Report this comment to a moderator

Freshfields, Linklaters advise on Woolies administration

Uncharitable and not well said.. tosh.... ''Date: 27-Nov-2008 @ 14:28PM'' ''From: Anonymous'' ''As far as appealing to Darling, the government have declined to get involved as the collapse is the result of systemic failures in the business model rather than as a result of the credit-crunch fall-out.'' That is well thought out and at a complete tangent to the proposal -to rescue those shops with profitable potential- your comment completely ignores the cost and misery created by the unemployment of 30,000 weekly wage earners as we near the dead of winter. You heartless wretch. It would seem a given that the Directors in Woolworths have dismally failed to grasp the basics of their own business, but to suggest that it has nothing whatever to do with the banking financial meltdown is simple minded. For anyone in Government to suggest the two events are unconnected is typical political quackery. ''Hoping that Woolworths could carry on through is simply wishful thinking, and blaming the law firms involved in the administration solves nothing.'' Agreed that the prospect of Woollies shuffling onward is wishful thinking and I doubt anyone would be so clueless as to offer that board of Directors another shot at ignominy. A restructured reduced organization could salvage a heap of jobs and if clever clogs and pals were to apply the brains they are being paid to use , a formula could be hacked out in a few days.. Now that would be money well spent on top tier lawyers.. They typically manage during the odd weekend here and there to salvage ruined banks who are no less at fault for their own demise.. As to blame, methinks you read too fast, where does my comment suggest 'blame'? Perhaps I failed to properly describe my thoughts; for that I apologize. The intent was to point out that top tier firms with huge overheads were being brought in to bury Woolworths, a job more effectively done by a less expensive organization of grave diggers, thereby leaving more residual fund for the creditors /shareholders. No blame just mildly stunned by the blatant waste of money. Your rise to defend the 'law firms' has a sense of insider thinking gone astray, perhaps stung being linked to one or other law firm now in the fray? In any event , as you raise blame, why not blame someone for something that has gone terribly wrong, seemingly in a matter of days, ho hum? There are lessons to be learned and often that requires a degree of public blameworthiness and opprobrium. As we all know business is founded in two arcane worlds: accounting and law, it's moot which is more blameworthy and why should we be deprived of a bit of blaming? Pip pip

27-Nov-2008

5:15 pm