Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I don't entirely understand why it matters if the clothes are boring, safe or bland.

I like casual, comfortable clothes. My only style requirements are nice colours and a shape that suits and fits me. It doesn't matter to me if they're bland, because I don't expect my clothes to define who I am, speak for me or express my individuality. I tend to think that's what my personality is for.


Is that just me?

to be fair I did pick up on that line in the report as well - but then just got caught up in the far less taxing debate on shades of a shadow


I don't know if the question is "is the fact that WS are seeking extra cash a sign that they are in trouble?" or is the question "is this the moment when WS jump the shark?" (see also GBK and further back in time Hogshead pubs. I remember when there were one or maybe two Hogsead bars in existance - lovely they were - then the concept was rolled-out and bastardised into a hussy version of it's former self)


In any case I don't think they are in trouble but they MIGHT be about to jump the shark. Having defended them a few times on here I have to say that recent lines aren't a patch on what they were a couple of years ago. Chasing the larger market does seem to have meant a more predictable selection.

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry Macroban, but it appears that people are

> more happy discussing the pros and cons of clothes

> rather than the imminent (or not) demise of the

> retail sector.

>

> Head in the sand and all that jazz.


In my defence, since this thread started as a general discussion about the shop and what people think about it, chatting about clothes was hardly going off topic.


You could even go so far as to say it was macroban who took it off topic, and into all too familiar territory for him, by steering towards a discussion about the demise of the retail sector. Again.


But I'll play along. The company was founded in 1985 and in the 20 years since then has grown to 49 stores and a mailorder business. According to the Telegraph link they aim to open a further 26 stores (bringing the total to 75) in the next three years. It doesn't take a business genuis to work out that, if they acheive their aims, their rate of growth will have increased considerably. So, I would agree with Sean, if you take their statements at face value it looks like they're about to stop being a cool, sucessful, small chain we're allowed to like and become a dirty, big chain that we're obliged to hate ;-)


Moos, much more interested in what you said that was so offensive....

I like WS. I go for a wander in there every once in a while, like amnesiac unaware of identical previous visits - see window display, walk in enthusiastically, look at the clothes, smile, look at price tags, sigh, walk out again.


If we're on about staying on topic, shouldn't we be discussing the forthcoming opening of white stuff ;-)

  • 1 month later...

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry Macroban, but it appears that people are

> more happy discussing the pros and cons of clothes

> rather than the imminent (or not) demise of the

> retail sector.

>

> Head in the sand and all that jazz.


David, spending my Sunday working on a client budget in preparation for a Price Waterhouse audit, I look to the forum for a little light relief.


Because the imminent demise of the retail sector is of interest to you doesn't mean that other people want to chat about it. "Head in the sand" could be considered a rather self-important way of looking at the fact that other people prefer to talk about skinny jeans

RosieH


Have you REALLY resurrected a month+ old thread just to point out that a post by david_carnell, which had several replies (and thus negating your whole point), is a post that no-one is interested in? (and thus negating your whole point)


if you are looking for light-relief there must be more obvious threads than this...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • "What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ???" Why is it perceived, Reeves is responsible for doubling the "black hole" to £20b through the public sector pay increases. You can't live beyond your means and when you try you go bankrupt pdq. In 4 yrs time if this Govt survives that long and the country doesn't go bust before then, in 2029 I dread to think the state the country will be in.  At least Sunak and co had inflation back to 2% with unemployment being stable and not rising.   
    • He seemed to me to be fully immersed in the Jeremy Corbyn ethos of the Labour Party. I dint think that (and self describing as a Marxist) would have helped much when Labour was changed under Starmer. There was a purge of people as far left as him that he was lucky to survive once in my opinion.   Stuff like this heavy endorsement of Momentum and Corbyn. It doesn't wash with a party that is in actual government.   https://labourlist.org/2020/04/forward-momentum-weve-launched-to-change-it-from-the-bottom-up/
    • I perceive the problem.simply as spending too much without first shoring up the economy.  If the government had reduced borrowing,  and as much as most hate the idea, reduced government deiartment spending (so called austerity) and not bowed to union pressures for pay rises, then encouraged businesses to grow, extra cash would have entered the coffers and at a later stage when the economy was in a stronger position rises in NI or taxes would have a lesser impact, but instead Reeves turned that on its head by increasing ni which has killed growth, increased prices and shimmied the economy.  What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ???     
    • That petition is bananas.   If you want a youth centre there pay the landlord the same rent a Londis would and build it yourself or shut the f**k up to be honest. Wasting our MPs time with this trivial nonsense is appalling. If your kids are still out at 1am on a school night you've got bigger problems than vapes and booze and hot sausage rolls. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...