News

Simon Biltcliffe- Webmart - 28 October 2008

Tricky spot when you have a few large clients and one goes. Strength in breadth.

Simon Biltcliffe

MD

WEBMART

www.webmartUK.com

Jason Blackall - 28 October 2008

Awful news, Mike & co have worked hard to get the business to where it is and then all of a sudden had the rug pulled from under them! I wish all the great people at DSR the best of luck for the future. I just hope the suppliers and everyone involved is also left in the same position DSR now find themselves in! Jason Blackall tel 01708 688 577 mob 07917 852 007 email jasonb@aimsearch.co.uk web www.aimsearch.co.uk

Struggling Printer - 28 October 2008

Of course it is a shame for all the staff there, but spare a thought for the suppliers. This deal effectively means the debts are pretty much wiped clean and I for one cannot stand such a loss. Where are they going to be without suppliers? Doubly concerned as well due to the track record of their 'external investor', as he didn't neccesarily make a good job of the Sky account. Yes I am talking about Mr Brundle. Welcome aboard.

I know you can't predict everything in life but the management team must take responsibility for their actions - all they do is keep piling more and more directors in there at what cost? Mine, it seems. Such a shame this is how it has turned out.

The Mighty wind - 28 October 2008

struggling printer wrote:

"This deal effectively means the debts are pretty much wiped clean and I for one cannot stand such a loss."

Not sure what you mean are you saying DSR has avoided paying suppliers? have they pre-packed or what?

Brian Simms - 28 October 2008

Let's hope Brundle doesn't take DSR down the same route as he did with Wace!

Struggling Printer - 28 October 2008

Yes, pre-packed so much of the debt has been wiped off. A couple of other suppliers have contacted us to ask what our exposure is - between the three of us we are into £200k+ and I, for one, will struggle to keep all MY staff employed now.

Tanya Miller - 28 October 2008

Very touching Jason but I'm not sure its the right time for ass kissing. mwah mwah!

Ima Printa - 28 October 2008

Mike Naylor - if you think your unpaid suppliers are going to support your "aggressive program of growth" then you are very much mistaken - As an unpaid supplier myself I am telling you that you should be a very worried man indeed!

Tanya Miller - 28 October 2008

It is sad but if the debt is wiped then many, many other compaines could face problems or worse still, closed. In reality, most people at DSR who deal with accounts other than MFI will probably be fine... so the sympathy needs to be directed towards the suppliers.

The Mighty wind - 28 October 2008

Printweek should make clear that this company abdicated its responsibilities and pre-packed their way out of this mess, the article does not read that way [MFI pre-packed]. Showing suppliers such flagrant disregard reflects poorly on both DSR and brundle [for getting involved], for the management team to then discuss an "aggressive growth" programme displays a complete lack of business ethics and morality.

Simon Biltcliffe- Webmart - 28 October 2008

Jeez

As the Mighty Wind says, the original article paints a totally different picture from the blog. 

 If they have gone down the route of leaving their suppliers high & dry whilst another company has picked up all the assets at a discounted rate, how can it be right? Every pound that is not paid to the supplier weakens the print industry and increases the chance of more job losses.

Suppliers don't get all of the gain when their print was marked up & re-sold, so why should they take all of the pain when the end-user goes down? In the UK we have always prided ourself in our sense of fairness- where is this in our industry in 2008...

Simon Biltcliffe

MD

WEBMART Ltd.

www.webmartUK.com

Accountant to the print trade - 28 October 2008

Firstly I think its important for all concerned to realise that the real villians here are MFI primarily, and the bank secondly, who have shown DSR no support.

I understand that MFI were a client of DSR for over 10 years and no-one could predict the credit crunch hitting as it has done. MFI left DSR no choice other than to re-structure.

The current economic climate is bleek and the situation that DSR have found themselves in is extremely tough. Perhaps suppliers should consider the increased revenue that DSR has given them through the MFI contract over the past 10 years rather than the current outstanding amount.

May I say that the 'aggressive growth programme' comment was probably insensitive from the CEO of DSR.

I hope that all concerned can trade through this. I'm sure even tougher times are on the horison for the print trade.

The Mighty wind - 28 October 2008

In response to "accountant to the print trade"

Part of business is about managing risk and engendering trust [the "oil" of business], prepacking this company within hours of administration [most likely agreed beforehand] and with the original directors smells to high heaven and should be deplored. All within the industry are well aware of the economic problems [after all colin thompson berates us often enough].

Standing over destruction and saying we have too move on is not good enough, there has to be accountability otherwise trust breaks down. Two wrongs do not make a right and i hope the print sector as a whole fights back against this deplorable lack of morality.

are you the accountant at TPF

The Mighty wind - 28 October 2008

Simon

Increasingly liking your style

mark smith - 29 October 2008

It is all OK to berate 'pre pack deals, which by the way are fully planned weeks beforehand!!

But the people who dictate whether they succeed or not are the suppliers, paper suppliers have always been too greedy and supplied paper in the back door in plain wagons to phoenix companies, you can be sure they will be knocking on the door of all the printers they have just shafted to get work done!

just looking at the turn over I would guess that £1.5m plus will be owing to creditors..that will hurt other businesses and I hope they can survive.

Voice Of Reason - 29 October 2008

Given DSR's situation how would the company's creditors honestly deal with the situation themselves? Is it not first and foremost a responsibility to the employees of the company, to protect them and their own and to continue to trade?

I implore any employer in the industry to stand up and be counted and say they will pay their creditors before doing the best they can for their own staff and prospects. I address you specifically when I say, I'm sure your staff will be suitably comforted and relieved that their former suppliers are getting on fine whilst they, themselves, desperately search for a job leading up to Christmas and struggle to make their mortgage repayments.

In my humble opinion it is that DSR and it seems some of its suppliers, have made a fundamental error of judgement in how much they can afford to credit. If a single debtor owes you enough to put your business into administration, you have already made the mistake. If you take this risk be prepared to pay the ultimate price as no amount of mudslinging or sour grapes will get you out of it. If you are a supplier of DSR closing because you can't afford to pay your own creditors then by berating DSR you are berating yourselves. If you have been able to continue trading then your acumen should be applauded.

It is academic but factual nonetheless that, given a better fiscal climate, banks would have been fighting to offer a helping hand to such a successful and fast growing business. Maybe we should all consider this unfortunate situation and let it serve as a warning to exercise suitable caution in our own business affairs in these uncertain economic times.

mark smith - 29 October 2008

good point voice of reason...never let any individual customer get over 20% of turnover and never let terms get past 30 days!

It is VITAL to control who you act as a FREE bank to!

Struggling Printer - 29 October 2008

I understand your sentiment, Voice of Reason, but it is easier said than done to 'never let terms get past 30 days'. Too few people in this industry pay to 30 days - that's just the reality many of us face. However, it becomes a different story when they then take their x% rebate off the bill without paying to the terms under which the rebate is agreed! When you challenge them they pretty much tell you if you want to continue having this level of turnover that's the way it is. It is practices like this that give PM companies a bad name and we were simply unable to replace them quick enough with 'good' clients. We probably won't close comlpetely, but will need to lose around 7-10 jobs or take a company-wide pay cut \(which my loyal staff will probably allow) - but the question should be asked - has the DSR board took a big pay cut themselves to try and generate cash to pay some of the suppliers? It's the underhandedness I think is unfair.

I'm not looking for sympathy as I am certainly not the only one in this position, but object to the spin the CEO puts on this story, hiding the facts and talking of aggresive growth, whilst at the same time dumping the debt of the suppliers that have supported them in the past. Without some big changes at the top, I don't see how they expect any suppliers to trust them in the future.

Accountant to the print trade - 29 October 2008

To 'The Mighty Wind' - thankfully I'm not the accountant at TPF.

'Voice of reason' - At last!! - no further comments required.

Ima Printa - 29 October 2008

As a supplier you manage your risk based on information provided....hmmmm!

Struggling Printer - 29 October 2008

...and before you say anything, Voice of Reason, I know it wasn't you that said the '30 day comment'! I'm not having a go at anyone and you have all made very useful points, but can't help thinking this shouldn't be allowed to happen whilst the same people continue to live their life...

Ima Printa - 29 October 2008

can we now start naming and shaming all dsr staff who worked on the mfi account,

i for one do not want them to live there life as if nothing has happened.

i feel an investigation coming on........lets hope so.

assuming all paper suppliers are not going to support the new venture and its backers ? we will be checking!

Struggling Printer - 29 October 2008

I don't really think it is useful to name and shame the staff working on the MFI account as it was not them that got DSR into this position. If there is any naming and shaming going on it should be the people running the company for not being as open as they could have been when describing how there company is trading.

I understand the need to be positive to the outside world but the practise of finding and placing jobs with suppliers that haven't put them on stop right up to a few days before administration shows a complete lack of regard. Their own print company put them on stop weeks ago and they kept finding and placing work with unsuspecting printers all over the place to try and keep going, even though they must have known they would be unable to pay the debt. If anyone needs to be shameful, it should be the CEO and his cohorts, not the \(most probably) innocent 'lower' members of staff.

Neil Taylor - 29 October 2008

As someone who suffered myself due to a bad debt then saw the company phoenix within hours, my thoughts are only with the suppliers of DSR.

Simon B is right, how can this be fair and just? But anyone like myself who has spent vast sums of money chasing such debts knows the law is an arse and the same people keep popping up. Time for a national register of such people - printweek, thoughts??

Maybe DSR were over reliant on MFI but consider Lehman Bros or XL. How many print companies would have questioned giving credit to these blue chip clients? There but for the grace of god....

30 day terms - that will be the day. What printer isn't a bank by any other name? I am letting certain clients go where their track record of payment is abysmal to minimise the risk of a future bad debt only for competitors to be bending over backwards to win the business. When will we ever learn?

Aimsearch, not sure you are not just touting for potential business... Great people, maybe - honourable, lets hope so.

Tanya Miller - like your style.

Good luck all DSR suppliers in surviving the upcoming tough times. I wish you the best.

PS. I guess this means all existing management contracts held by DSR are defunct so perhaps you should go direct??

Voice Of Reason - 29 October 2008

"Speak your truth quietly and clearly;

and listen to others,

even to the dull and the ignorant;

they too have their story."

I apologise on behalf of Ima Printa.

I would advise any printer to exercise as much caution with DSR Group Ltd as they did with DSR Print Management Ltd and indeed any other debtor they have. The problems that DSR, and consequently their creditors have faced are products of their own failings. To blame, if you choose to blame, is to look inwardly. Is it not your choice to who you credit and to who you indebt your company to? If you insist on a witch hunt then should the buck not stop at MFI, is the retail industry not the cause, are they impervious to blame? In fact, does the blame not rest with us as the consumers, should we have bought more furniture?

I think it is naive to assume that everyone at DSR is laughing behind their hands as they appear to be the same situation as many suppliers further down the chain. Is it not normal in these situations for jobs to be lost, who is to say they won't be? I understand what you are saying Struggling Printer but faced with no alternative but to not supply your customers and effectively roll over and admit defeat, is to relinquish the responsibility you have to your employees and their dependants. In that situation, after the mistakes had been made, I doubt that moral obligation was subverted, just that clearly not everyone can get away with it. It's not personal in business and I have not yet heard anyone say that they would pay their creditors before they look after their own company's interests. Would you?

Albeit my opinion, it seems fairly obvious to me that MFI deliberately stacked that debt to take advantage of an obvious restructure. Did DSR do the same? Not for my money. As a PM company and effectively a middle man, how could they strategise for something they clearly had no information on. My best guess is that DSR tried to secure funding after the bad debt to continue operation. Due to the current climate they were unable to do so and therefore took the only option they had left.

Good luck to all involved.

lordof weboffset - 29 October 2008

To look at a few facts here, neither MFI nor DSR broke the law. What they did was morally wrong, but not illegal. Maybe we need to get the law changed.

Word is however reaching me that DSR had their credit insurance for MFI withdrawn some months ago, but DSR continued as normal. Was what has happened, their insurance policy?

I call upon all web offset printers not to supply the new DSR.

Many suppliers will lose out on this, 2 of which are web offset, and consequently will lose big. Both have featured on print weeks pages within the last week related to other stories. One won a recent print award, and the other is selling half its business.

Some companies need to look at the credit facilities they offer print management companies. Director's guarantees could be the way forward. It all has a very nasty smell to it, and we need to learn lessons. It certainly will not help the print management companies, maintain there reputation, or will it?

The Mighty wind - 29 October 2008

The voice of reason writes:

"If a single debtor owes you enough to put your business into administration, you have already made the mistake. If you take this risk be prepared to pay the ultimate price as no amount of mudslinging or sour grapes will get you out of it."

Of course DSR did not pay the ultimate price they pre-packed and left others with the bill, whilst they announced an "aggressive growth program".

Struggling Printer - 29 October 2008

Perhaps they are not planning on having so much reliance on the suppliers that have supported them in the past, as clearly Brundle will be dictating tht his plant is filled as I am told he is the majority shareholder.

Apart from that, any normal person would have an issue being told mfi ARE insured \(which gives some comfort in supplying DSR) only to find out afterwards they effectively had NO insurance. You shouldn't be able to mislead people like that and get away with it.

I am a pragmatist and realise things don't always go to plan, but it is a dangerous line to walk when you deliberately mislead people - and then dump them. They knew they were going to pre-pack at LEAST a week before it was done, probably longer, yet they still placed orders with suppliers they had neither the intention or ability to honour.

Brian Simms - 29 October 2008

I would imagine that Mr Brundle has plenty of capacity to offer DSR, considering the Sky account loss

Jason Blackall - 29 October 2008

PrintCoBoss - 29 October 2008

We credit insure all our customers. When insurance cover is removed this acts as a red flag and we immediately stop taking on work from that customer until we know how we are going to be paid.

This is good business practice.

By working this way we know we will not suffer from bad debt and will always be able to pay our creditors.

If we are losing money for other reasons we cahnge our business model. We make redundancies, sell equipment, charge more, look for new business etc.

When DSR had their credit insurance cover removed on MFI they could have stopped taking their work on a credit basis. They are not a manufacturer and, although not a pleasant or easy task, could have made redundancies to reduce their overheads and not put their own, or their suppliers, businesses at risk.

Instead they chose to ignore the red flag from their insurers and arrogantly continued to supply MFI.

At this stage they started playing with their suppliers money rather than their insurers or their own. This is not only not good business practice but irresponsible and very unfair to their suppliers.

The director's of DSR should not be allowed to run a business is they cannot make simple business decisions like "my insurers think this customer is a bad bet, shall I continue to supply them at the risk of my suppliers without telling my suppliers of this change in policy".

It is interesting to note that businessmen in the public eye who have made serious errors of judgement recently no longer have jobs \(look at the banking industry and their executives) - it is a shame that the same does not apply to less public figures especially when they have been a lot closer to the decision making processes.

The Mighty wind - 29 October 2008

PrintCoBoss

The true voice of reason at last

Alan Partridge - 29 October 2008

Brian you just beat me to it re your point about the hole in TPF left by the loss of Sky. Hasn't it all worked out well for Mr Brundle? He now has whatever revenue he can salvage from DSR's client list, to pump into his now struggling site. Of course, as everyone rightly points out, all DSR's suppliers will be left high and dry, but I'm sure Mr B will be able to talk his way around that little issue easily enough.....and still have suppliers throwing credit at TPF.

I know I wouldn't give them a dime of credit even if the score came back positive, but many will continue to do so and pay the price. - And guess what, I bet we'll all be having this same discussion again in the not too distant future.

Gary Smith - 29 October 2008

Some very wise words above - if you can't get credit - get a guarantaur - if you can't, pre-payment . If you can't get that - don't trade! Simple as that!

I don't approve of the whole pre-pack scenario, it's just simply not fair on the end supplier, there needs to be tougher regulation to stop these situations arising and letting the same directors, trade from the same premesis whilst offloading the debt. I only hope that their suppliers, and in fact everyone else reading this blog, have learnt from it! Now go and check you clients credit ratings and outstanding dept to ensure you're not the next headline story in PrintWeek - If you don't learn from this you probably won't and then you have to think - do you desearve to be in business!

Someone above mentions "...trust being 'the oil' of business"..., if you've been left debt then don't trade with these directors again or you only have yourselves to blame - treat yourselves with respect!

I also like the idea of a database of names of failed directors who leave bad debt etc- but PrintWeek should not be that resource holder. I would suggest a body like the BPIF who could easily circulate and provide this information to members, no doubt non-members would probably hear through the grapevine.

We've got to start pulling together and sharing and pooling this kind of information to help ensure we're all around trading in the years to come. I for one would not want one of my valued supplier go this way!

Gary Smith - Redactive Print Managment

Tessie Tenton - 29 October 2008

Well commented Mr Partridge, I could not agree with you more!

Gary Smith - 29 October 2008

Please find two links from Printweek on this subject of pre-pack deals.

http://www.printweek.com/news/848639/Moral-hazard-evident-rise-pre-packs/

http://www.printweek.com/news/782015/Spate-admin-sparks-pre-pack-debate/

If you feel strongly enough to want change, what would you would like to see changed and other relating suggestions? Add them to this blog, all I can say is they are being watched!

Get everyone you know whose been affected to add their comments and propsed ideas to stop this practice on this blog.

We want finacially secure suppliers and suppliers want trustworthy clients - It's time for a change!

Peter Kiddell - 29 October 2008

This topic stirred up a great deal of responses. As a provider of any service or product we have to carry out official and unofficial risk assessments on all new and existing clients. These risk assessments don't have to be sophisticated, talk to delivery drivers and sales reps that can be gossip encyclopaedias.

If an insurance company will not cover the risk neither should we unless you have personal guarantees from directors who are solvent.

Increasing numbers of brokers and management companies are at risk and printers are too far away from end users to discover the truth about their status. Despite what the government may say banks will be removing support from companies at risk particularly if their only collateral is a customer list. Banks are carrying out credit assessments at head office where local managers are being called in to justify lines of credit to their customers. A company's future can hang on a 5 minute presentation by their bank manager. That is scary, a real case of death by PowerPoint.

On 20th November PRISM is running a conference in Luton where one of the main topics is Print Management Threat or Opportunity. Simon Biltcliffe of Webmart is one of the presenters. Come along and hear what is said by presenters and audience. Is should be very interesting.

NDCT - 29 October 2008

A few years ago, DSR phoned us up just before Christmas, desperate for a specialist job for Iceland \(the shop). We had never done anything for them before and agreed to get the job done and shipped in return for payment on invoice.

SIX MONTHS LATER - and endless chasing and letters, we got the cash - but they deliberately didn't pay the Late Payment interest charged.

Why am I not sorry now?

Oh, and I thought we'd got over people coming on here peddling their wares every time a company goes under. Conferences, PM, job search.......shameless!

NDCT - 29 October 2008

And my point is.....

Don't give your profits away to middle men!

Don't support phoenix companies!

A Gesture of Illogic - 30 October 2008

Well, well, well. I have followed this with a bit of interest. Where shall I start? How about the, so called "Voice of Reason". You gave away an interesting little nugget of information in your second post. You speak of MFI stacking debt against DSR. I have not been able to find any other reference to this in my research. I wonder how you have access to this information. I am trying to think which of the 50 directors there would have the arrogance to quote Max Ehrman at us and then go on to apologise for someone else, but I am struggling to narrow it down.

If this is the case however, the difference between MFI and DSR is that MFI were exploiting a lack of business acumen and management ineptitude, whereas DSR just decided to openly LIE to their suppliers about their financial situation. A thought occurs, why don't the two "new" companies of MFI Group and DSR Group get together and have a long and fruitful business relationship. Maybe they could call themselves MDF RSI Group. Cheap chipboard furniture for w***ers. At least they know how each other works.

On to the actual article. A quote by Mr Naylor:

"Until faced with the unexpected financial problems of one of our largest customers, we had a profitable and growing business. Consequently we took the decision to restructure. This will enable us to support our planned aggressive programme of growth, whilst retaining the major asset of our existing workforce and taking into consideration the current and future financial climate."

Keywords there: Unexpected, existing workforce. I am deliberately ignoring the aggressive programme of growth thing as I want to keep this as short as possible. Unexpected then, if others are to be believed, not quite. From what has been said above and alluded to by Mr V Reason this came as not too great a surprise. Unless the management can be surprised by something that happened to them the week before. Hmmmm.

Second, existing workforce. By the merry disregard that has been shown for their "valued" suppliers the workforce staying on seems to be a happy by-product of the upper echelons frantically saving their skins. These are the people who have made all the business decisions that have led to the predicament they are in now. Surely someone is responsible?

One last thing. For a company who experienced "unexpected financial problems" they had a new website up pretty quick. Some people must have worked though the night on that one.

Struggling Printer - 30 October 2008

Surely the new business model still isn't sustainable? They WERE an £18m company, now a £12m company with the loss of MFI, assuming they keep/re-sign all their contracts across to the new DSR. In fact, apart from keeping the same people at the top \(who have admitted don't seem to have much in the way of foresight), they have only added to their problems by having Mr Brundle take them over.

Surely any serious client would look at how DSR has performed/is performing, look at how badly Mr Brundle's is now doing now he has lost third/half of his work, and run a mile?

Their good staff \(and there are some good ones) have started leaving and I know many others desperate to get out. I don't think this is the end of this story, although I do believe it is the beginning of the end of DSR as it was known. Problem is that even having so many directors, without control \(which Brundle has now), they couldn't help themselves now anyway by trying to do a 'proper' sale or merger with a successful business. The suppliers, staff and their clients can only surely continue to suffer a slow decline...

Up North Printer - 30 October 2008

-

Up North Printer - 30 October 2008

DISHONEST

DISGRACEFUL

DISASTROUS FOR US SUPPLIERS

Voice Of Reason - 30 October 2008

Apologies if the quote has upset the more sensitive amongst us, it was just an anecdote to excuse Ima Printa's rash and unfair post.

Congratulations on you apparent knowledge of inspirational prose!

In all seriousness though, Mr Illogical, thank you. I am flattered that my opinion has been mistaken as fact. I am clearly referring to the "nugget of information" you claim to have exposed. So, just a few facts that lead to the formulation of that opinion \(<<bold and underlined). MFI's long term future and solvency have been in question for me since the buyout for a pound headline. They have made redundancies and restructured to the nth degree desperately trying to compete and save their business in what is a tough and highly competitive oligopoly. If you truly see my observation as insight then I have given you too much credit already.

A Voice of Reason was just meant to express a more dispassionate thought as most of the statements are slating DSR and/or their employee's. A devil's advocate, yes? The truth is, if any of us got into this situation and we were offered a way out by an investor we would take it. Thus is human nature, a demonstration of our inherent survival instincts. Such is our imperfect makeup, we make mistakes and subsequently we ask for forgiveness. I don't expect everyone to have the capacity to take this view, but by offering it, I am encouraging everyone to understand what it must be like to be faced with the problem. This may be pertinent, as many people have rightfully suggested is this thread, this undoubtedly will not be an isolated case.

I have no information on lies about insurance so I really can't treat it as fact. If this were the case, I have been careful not to approve and it goes without saying that it is not just. I show DSR the same compassion as I do everyone else in the retail supply chain that has been negatively affected. As someone mentioned, referring to DSR doing as MFI have done, "two wrongs do not make a right". I am simply pointing out that this is applicable to every situation, not just the ones which are in support of your own ambition.

Voice of Reality - 30 October 2008

Voice of Reason - utter tosh -

its human nature to act deceitfully!

- it is an inherent survival instinct to cover your own backside!

You may be correct in the land of low level PM but I fear you are more from the land of the fairies!

Jon Fennell - 30 October 2008

TPF/DSR or Brundle/DSR.

This story isn't over yet, wonder what the next prepack will be?

Use CI, the way things are going its the difference between alive or dead.

30 days for all should become the rule.

The only other problem is how many clients will be left that are credit worthy.

Gary Smith - 30 October 2008

...in reply to: 'Not Colin Thompson' I must admit that it's a bit shamless peddling your wares like this. Besides, also talking about middlemen in a generalistic way also shows your ignorance... happy to discuss further in real name terms, as I've always done, and not hide behind silly names. Privately or on the blog.

Now lets start doing something constructive to help resolve the problems... That said how do we stop this? who do we need to speak to? what needs to be done? let's hear constructive entries / suggestions on how we stop this?, stop the mud slinging! And let's all start to work together rather than against...

Gary Smith

Redactive Print Management

A part of the Redactive Media Group

The Mighty wind - 30 October 2008

Gary Smith wrote the following

"That said how do we stop ethis who do we need to speak to , what needs to be done, let's hear constructive entries how we stop this, stop the mud slinging! And let's all start to work together rather than against... "

Happy to discuss this but I am hiding behind a silly name and so my view cannot count!!

NDCT - 30 October 2008

Gary:

1. I haven't peddled any wears \(or even 'wares') - hopefully that part of your post wasn't aimed at me.

2. I stand by my advice not to give profits away to middle-men. You think printers should give their profits away, then????

3. Nothing I have said so far could be construed as 'mud slinging'.

4. To solve the problem you need to go back to New Labour and get them to amend the Enterprise Act 2000. Prior to that, if a company became insolvent, a liquidator was duty bound to do the best s/he could for the CREDITORS. New Labour changed all that and made it incumbent on an administrator to PRESERVE JOBS. That has led to a situation where all that directors / administrators have to say is that a Pre-Pack has preserved jobs and they are in the clear. Of course, they don't consider how many other jobs are going to be lost down the line as the creditor / supplier companies fall over. I am more than happy that 'saving of jobs' should have fair consideration when a company gets into difficulty, but in my view it is being abused by some directors / owners of failed companies.

Jon Fennell - 30 October 2008

Suppliers have the ultimate say on this, its up to them not to deal.

As much as CI is a pain as it tells us what we dont want to hear, it also sends the early warning, and allows informed choices. If a client is having problems and are being genuine, pre payment or a re payment plan can be put together which either allows for reduction in CI level OR enables continued trading on a low CI at reduced risk.

I find it hard to believe DSR didn't know MFI were in trouble unless they failed to observe or ignore CI levels, if this was the case how could they ever be trusted.

If you look at other pre packs it seems that more than a few of the users are somewhat 'iffy' and some of the connected names to pre pack even 'iffier'.

Its up to the pre packs to convince us they are being straight and put their money where their mouth is.

The suppliers should behave like the guardians of the common good as they ultimately are protected 3rd party and paper merchants alike.

Perhaps pre pack should be discussed by all that could affected and a collective decision made on the risk.

BRIAN GRAY - 30 October 2008

I am sorry for all involved particularly the suppliers. Sad times.

ABC XYZ - 30 October 2008

They say you get what you deserve in this life, so perhaps an impromptu marriage with Mr B is just desserts.

richard morse - 31 October 2008

This is no surprise to me, met with the dsr people in July when they pinched our largest account. I was totally flabbergasted at how they could sell at such cheap prices and then try to offer us the opportunity to continue to supply via them. Cheeky bastards! They were not nice people and I wanted nothing to do with them - so, I closed my company after 19 years! I was not willing to help them continue in business as bullies of my company so I went into voluntary liquidation rather than work with them. All my creditors will be paid in full because I stopped trading before I was insolvent, but this was brought about by dsr's unbelievable pricing. Why on Earth did our industry let these print management companies flourish? They bring nothing to the table and are merely opportunists who prey on feeble and scared companies who don't have the balls to tell them no!

Tanya Miller - 31 October 2008

Unreal set of circumstances. And they said that "sky" was the limit for Brundle... apparently not.

The Mighty wind - 31 October 2008

Who services the MFI account now, I would not be surprised to find that DSR/TPF are still servicing that account.

Jon Fennell - 31 October 2008

Richard, sorry to hear of your demise.It should be remembered that TPF and DSR, either were or are manufacturers as well a managers. The PM debate has been over done, and not all operate the same way. Its like arguing a case for 1 insurance company being a good fit for all against confused.com. and its list of insurance companies. This deal makes for a bad smell, all suppliers should be watching this and cutting risk.

Gary Smith - 31 October 2008

HI 'Not Colin Thompson',

Let's despense with the fake names, (Printweek.com - how about it?), As for anyone peddling wares - (...why I'm a print buyer not proof reader - thanks for the heads up!), it sounded like it to me - but anyway - I believe Any company in this industry deserves to make a fair margin, as anyone who deals with us know we give our suppliers an opportunity to submit prices and a chance if to review we don't go down or approve off the dutch auction model.

Point 4 is very good, and perhaps somewhere we as a industry should be highlighting to Government what this adjustment has perhaps opened a can of worms and in fact could end up costing more jobs than saving?

Maybe something the BPIF or such like industry body could help Lobby the Government on?

richard morse - 31 October 2008

Jon, thanks for what you wrote. Don't be too sorry about me because I saw the future very clearly and got out while I was still ahead, just! The difference between my company and the company that we are all writing about, it would appear, is that I stopped trading as soon as I was certain that I would not be able to meet my obligations if I continued. No brainer really! All my creditors are secure 100%. But certainly not the way I wanted to end my working career at the young age of 61. Anyway, DSR may pick up a horrid bad debt from the customer they won from us, share price down from 123p to 2 p, and losing a bomb. Just posted losses of £48M. I am sure that the good guys will all come out of this economic mess with some benefit in 3 to 4 years time.

Charles Whalley - 31 October 2008

I wonder where this will leave Printhaus \(presumably a large 'supplier' to DSR and certainly working from the same premises)?

Assuming most suppliers have been hit with a thumping bad debt - do we assume that Printhaus is in the same boat?

Kelly Harris - 31 October 2008

Charles, your assumption is correct in that Printhaus are in the same boat and will also be hit with a 'thumping bad debt' - although I have no specific intelligence on this, I suspect we will be the largest trade creditor.

However, as a totally independent company with no common shareholders or directors \(take note Mr Fennell) we have been able to insure the debt.

Furthermore, I'm pleased to say that over the last 8 months our strategy of reducing our dependency on a handful of customers has resulted in sales to DSR in October representing less than 5% of the month's turnover.

I can therefore assure you Charles \(and other customers) that it is very much business as usual at Printhaus!

If anyone wants to know more then they can contact me on 01604 499444 or kelly.harris@printhaus.co.uk

Struggling Printer - 01 November 2008

No-one wants Printhaus \(or any supplier) to be struggling as a result of the suspect management team at DSR, but let's be honest seeing as you brought it up, surely "sales to DSR in October representing less than 5% of the month's turnover" was more due to the fact they were on stop for most of October? Am wondering, out of interest, what was July's and August's...?

If it was indeed at a similar 5% level you probably have a lot less to worry about because it will mean you are probably less than £100k exposure; but if you reckon you are probably the largest creditor \(which would mean £400k+) you must be averaging around 30-40% for the months you were trading with them.

Not that it is that important here, but you brought it up... that said, I hope Printhaus continues its good work and stays alive through this troubling time. I bet the shareholders feel the same way, especially as one of them stands to lose a packet on DSR going bust.

Kelly Harris - 01 November 2008

Struggling Printer.

I don't intend going into specifics, but the strategies we have employed throughout the year have both reduced sales to DSR significantly \(not just while they were on stop) whilst at the same time increased overall turnover.

mark smith - 01 November 2008

There is one issue at the heart of all this..companies are always going to go bust on suppliers. The only difference is the frequency of it!

A business MUST be build to be able to withstand it \(even though it may hurt) but it is going to happen.

When companies are in trouble they will lie and bullshit to the very last in the hope of survival.

The only way to protect your self is not to get 'overexposed' keep any individual customer to less than 20% of turnover and only give credit to 30 days.

The bottom line is:

If any business owner/manager is not doing this they are putting them selves and their company at risk \(and employees and supplier)

Jon Fennell - 03 November 2008

Mr Harris,

Not sure why you have singled me out on this one!!

I didn't link you to DSR, you came under 'were', and its good to know you are covered on CI.

jayne harley - 04 November 2008

im just a little fish about to lose my job at the grimsby site and havent been told hardly anything, ive learnt alot more reading your commets. im gutted im losing my job right before Christmas. Im not a manager or anything and have seen for myself how badly managed the Grimsby site is its a JOKE never worked in such a badly managed place in my life.

jayne harley - 04 November 2008

I do know we made 1.5 milion profit last year wondering how much it would of been if we got all what was owed to and if we would of stayed productive had these customers paid up. Our lil town is going to be a ghost town after Christmas and my only consolation is my needs arent great