Jump to content
rllmuk
sandman

Is "Game" finished?

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Mr Tony said:

 

Is there a list of the closing stores anywhere? 

The article says not all stores have even been informed yet, so I’d imagine not until at least after that. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder if this is down to the stores themselves not being able to compete with digital, or the stores being too big (and too many since the EB merger left multiple stores next to each other (although that has been largely fixed since then) or is this just the way of all high street retail...  Or is it the fault of the landlords with their high rents? When I was at Game 20 years ago the rent for the Manchester Arndale store was a million quid a year. I can only imagine whaat it would be today had they not downsized it. 

 

Anyway, whatever the reason it is another sad day for Game and its employees.  

 

Can't help thinking it is the company at fault, after all, i haven't bought a game there in years and it is a store aimed at me.  If Argos keeps getting my business then surely Game could compete. But maybe everyone's doing games at cheap prices alongside all their other goods and a specialist can't balance it that way.... 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's no one thing. People seem to think one factor is at play in situations like this when it's really a conflux of fuckery.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, high street rents are high, and game are shit, but this is also happening to a lot of other shops and that’s part of the reason some landlords are increasing rents. It’s pretty much all those things. If it was about the fact that game was consistently the worst place to buy games then it wouldn’t have ended up as the only surviving one.

 

Sad about the jobs, but I find it hard to care about games retail being gone. With just game left it feels like it already is.

 

12 hours ago, Dudley said:

Standard Ashley behaviour, he'd be quite happy to move them into local Sports Direct.

 

Yeah, Mike Ashley is evil buying that failing business which has been bankrupt multiple times, and after several years of keeping most stores open having to close some or move them into his shops that aren’t failing to save some jobs and make sure the business doesn’t fail completely, again, like it keeps doing with or without him around. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My sister in law works for HMV in a big shopping centre, they were saved last January, but the rent's just come back up for renewal and because the centre owners won't negotiate they are closing down again.

 

I don't understand the logic of having a huge empty unit paying no rent vs having an occupier paying a reduced rate so they can actually run a business, but that's why I'm not a landlord.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Broker said:

Yeah, high street rents are high

 

Why is that still the case though? So many shops going out of business, esp. smaller indie ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Retail landlords are desperately trying to not have a domino effect of others asking for reductions.

 

Most big shopping centres owners are hugely in debt after silly buyouts paying over the odds and teetering on the brink.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder how many of the landlords are local councils? They've been paying way over the odds for shopping centres these past few years...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, alex3d said:

 

Why is that still the case though? So many shops going out of business, esp. smaller indie ones.


I said something in the retail thread, but it seems like the people who own these properties and businesses want them and all their friends to be able to stop increasing their employees wages in line with inflation but still have profits increase year on year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Derby Westfield/Intu/Whatever the fuck it's called is slowly turning into a ghost town. They've taken to boarding up the shops and covering up the boarding with pictures of shops so that it feels like a marginally less terrible experience walking around there. They're not managed to re-rent the old Grainger Games store and they closed aaaaages ago.

 

Wonder how long it'll be until you end up with gyms and stuff in there, like all those dead, barely alive strip malls in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Pelekophoros said:

They've taken to boarding up the shops and covering up the boarding with pictures of shops so that it feels like a marginally less terrible experience walking around there. They're not managed to re-rent the old Grainger Games store and they closed aaaaages ago.

 

Dumfries is the same. Painted windows / boards to try and make the place look nicer. There's shops all down the high street that have been empty for the best part of 10 years now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Down by Law said:

My sister in law works for HMV in a big shopping centre, they were saved last January, but the rent's just come back up for renewal and because the centre owners won't negotiate they are closing down again.

 

I don't understand the logic of having a huge empty unit paying no rent vs having an occupier paying a reduced rate so they can actually run a business, but that's why I'm not a landlord.

I think the problem is that if they reduce the rent for a business that is struggling then other businesses mgith start sniffing around for discounts too. Lets keep it simple. You have 50 units and you earn 1000 off each. 1 of them has trouble and wants to pay 500 for next 12 months. If you let them you get 500 instead of nothing but as other rents come up the other 49 may also ask for a discount as you have devalued your own units and it wouldnt take many concessions on rent before you'd be better off having a unit empty and not getting rent instead of 500 and load of others discounted.

 

It is shoirtsighted because if the conditions continue then they will have to restructure and accept lower rents but for the moment they are getting all they can and sometimes getting zero on one property makes financial sense.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have about 35 quids worth of credit in game, I'm saving it for FFVII remake.

 

Shall i cash out?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, cohen205 said:

I have about 35 quids worth of credit in game, I'm saving it for FFVII remake.

 

Shall i cash out?

 

 

 

I probably would tbh. Get PSN credit for it

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Clipper said:

It is shoirtsighted because if the conditions continue then they will have to restructure and accept lower rents but for the moment they are getting all they can and sometimes getting zero on one property makes financial sense.

 

Does it though? If empty the landlord has to pay the business rates. Probably better to let at a low/peppercorn rent on a rolling short term rental than leave empty? GAME this time last year weren't paying any rent on a handful of stores.

 

1 hour ago, cohen205 said:

I have about 35 quids worth of credit in game, I'm saving it for FFVII remake.

 

Shall i cash out?

 

 

 

I can't see them going under any time soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mr Tony said:

 

Dumfries is the same. Painted windows / boards to try and make the place look nicer. There's shops all down the high street that have been empty for the best part of 10 years now. 

 

In Norwich, near one of the residential streets there is a small Blockbusters store which closed, well, when all the stores closed. And it has just stood there empty and you have to wonder who owns it?  Surely even a minimal rent would be better than having an empty space all these years.  I don't understand it, presumably insurance will still need to be paid on it, perhaps business rates? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is the same principle as Burberry destroying clothes. They want to maintain the value of their product by not letting unused stock be sold at a discount.

 

Whilst it makes sound business sense for the landlord this is not in the interests of the wider economy.

 

This could be addressed with a carrot or stick approach. Financial incentives, such as reduced tax costs, for landlords with no vacant properties, for example. Or on the flipside increasing the costs of vacant properties. Or legislate that after a suitable period of vacancy (maybe 12 months), the property is leased to the highest bidder for a minimum of, for example, two years.

 

A few years ago there were debates about the morality of houses and flats lying empty when people are homeless. The same argument could be made for retail - that unused commercial property is a wider social issue and holds back the country.

 

Alternatively, given that the problems on the high street are largely as a result of internet retailers undercutting bricks and mortar shops, use tax revenue from internet stores to support traditional retailers, if there is a view that high streets are more than just a collection of shops and serve a wider community benefit that is being undermined by online shops.

  • Upvote 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Charge business rates on properties that have been empty for over 12 months? I’m assuming that empty units aren’t attracting business rates?

 

edit: apparently you only get three months grace so I’m assuming the landlord is liable for business rates on empty units. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BossSaru said:

It is the same principle as Burberry destroying clothes. They want to maintain the value of their product by not letting unused stock be sold at a discount.

 

Whilst it makes sound business sense for the landlord this is not in the interests of the wider economy.

 

This could be addressed with a carrot or stick approach. Financial incentives, such as reduced tax costs, for landlords with no vacant properties, for example. Or on the flipside increasing the costs of vacant properties. Or legislate that after a suitable period of vacancy (maybe 12 months), the property is leased to the highest bidder for a minimum of, for example, two years.

 

A few years ago there were debates about the morality of houses and flats lying empty when people are homeless. The same argument could be made for retail - that unused commercial property is a wider social issue and holds back the country.

 

Alternatively, given that the problems on the high street are largely as a result of internet retailers undercutting bricks and mortar shops, use tax revenue from internet stores to support traditional retailers, if there is a view that high streets are more than just a collection of shops and serve a wider community benefit that is being undermined by online shops.


Off topic, but my girlfriend used to work for Burberry. Absolutely shocking company when it comes to ethics and crunch culture. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Down by Law said:

My sister in law works for HMV in a big shopping centre, they were saved last January, but the rent's just come back up for renewal and because the centre owners won't negotiate they are closing down again.

 

I don't understand the logic of having a huge empty unit paying no rent vs having an occupier paying a reduced rate so they can actually run a business, but that's why I'm not a landlord.

Plymouth store was in a similar, if not this exact situation. I think they’re moving to where a fair sized Maplin was. 
 

I like to browse the 4k and graphic novel sections but otherwise have no interest in going into town. A real shame if it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The retails units have a value, and that value is set by the landlords.  If they decided to halve their rents it would mean you would get new stores and new life into the high street but there would be a new "normal", as it would all count to be proof that the rents were too high and the landlords would never get back up there.  Landlords will have paid for the properties in the first place and they will have projections based on the values of the properties.  Setting a new standard by lowering prices probably isn't possible. Short term they might coax some shop to set up in a currently empty unit, but long term... The rise of the high street would be at the expense of the landords who can't repay the loans they took out to buy the property.  It seems that the high street needs to completely fail in order for the landlords to have completely empty shops so the landlords fail, can repay their loans to the  banks which hopefully have to swallow the losses.  Then they sell the premises again but at much cheaper prices and only then can it all start over with manageable rents and high streets full of small businesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely though their projections can’t just be continual increases in rent forever? Especially when the economy has been shit for years and there’s been recessions and stuff. Why can’t they lower their rent for everyone a bit this year to see if it attracts more businesses rather than expecting to make more money every year when they’re adding on value to the economy and contributing nothing to the country?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Broker said:

Surely though their projections can’t just be continual increases in rent forever? Especially when the economy has been shit for years and there’s been recessions and stuff. Why can’t they lower their rent for everyone a bit this year to see if it attracts more businesses rather than expecting to make more money every year when they’re adding on value to the economy and contributing nothing to the country?

 

Debt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jazz Glands said:


Off topic, but my girlfriend used to work for Burberry. Absolutely shocking company when it comes to ethics and crunch culture. 

 

What do they do that's bad?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, bum said:

 

What do they do that's bad?

Burn old stock rather than sell it at a reduced price and ‘devalue’ the brand. I assume that’s the tip of the iceberg.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that, but that has already been mentioned - I'm assuming there's some even worse stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, bum said:

 

What do they do that's bad?


They take the crunch culture to the next level - my gf was quite senior there and the design staff are expected to work 18 hour days, without breaks, for weeks leading up to runway shows. The attitude within the company is this is expected and you don’t question it if you want to work for a big fashion brand - they take advantage of a lot of youngsters who want to get into the industry as a result. Gucci, for example, are a far better  company to work for and don’t take the piss like Burberry do.

Also the creative director is a POS who happily parks his tank in disabled bays as the fines are small change to him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Broker said:

Surely though their projections can’t just be continual increases in rent forever? Especially when the economy has been shit for years and there’s been recessions and stuff. Why can’t they lower their rent for everyone a bit this year to see if it attracts more businesses rather than expecting to make more money every year when they’re adding on value to the economy and contributing nothing to the country?

In some cases it's just landbanking. The whole sector needs reform. Unfortunately, the tories are riddle with landlords. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, dumpster said:

The retails units have a value, and that value is set by the landlords.  If they decided to halve their rents it would mean you would get new stores and new life into the high street but there would be a new "normal", as it would all count to be proof that the rents were too high and the landlords would never get back up there.  Landlords will have paid for the properties in the first place and they will have projections based on the values of the properties.  Setting a new standard by lowering prices probably isn't possible. Short term they might coax some shop to set up in a currently empty unit, but long term... The rise of the high street would be at the expense of the landords who can't repay the loans they took out to buy the property.  It seems that the high street needs to completely fail in order for the landlords to have completely empty shops so the landlords fail, can repay their loans to the  banks which hopefully have to swallow the losses.  Then they sell the premises again but at much cheaper prices and only then can it all start over with manageable rents and high streets full of small businesses.

 

Didn't you basically just describe a recession?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.