Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Borders files for bankruptcy


Jangler

Recommended Posts

http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2011/02/16/borders-bankruptcy-what-went-wrong/

Borders filed for bankruptcy protection today, turning what had been a business success story (small-town bookstore turns crazy successful national mega-retailer) into a cautionary tale.

Some of Borders’ problems weren’t the company’s fault. There are now hundreds of places to buy books online or in physical bookstores. That forces all book sellers to compete over price.

And, of course, Borders made a lot of mistakes, too: Ill-fated expansion plans, too many stores that lose money and being late to realize the popularity of electronic books.

Too Many Unprofitable Stores

This is a big lodestone. Borders is planning to close 200 or more of its stores -– about 30% of its current locations –- because too many stores lose money. Borders said the stores it plans to close are draining $2 million a week out of the company’s profits.

Borders said it “found that they…have a number of stores which are simply unprofitable and are substantially impacting the [company’s] overall performance and ability to pay their debts.” Borders said the store closures will leave the company with a “sizable core” of profitable stores.

Bad Economy and Changing Book Business

Borders said people have been less willing to spend money on optional purchases like books and music, and the company is facing more competition in book selling. Think about how many places now you can buy a physical or digital book – everywhere from the grocery store to Amazon.com to your mobile phone.

Borders also said the book retailing business has experienced little or no growth in recent years. And Borders is now forced to compete fiercely over price of books, DVDs and other goods it sells, even as people are buying more digital books, digital movies and music

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...