Thanks for the forgiveness lol..
How can distributers get away with not paying, and to the point that it nearly bankrupts a company?
Are there not warning signs that can be seen before things get to the point that it shuts a company down?
Bottom Line Buffoons ....
- Thread starter Robbo
- Start date
How can distributers get away with not paying, and to the point that it nearly bankrupts a company?
Are there not warning signs that can be seen before things get to the point that it shuts a company down?
Mate, loads of companies do it, often the really big, reputable ones...
They'll make a deal on terms, then deliberately forget to pay on the correct date. And of course if the company doesn't get paid, people that it owes money to won't get any either.
All relates to the liquidity of a business, and it sounds like Procaps are having liquidity issues...
Thanks for the explanation.
It sounds like theft, wouldn't the ''terms'' be legally binding so therefore the distributors are required by law to pay the supplier / manufacturer.
How can they get away with it to the point that it potentially shuts a company down? Doesn't credit control come into play?
It's called 'business' .... and yes, I know what you are gonna come back with but I'm afraid the word business changes meaning dependent upon the circumstances in which it finds itself.
I mean, when the mafia had to whack some poor schmuck, they would invariably justify it as a business call, and so, the word is quite loose in terms of its meaning.
One mob justify assassinations, another mob justify non payment, two sides of the same business coin really ....
As for warning signs?
Of course there were, especially when there is a recession going on, and also coupled with a specific [paintball] downturn in your own market independent of any wider recession.
The problem is, when do you draw the line?
Is it not better to get money paid 90 days late than to decline their business and have no money on time?
It's a tough time all round at the moment for everybody involved in the paintball industry but things ain't made any easier when idiots like this molyneux come on board strutting his stuff.
The paintball industry started off [and developed] in the hands of private individuals such as Billy and Adam Gardner [Smart Parts], Dave Youngblood [Dye] and Richmond Italia [Procaps] and it's no accident these companies grew under that ownership regime.
I will concede these guys also had the best of times in that their companies growth wasn't all due to the way they ran these companies because paintball at that time, was on the front end of a massive growth curve and anybody with half a brain could have made money; nevertheless, all those guys love this sport [and still do] and it seems that type of ownership is now what's needed to save our industry.
It's ironic really to see this turnaround in fortunes but we are stuck with it now and have to react accordingly and appropriately; if we do not, and allow bottom line buffoons such as molyneux to have too much of a say in the way our industry evolves, or rather devolves, then things look rather gloomy for the next 5 years or so.
Robbo, it may, just may help them also by having someone come in who is prepared to build the company up again. It may solve their various issues and then allow a paintballer to repurchase the company once it is more viable.
Nice thinking, but businesses generally go from Privately owned to Publicly owned, seldom the other way around...
Though when the distributors are waiting for money from their customers and the supplier changes the terms of supply, before the distributors have chance to agree the same terms with their customers then the distributors can be made to look like the bad guys. Such changes in a supply change take time and are best implemented from the bottom up rather than the top down to become effective, otherwise, somebody in the chain is going to be left in the creek without a canoe, let alone a paddle.
Missy, while I respect that the information you have may come from a close source, it might be a little one-sided.
From what I understand the two individuals alluded to in the first post may have issues apart from just the loss of their positions that have yet to be resolved.
I think the only 'issues' they had, as was recently told to me by an inside source was, 'neither of them had molyneux's dik in thier mouth like some other people there' .... obviously not a literal observation but I get his point.
Pete, it may be thus, however, I understand that severance may not have been settled in a manner satisfactory to all parties.