Oyster Yachts

[Dockhead]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

I don't know how the laws work over there but in the US the company would declare bankruptcy, have the courts discharge all their liabilities from future suits, and then conduct business as usual. Not a big deal here. Maybe not quite that simple but thats the general jist.

Not that simple. In Chapter 11, the debts aren't discharged -- they are rescheduled, reorganized, written down -- with the agreement of the creditors. It's only possible if the creditors believe that the company can continue to operate and they will get more of their money back than if the company is liquidated. In Chapter 13, the company is broken up and the assets are sold off to pay the creditors. In neither case do you just get your debts discharged and get to keep your assets. The principles are the same in the UK.

In case the company is liquidated, the creditors might not have much use for assets like designs, so sometimes you can buy those back cheap. Different manipulations are possible in some cases.

In the case of Oyster, the trademarks and order book have value, assuming the order book isn't priced at a loss. The yard probably does not. One of the larger mass production makers might stump up for the trademarks.

It used to be that Oyster had its boats built by other companies -- Wind Boats and (was it Halmatic?). That way they didn't need to employ any of the work force and had minimal fixed costs. Seems like an excellent business model to me; I don't know why they changed it. Maybe someone knows something about it? Of course, Moody had been doing the same (using Marine Projects in Plymouth), but it didn't save them, so what do I know.

[Van Der Beek]

Originally Posted by Pizzazz

It is sad to see Oyster go down so suddenly. It had an exceptionally recognizable brand, at least in our circles. The private equity guys who bought it probably had no idea how to run it well but there is something wrong with the business model as well... we are at the peak of the economy, employment is high, there could not be a better time to spend a couple of million on a toy.

My take (may be generalizing) is that the demand for monohulls over 55-60 feet is shrinking rapidly: 1) too big to handle, need crew which is headache; 2) At those price levels and the cost of sails/maintenance/crew a powerboat becomes much more attractive (more room, faster, more comfort, probably cheaper to run; 3) a modern 50' cat is a better value than a 65' premium mono from every possible consideration. I just do not see real demand for these boats, even with the brand name.

It looks as if the market for large sailboats is taken over by the French with some leftovers for traditional cruisers (huge existing inventory to choose from), ocean racers (limited market, mostly custom these days) and some North European manufacturers.

There will always be a demand for 50+ foot sailboats, of course, the demand will go up and down, but that's nothing new.

The competition is murderous thou, used to be even worse in the past when there were even more builders around, the English have lost many great sailboat builders over the years.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Paul Elliott

And you think that creditors aren't victims too?

Your interpretation of my question is quite a leap. I wonder how you managed that?

[kmacdonald]

A case could be made that the Oyster failure is just another example of poor British engineering. Remember the MG's?

[SailsWithFists]

Originally Posted by Dockhead

It used to be that Oyster had its boats built by other companies -- Wind Boats and (was it Halmatic?). That way they didn't need to employ any of the work force and had minimal fixed costs. Seems like an excellent business model to me; I don't know why they changed it. Maybe someone knows something about it? Of course, Moody had been doing the same (using Marine Projects in Plymouth), but it didn't save them, so what do I know.

The proper way is for Company A to own the primary assets: name, trademarks, designs, proprietary data, intellectual property, etc.

Company B owns all of the other assets: the land, buildings, tools, equipment, vehicles, materials, etc. Company A, owns Company B.

Company C is the service company only and owns no assets, but provides the employees and is the FACE of the company, temporarily leasing the rights to the name and trademarks. Company A owns Company C.

Clients pay for the services of Company C. Company C pays it employees, Pays Company B for use of assets, and Company A the remainder of its profit.

Company A should always be flush with cash as it has no liabilities. Company B runs at a small profit and has minimal liabilities, with assets backing each liability. Company C only has liabilities which are paid via accounts receivable.

Since Company C is the Face of the business, and holds no assets, when it goes bankrupt, Company A simply restarts a new Company C and continues on, rehiring all of the laid off employees from the old Company C.

Now you know why large US and European companies never actually go bankrupt (besides other political factors.)

[a64pilot]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

A case could be made that the Oyster failure is just another example of poor British engineering. Remember the MG's?

Which in their day were very good, capable cars that had some brilliant engineering, remember Armstrong Shock absorbers for example?
The design just got old and they couldn’t keep up with Modern times, I have theories, but that’s all.

[Artif]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

A case could be made that the Oyster failure is just another example of poor British engineering. Remember the MG's?

The steam engine
Steam locomotive
First radio
First TV
or more recently
Carbon Fibre
The World Wide Web
Touch screens
SMS messaging
Graphene
Most of the Formula 1 teams
Land speed record
I guess us Brits should learn a thing or two about engineering

[Van Der Beek]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

A case could be made that the Oyster failure is just another example of poor British engineering. Remember the MG's?

Poor *English engineering.

Don't include the Scots and the Welsh and the Northern Irish saying British.

Oyster is English, as are most sailboat builders in Britain, both past and present.

Originally Posted by Artif

The steam engine
Steam locomotive
First radio
First TV
or more recently
Carbon Fibre
The World Wide Web
Touch screens
SMS messaging
Graphene
Most of the Formula 1 teams
Land speed record

Just because the English came up with it doesn't mean the quality of engineering is good.

Quality of engineering should most of the times be left to the Germans, no, not the tea drinking ones a.k.a. the Anglo-Saxons

You do make finer sailboats thou, no questioning that. Credit where credit's due.

[Artif]

Originally Posted by Van Der Beek

Poor *English engineering.

Don't include the Scots and the Welsh and the Northern Irish saying British.

Oyster is English, as are most sailboat builders in Britain, both past and present.



Just because the English came up with it doesn't mean the quality of engineering is good.

Quality of engineering should most of the times be left to the Germans, no, not the tea drinking ones a.k.a. the Anglo-Saxons

I'm Cornish not english.
Being as I'm a Third party QA engineer who travels the world on behalf of clients, I can assure you that the Germans have just as many problems as the UK

[robert sailor]

Originally Posted by Van Der Beek

Poor *English engineering.

Don't include the Scots and the Welsh and the Northern Irish saying British.

Oyster is English, as are most sailboat builders in Britain, both past and present.



Just because the English came up with it doesn't mean the quality of engineering is good.

Quality of engineering should most of the times be left to the Germans, no, not the tea drinking ones a.k.a. the Anglo-Saxons

You do make finer sailboats thou, no questioning that. Credit where credit's due.

I'd give more points to the Japanese rather than Germans..when it comes to quality built products.

[Van Der Beek]

Germany does not have as many problems as England when it comes to quality issues of produced goods, same thing holds true for Sweden, another one of those formidable industrial nations. That said, it should be pointed out that quality have become worse in general thou, but that's not because of lack of know-how but more the result of a consumption society gone overboard, which is why many things today are not built to last but to break, as well as built to a price point rather than built to a standard. Look at cars, take a Mercedes Benz from mid 90's and compare it to one made today, the old one has far better build quality.

Edit.
Ah the Cornish, you are a special case.

Should actually be four countries in Britain, not three as it stands now. Perhaps you should go for independence as the Catalans are aiming for.

Edit2.
Just look at the English car industry, things got way better quality wise after the Germans moved in, same thing when it comes to Italian cars.

[weavis]

Originally Posted by Van Der Beek

Germany does not have as many problems as England when it comes to quality issues of produced goods, same thing holds true for Sweden, another one of those formidable industrial nations. That said, it should be pointed out that quality have become worse in general thou, but that's not because of lack of know-how, but more the result of a consumption society gone overboard, which is why many things today are not built to last but to break, as well as built to a price point rather than to a standard. Look at cars, take a Mercedes Benz from mid 90's and compare it to one made today, the old one has far better build quality.

Or a Ford Cortina 200e that I put 100K on with just basic maintenance. Or the Mini cooper which I rallied and never had to change engine. Or the Austin princess I had for 10 years...

[Artif]

Originally Posted by Van Der Beek

Germany does not have as many problems as England when it comes to quality issues of produced goods, same thing holds true for Sweden, another one of those formidable industrial nations. That said, it should be pointed out that quality have become worse in general thou, but that's not because of lack of know-how, but more the result of a consumption society gone overboard, which is why many things today are not built to last but to break, as well as built to a price point rather than to a standard. Look at cars, take a Mercedes Benz from mid 90's and compare it to one made today, the old one has far better build quality.

Edit.
Ah the Cornish, you are special case.

I guess we won't mention VW and their emissions work around
Six trips to Germany, 7 to S.Korea, 2 to Hungary 2 to Dubai and numerous trips around the UK last year alone, The S.Koreans are the ones to catch up with.
As an owner of a 90's mercedes and have just spent yesterday repairing it, if they have got worse they really must be terrible now.
My other car is a british classic, a Land rover defender which has an equal amount of problems to the merc

[Van Der Beek]

Originally Posted by Artif

I guess we won't mention VW and their emissions work around
Six trips to Germany, 7 to S.Korea, 2 to Hungary 2 to Dubai and numerous trips around the UK last year alone, The S.Koreans are the ones to catch up with.
As an owner of a 90's mercedes and have just spent yesterday repairing it, if they have got worse they really must be terrible now.
My other car is a british classic, a Land rover defender which has an equal amount of problems to the merc

One owner of a 90's Mercedes Benz having issues with his car doesn't disprove the fact that the quality of build was higher back than then it is today, and for reasons explained, and not just cars.

I didn't know the English had any car classics either, ok, they got a few.

Edit.
The emission issue doesn't suggest bad build quality either, it more suggests that there isn't much more that can be done with a technology that has been around for about a 100 years now, fuel consumption isn't helped much with cars getting heavier and heavier either.

[goat]

Originally Posted by arsenelupiga

whats wrong - i thought oysters are boats of unmatched quality ?

They can't sail faster than their theoretical hull speed.
=;^)=

goat