Vulpine, gone.

bobmcstuff

Rescued from administration by Mango Bikes, apparently.

bendertherobot

Yeah, had a look at their directors on Companies House and those guys are in charge of a few different things. That's not a glowing recommendation per se, but shows some accumen.

slowmart

bendertherobot wrote:

Yeah, had a look at their directors on Companies House and those guys are in charge of a few different things. That's not a glowing recommendation per se, but shows some accumen.

Latest reported annual accounts for Mango show a company value of minus £31k........

flasher

Well that keeps their tax liabilities to a minimum.

bendertherobot

Slowmart wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Yeah, had a look at their directors on Companies House and those guys are in charge of a few different things. That's not a glowing recommendation per se, but shows some accumen.

Latest reported annual accounts for Mango show a company value of minus £31k........

Isn't that how they all work?

bobmcstuff

bendertherobot wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

bendertherobot wrote:

Yeah, had a look at their directors on Companies House and those guys are in charge of a few different things. That's not a glowing recommendation per se, but shows some accumen.

Latest reported annual accounts for Mango show a company value of minus £31k........

Isn't that how they all work?

Yeah, companies house records should be taken with a big pinch of salt...

cougie

Hope they've done their research.

slowmart

It'll be a bargain basement acquisition of existing stock, assets and what's left of any good will.

Dependant upon the price paid it could be worth a punt I'd have thought IF you've got the supply chain in situ with a resilient client base.

TonyJams

Slowmart wrote:

It'll be a bargain basement acquisition of existing stock, assets and what's left of any good will.

Dependant upon the price paid it could be worth a punt I'd have thought IF you've got the supply chain in situ with a resilient client base.

If they've got it cheap it could be an absolute bargain, especially if they were already looking at clothing and have a manufacturer already in place.

Matthewfalle

TonyJams wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

It'll be a bargain basement acquisition of existing stock, assets and what's left of any good will.

Dependant upon the price paid it could be worth a punt I'd have thought IF you've got the supply chain in situ with a resilient client base.

If they've got it cheap it could be an absolute bargain, especially if they were already looking at clothing and have a manufacturer already in place.

I wouldn't quite say it was an absolute bargain - the stuff failed to sell in the first place causing the first people to transfer their assets into the personal name not leaving themselves en to having to pay their creditors and to go into admin so all the new people have done is buy a load of clothes at a cheap price that won't sell.

sloppyschleckonds

The socks are nice though

Matthewfalle

My ex was nice until she turned into a mental hag.

slowmart

Matthewfalle wrote:

TonyJams wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

It'll be a bargain basement acquisition of existing stock, assets and what's left of any good will.

Dependant upon the price paid it could be worth a punt I'd have thought IF you've got the supply chain in situ with a resilient client base.

If they've got it cheap it could be an absolute bargain, especially if they were already looking at clothing and have a manufacturer already in place.

I wouldn't quite say it was an absolute bargain - the stuff failed to sell in the first place causing the first people to transfer their assets into the personal name not leaving themselves en to having to pay their creditors and to go into admin so all the new people have done is buy a load of clothes at a cheap price that won't sell.

That's too simplistic. Transfer of assets at an undervalue is a serious issue and the administrator has sharp teeth in this respect. The company still has a client base and marketing to that will drive sales.

Matthewfalle

Slowmart wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

TonyJams wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

It'll be a bargain basement acquisition of existing stock, assets and what's left of any good will.

Dependant upon the price paid it could be worth a punt I'd have thought IF you've got the supply chain in situ with a resilient client base.

If they've got it cheap it could be an absolute bargain, especially if they were already looking at clothing and have a manufacturer already in place.

I wouldn't quite say it was an absolute bargain - the stuff failed to sell in the first place causing the first people to transfer their assets into the personal name not leaving themselves en to having to pay their creditors and to go into admin so all the new people have done is buy a load of clothes at a cheap price that won't sell.

That's too simplistic. Transfer of assets at an undervalue is a serious issue and the administrator has sharp teeth in this respect. The company still has a client base and marketing to that will drive sales.

Stop trying to complicate matters to look clever and use big words and fascist theories.

Simple market economics, innit - it didn't sell first time round, it's not going to sell second time round especially as everyone knows the firm shut down first time round because their stuff was no good.

gweeds

Fascist theories?

plowmar

From what I understand, rightly or wrongly, is that the pricing for the quality was wrong, not that the clothing was rubbish.

Never the less following on from my previous comments, my wife has received an e-mail to confirm that her order will be completed. So we wait and see what happens.

fenix

plowmar wrote:

From what I understand, rightly or wrongly, is that the pricing for the quality was wrong, not that the clothing was rubbish.

.

Mehh the only bit of kit I got from them was badly fitting - and with the thinnest thermal material around. Even at sale price it was pants.

I do like the look of their city jackets though - but for the sporty cycling range - I'm not bothering with them again.

Matthewfalle

Fenix wrote:

plowmar wrote:

From what I understand, rightly or wrongly, is that the pricing for the quality was wrong, not that the clothing was rubbish.

.

Mehh the only bit of kit I got from them was badly fitting - and with the thinnest thermal material around. Even at sale price it was pants.

I do like the look of their city jackets though - but for the sporty cycling range - I'm not bothering with them again.

Going from this thread, the problems seemed to be

Over priced
Poor delivery
Poor materials
Poor fitting
Wear out easily
Poor customer relations
No USP in a market of the same stuff
Just a shop selling loads of t shirts and shirts with the occasional bicycle related thing thrown in
Bland advertising guff putting off new customers

Not really selling it to me

BikeRadarAdmin

Keep on topic please. A few unnecessary posts deleted.

Thanks.

Matthewfalle

Thank you Josh!

slowmart

Matthewfalle wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

TonyJams wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

It'll be a bargain basement acquisition of existing stock, assets and what's left of any good will.

Dependant upon the price paid it could be worth a punt I'd have thought IF you've got the supply chain in situ with a resilient client base.

If they've got it cheap it could be an absolute bargain, especially if they were already looking at clothing and have a manufacturer already in place.

I wouldn't quite say it was an absolute bargain - the stuff failed to sell in the first place causing the first people to transfer their assets into the personal name not leaving themselves en to having to pay their creditors and to go into admin so all the new people have done is buy a load of clothes at a cheap price that won't sell.

That's too simplistic. Transfer of assets at an undervalue is a serious issue and the administrator has sharp teeth in this respect. The company still has a client base and marketing to that will drive sales.

Stop trying to complicate matters to look clever and use big words and fascist theories.

Simple market economics, innit - it didn't sell first time round, it's not going to sell second time round especially as everyone knows the firm shut down first time round because their stuff was no good.

I'm sure if it's "simple market economics" it's through a conscious choice that you haven't harnessed your superior intellect to make your billions though market manipulation ....

Matthewfalle

Slowmart wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

Matthewfalle wrote:

TonyJams wrote:

Slowmart wrote:

It'll be a bargain basement acquisition of existing stock, assets and what's left of any good will.

Dependant upon the price paid it could be worth a punt I'd have thought IF you've got the supply chain in situ with a resilient client base.

If they've got it cheap it could be an absolute bargain, especially if they were already looking at clothing and have a manufacturer already in place.

I wouldn't quite say it was an absolute bargain - the stuff failed to sell in the first place causing the first people to transfer their assets into the personal name not leaving themselves en to having to pay their creditors and to go into admin so all the new people have done is buy a load of clothes at a cheap price that won't sell.

That's too simplistic. Transfer of assets at an undervalue is a serious issue and the administrator has sharp teeth in this respect. The company still has a client base and marketing to that will drive sales.

Stop trying to complicate matters to look clever and use big words and fascist theories.

Simple market economics, innit - it didn't sell first time round, it's not going to sell second time round especially as everyone knows the firm shut down first time round because their stuff was no good.

I'm sure if it's "simple market economics" it's through a conscious choice that you haven't harnessed your superior intellect to make your billions though market manipulation ....

You are correct - I chose to do a job that benefits people.

Matthewfalle

Vulpine boxer shorts as per this month's Cyclist magazine: an absolute bargain at £55 (yup, fifty five Pounds) per pair.

And you wonder why they went bust (no brassiere jokes please).

hopkinb

Matthewfalle wrote:

Vulpine boxer shorts as per this month's Cyclist magazine: an absolute bargain at £55 (yup, fifty five Pounds) per pair.

And you wonder why they went bust (no brassiere jokes please).

I have a couple of pairs of their cotton rain shorts for 2 years that I got for £35 a pair. I think they were £90 or something full price. I wear them all the time, mainly just as shorts, and they're great - very good material and cut. I also bagged a Hoy branded packable waterproof jacket for £30 in one of the more recent "fire sales" RRP was £120. It's a great bit of kit for £30. At £120 it's daylight robbery.

Vulpine's RRPs were/are ridiculous, and there just isn't much of a market for that high end casual commuting gear where you step off the bike into a meeting or whatever. If your commute is 2 or 3 miles, you really can just wear normal clothes, and loads of people do. If it's further, people wear "proper" cycling kit or gym kit with an Altura hi-viz jacket over the top.

Matthewfalle

Those sale prices are fine.

The RRP prices are an utter rip off, however t seems that some people are happy to and will pay them (Chapeau, etc). But not for Vulpine.

hopkinb

Matthewfalle wrote:

Those sale prices are fine.

The RRP prices are an utter rip off, however t seems that some people are happy to and will pay them (Chapeau, etc). But not for Vulpine.

I got 2 l/s thermal Chapeau jerseys with matching socks for £90. Never pay RRP. It's just some polyester after all.

Matthewfalle

Farcical.