Wynnstay Group

[Rainbow Rebel]

I see another agricultural business is in trouble tonight. Wynnstay Group have announced that their "Just for Pets" business is being put into administration.
With Countrywide Farmers stores already up for sale, farmers will soon be struggling to find a business to get their supplies.

 

[Will Blackburn]

Not all farmers buy retail and sell wholesale like many would have you believe.

 

[Tarw Coch]

Never heard of "just for pets" how many farmers deal with them? Not a lot I'd guess by the name. Just because what I'm assuming to be a small part of the business is being wound up, I certainly wouldn't assume the whole business is in trouble.

 

[Hampton]

Don't worry about Wynnstay, the man in charge knows exactly what he's doing.

 

[Derrick Hughes]

Never heard of "just for pets" how many farmers deal with them? Not a lot I'd guess by the name. Just because what I'm assuming to be a small part of the business is being wound up, I certainly wouldn't assume the whole business is in trouble.

I think being able to declare bankruptcy for one part of your business when you carry on trading with the other is disonrable. How would you feel if they owed you money ?

 

[Steevo]

I think being able to declare bankruptcy for one part of your business when you carry on trading with the other is disonrable. How would you feel if they owed you money ?

Same goes for people who liquidate one business then start up next day with another.

 

[Deereone]

Same goes for people who liquidate one business then start up next day with another.

And as for those parasitic liquidators........

 

[Derrick Hughes]

Same goes for people who liquidate one business then start up next day with another.

business adviser will tell you to go limited to protect your core assets

 

[bobk]

- Wynnstay Group PLC said on Thursday it will give a notice of intention to appoint administrators for its Just for Pets Ltd subsidiary, following the pet products retailer becoming loss-making.



In June, Wynnstay Group, which supplies services and products to the agricultural industry, said in its results for the six months ended April 30 that it had commenced a review of options for Just For Pets and had booked a GBP3.9 million goodwill impairment charge related to the business.



The group said this followed a marked deterioration in Just for Pets' trading environment, with changing consumer behaviour, new sources of competition and greater cost pressure leading the 25-store chain to become loss making.



Wynnstay said it expects to recognise exceptional charges related to the write off of net assets and associated costs.



"This has been an extremely difficult decision to make, and we are saddened by the announcement of the notice of the intention to appoint administrators for the Just for Pets business. Having thoroughly investigated and pursued other options, it has been concluded that this was the correct path to take, both for Just for Pets and Wynnstay, given the difficult circumstances in which JfP has found itself in recent years. We will be working closely with advisers to ensure that Just for Pets employees, customers, suppliers and Wynnstay shareholders are best served," said Wynnstay Chief Executive Ken Greetham.

 

[Steevo]

business adviser will tell you to go limited to protect your core assets

I'm not saying there's anything wrong in that. But I think directors should be banned from being a director for 5yrs if they liquidate a company that can't keep trading.

 

[7610 super q]

Errrmmmmm.............should I be worried about my load of barley leaving this month ?

 

[Derrick Hughes]

I'm not saying there's anything wrong in that. But I think directors should be banned from being a director for 5yrs if they liquidate a company that can't keep trading.

I don't know how I would feel if I was in that situation myself .would find it hard to walk away from a dept

 

[neilo]

Errrmmmmm.............should I be worried about my load of barley leaving this month ?

Only if you've sold it to 'Just For Pets'.

 

[Tarw Coch]

I think being able to declare bankruptcy for one part of your business when you carry on trading with the other is disonrable. How would you feel if they owed you money ?

I agree absolutely but it's within the law. It's a bit like me saying rearing friesian bull calfs loses me money so I'm not paying my feed or bedding bills for them.

If just for pets ain't paying they're quite right to shut it down but was bad business decision for Wynnstay group and as such I would say they are morally if not legally responsible.

But of course, they will be far from alone in doing this type of thing.

 

[Danllan]

Hang on, from what has been stated above, they are going into 'administration', this means or, at least, implies that they intend to pay their debts, nothing dishonourable about that!

 

[czechmate]

Hang on, from what has been stated above, they are going into 'administration', this means or, at least, implies that they intend to pay their debts, nothing dishonourable about that!

Let's hope so and as you say, no reason to assume otherwise

 

[bobk]

Wynnstay have put 3.9m aside ,

 

[alex04w]

I'm not saying there's anything wrong in that. But I think directors should be banned from being a director for 5yrs if they liquidate a company that can't keep trading.

A little story.

NI pig producers were surviving. Tight margins, but a small profit.

Then the Lovell & Christmas pork processing factory burnt down. As a result there was not the processing capacity in NI to deal with all the pigs. Producers had to start exporting live pigs to the Republic of Ireland. An unexpected increase in costs. The ROI factories knew of the problem in NI, so cut the quotes. An unexpected fall in income.

Highers costs and lower income overnight - and all beyond the control of the pig farmers. Some went bankrupt and those that traded via companies had to liquidate their companies.

So they should automatically have been disqualified for 5 years because the L&C factory burnt down?

There are those that go into bankruptcy and liquidation via no fault of their own. There are those that get their through their own stupidity. There are those that get their via their criminal intent.

They cannot all be dealt with equally with automatic bans.

The purpose of disqualification is to target those that committed misconduct whilst operating a company that then fails. The problem is that the government does not target enough money to going after genuine offenders and the law is not tough enough to deal with those that set out to do it deliberately (and the law works too slowly).

 

[czechmate]

I don't know how I would feel if I was in that situation myself .would find it hard to walk away from a dept

Plenty don't
Our engineering company had several every year. The most gauling (and it happened quite a lot) was a new "customer" coming along and ordering goods, knowing full well at the outset he wasn't going to be able to pay for them

 

[Philip Watkins]

Hang on, from what has been stated above, they are going into 'administration', this means or, at least, implies that they intend to pay their debts, nothing dishonourable about that!

You know very well the debts are rarely, if ever, fully cleared. By the time the administrators have had there share the creditors only get a few pence in the pound.