hear correct?
Regards
David

It's hardly news - they've been in trouble for ages.

Pedant mode Change of legal status. There is a big difference
between 'being in trouble' and the owners handing over management to
administrators. Pedant mode off

I await your definition of trouble, if calling in the administrators isn't
it.