JJB Sports says 95 stores could close in next two years

[ian1964 10,475]

JJB Sports has said it could close up to 95 stores over the next two years.

 

JJB announced plans to enter a company voluntary arrangement (CVA), which would release it from certain liabilities to its landlords.

 

If the deal goes ahead, JJB would close up to 45 of its 246 stores over the next 12 months, with another 50 under review over the next 24 months.

 

"The group's future viability is dependent upon the successful implementation of a CVA," JJB said.

 

It would be Wigan-based JJB's second such deal in two years, after it narrowly avoided going into administration in 2009 by striking a CVA with its landlords and creditors, which allowed it to walk away from leases on 140 stores.

 

Sales at JJB slumped during the recession as it struggled to manage its debts

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12428003

[Zappa 0]

If they close 95 of their 246 stores they'll be left with 151. When our supposed �£48m 10-year deal with them was struck in 2006 they had 439 stores.

 

When we did the deal in 2006 we were told by SDM that it would help reduce our debt and invest in the squad. Almost 5 years on and our debt has increased, the squad has been reduced, the wage bill reduced and knowledgeable accountants have insinuated that winning the last 2 SPL titles has saved us from administration. And before anyone chimes in with nonsense about Walter Smith's spending, go and work out what he's actually spent in the transfer market with players sold and players bought! You'll be surprised at how little it is!

[Bluedell 5,366]

The deal did reduce our debt and did allow investment in the squad. Imagine how little would have been invested had we not had the cash. Don't look at the net spend, but look at the gross, as income from sales may not have been reinvested in the squad if we didn't have the cash.

[rbr 1,247]

The deal did reduce our debt and did allow investment in the squad. Imagine how little would have been invested had we not had the cash. Don't look at the net spend, but look at the gross, as income from sales may not have been reinvested in the squad if we didn't have the cash.

 

Bluedell , to this day I am still amazed at the number of our own fans who cannot accept this was a decent deal , the removal from the high streets of a visible presence might have been a sore one , but the pure profit from this made sense , however , like everything else with Murray the long term was never thought about , thats us half way through and you can bet your bottom dollar where we go next has never been even discussed .

 

One more thing , the average of �£4.8 million we get net profit would need a turnover of over �£30 million to get the same profit after tax , expenses , rents and wages

[Zappa 0]

The deal did reduce our debt and did allow investment in the squad. Imagine how little would have been invested had we not had the cash. Don't look at the net spend, but look at the gross, as income from sales may not have been reinvested in the squad if we didn't have the cash.

 

Are you saying not to consider how much a manager has brought in from selling player's when discussing how much they've spent? Seems a bit odd because Walter Smith wouldn't have been able to spend much if anything in the transfer market if we hadn't sold Hutton, Cuellar, Thomson, Wilson and the others sold which have brought in money. I dread to think what Dick Advocaat's Gross spend was because it was almost 63 million net.

[Zappa 0]

Btw, I wasn't suggesting that the JJB deal was bad for us, but it does raise some serious question marks about how the club has been getting run considering the money that deal brought in and the successes we've had on the park over the past 4 years. In most businesses the CEO would have been shown the door for mismanagement.

[Bluedell 5,366]

Are you saying not to consider how much a manager has brought in from selling player's when discussing how much they've spent? Seems a bit odd because Walter Smith wouldn't have been able to spend much if anything in the transfer market if we hadn't sold Hutton, Cuellar, Thomson, Wilson and the others sold which have brought in money. I dread to think what Dick Advocaat's Gross spend was because it was almost 63 million net.

 

The amount that was brought in is obviously relevant, but not any more so than the JJB cash. It all goes into a pot to allow the purchase of our current squad. We neded both to get where we are and we can't look at the income from player sales in isolation.

 

The Advocaat spend is a different era, and not really relevant, although to be fair to him, he wasn't responsible for establishing the budget and what the club could afford or for signing the cheques. The responsibility for that lies elsewhere.

[Bluedell 5,366]

Btw, I wasn't suggesting that the JJB deal was bad for us, but it does raise some serious question marks about how the club has been getting run considering the money that deal brought in and the successes we've had on the park over the past 4 years. In most businesses the CEO would have been shown the door for mismanagement.

 

Agreed, although in our case the Chairman was the de facto CEO when the mismanagement was occuring.

[Zappa 0]

The amount that was brought in is obviously relevant, but not any more so than the JJB cash. It all goes into a pot to allow the purchase of our current squad. We neded both to get where we are and we can't look at the income from player sales in isolation.

 

I see what you're saying, although to fans who aren't accountants or financial experts, the common way to think of a football manager's spending is done by looking at his transfer market dealings in terms of buying and selling players.

 

The Advocaat spend is a different era, and not really relevant, although to be fair to him, he wasn't responsible for establishing the budget and what the club could afford or for signing the cheques. The responsibility for that lies elsewhere.

 

Totally agree that it wasn't completely Advocaat's fault and that's pretty obvious because we all know Murray was signing the cheques and completely lost the plot, but it also wasn't prudent in terms of managing a football club to plough it into debt by spending vast amounts of money in the transfer market and creating an unsustainable wage bill. It's fair to say that Advocaat was only doing what he was allowed to do by Murray, but it's equally fair to say that he didn't need to act like a kid and spend every penny he was allowed to as if he had no concept for the value of money. Advocaat spent with no consideration for the future and longevity of the club where a more sensible manager would have been wiser whether he was being given the green light to spend or not. If it wasn't for the club's spending during the Advocaat era we might not even have any debt today.

[rbr 1,247]

Not every signing at the Advocatt era was wee Dick's , Colin Hendry anyone , also Murray gave out contracts like confetti , and most times against the medical advice he was getting from the club's own medical staff