Crawshaw Share Discussion Threads

[drsmessguide] 15/7/2014 19:47

'shall we have beef, pork or chicken this weekend? Beef is a bit dear so its pork or chicken lets go to CRAW and fill our boots.' Is the discussion to be had TK :)

[davidosh] 15/7/2014 19:09

I suspect if meat prices rise in Crawshaw land then the general butchers lose business and Crawshaws cleverly tweek their multipack offerings so that they still sell as much and keep those gross margins at 44%. They probably sell more sausages, pork and chicken if beef were to get too expensive anyway.

You would need really large increases in ALL meat products before Crawshaw would see diminishing returns and customers become veggies !

[thekida] 15/7/2014 18:15

If meat prices start rising gengulphus housewifes stop buying, they buy cheaper cuts,daviddosh if prices rise housewifes buy less, volume drops.

TK

[davidosh] 15/7/2014 16:46

Crawshaws really and truly is not a standard high street or local butcher as can be seen from the video on their website. Their volume sales and bulk discounts are significantly higher so you cannot compare with the affect on a standard butcher if meat prices were to increase and I suspect the meat eaters of Yorkshire and midlands would go seeking out the value even more...it is likely to drive footfall into their shops even more.

[gengulphus] 15/7/2014 16:26

They were saying how little profit there was now in beef cattle, so that makes me think if the beef farmers reduce their herds and go into something else it will bound to put meat prices up ...

Agreed - up to the point where meat prices have risen enough that beef cattle produce a decent profit again.

... and reduce crawshaws profit.

Why? Meat prices going up means both wholesale and retail prices rising. Crawshaw's profits depend on the difference between the two and might end up going either up or down, depending on which goes up faster.

Meat prices going up in general might also result in less consumer demand for meat and so reduce volumes, for less profit from the same retail/wholesale price difference. But on the other hand, it might also make consumers concentrate more on finding meat bargains, which helps Crawshaw's volumes. And on the third hand, it might affect the supply situation that enables Crawshaw to get hold of the meat they sell at relatively low prices...

I can only conclude that the possible effects of high cattle feed prices on Crawshaw's business are complex and probably non-obvious!

Gengulphus

[thekida] 15/7/2014 16:00

Mock if you must but I know several farmers and if the profit isn't worth the effort they reduce and go into something else.
Having livestock is very time consuming and if theres no pot of gold they don't increase they get rid and that's the point the Beef farmers at the great Harrogate show were making.

TK

[shanklin] 15/7/2014 15:44

Yes, I'm sure every butcher in the country will be going out of business :-)

[thekida] 15/7/2014 15:27

Well the great Yorkshire show has just been held in Harrogate last week and "beef" farmers were getting interviewed on the telly, they were complaining how much the price of feed had gone up along with other things needed to bring the beast on.
They were saying how little profit there was now in beef cattle, so that makes me think if the beef farmers reduce their herds and go into something else it will bound to put meat prices up and reduce crawshaws profit.

TK

[gengulphus] 15/7/2014 12:38

Gengulphus, I understand your argument and to be honest I agree with you to a certain extent, but I would hope we can all see the bigger picture so I will vote in favour with my remaining holding as it seems to me the right thing to do...

I also hope that we can all see the bigger picture - which is why I'm voting against the disapplication of pre-emption rights!

The difference is of course what we regard as the "bigger picture". I regard it as being that the company respects and caters for the rights of existing shareholders: that way, shareholders are more likely to stay around rather than selling to avoid the next time management (or I suspect more likely their advisers...) regard it as expedient to dilute their holdings.

My guess is that you regard the bigger picture as ensuring that the company expansion gets funded and goes ahead. I don't regard that as a significant issue - if by any chance this fundraising gets voted down, all management has to do is try again with an attached open offer.

Incidentally, I won't regard it as a major defeat if the resolutions are passed and the fundraising goes ahead on the current basis, as long as there is a reasonably significant vote against the disapplication of pre-emption rights - significant enough to act as a serious warning shot against doing anything similar again. I know people have said that management knows the strength of shareholder feeling about the issue and are unlikely to do it again - but the City has a nasty habit of quietly forgetting such reassurances over a few months or years, and then trotting them out again for the next fundraising... :-( Having a significant vote against as well should hopefully amplify the "we're serious" aspect of the message we're sending.

Gengulphus

[garbetklb] 15/7/2014 01:10

Hi David
Yes please.
Andy / Garbetklb

[davidosh] 15/7/2014 00:06

I think a few questions need answering with regards to the placing and there is probably only Richard Rose who can answer them so would any of you like me to try and arrange a conference call with him ?

[playful] 14/7/2014 23:23

Gengulphus, I understand your argument and to be honest I agree with you to a certain extent, but I would hope we can all see the bigger picture so I will vote in favour with my remaining holding as it seems to me the right thing to do...

[garbetklb] 14/7/2014 23:15

I agree entirely with Gengulphus.

I'm disappointed that my call to the company 10 days ago to discuss the issue hasn't been returned - doesn't suggest a desire to explain & hear shareholder concerns.

Garbetklb

[gengulphus] 14/7/2014 21:52

battlebus2,

Sorry, no, urge what you like, but as previously stated I'm voting against their resolution to forego my pre-emption rights. I'm fully in favour of their expansion plans, but I see no reason whatsoever for them to try to get funding for those plans without offering me my chance to contribute. It doesn't matter to me whether they're thinking of making the same mistake again - I'm going to do my best to drive home the point that it was a mistake that needs correcting this time.

My votes against probably won't make any difference to the outcome, of course, but IMHO that point still needs to be driven home as hard as I possibly can. And if by any chance the motion to disapply pre-emption rights is defeated, the worst that ought to happen is that a couple of months' delay while they redo the financing plans for the expansion - not exactly a disaster...

Gengulphus

[battlebus2] 14/7/2014 14:09

Yep I agree with you shanklin, the future looks very rosy for Crawshaw's and i urge all holders to vote with the company, the deal may not have been 100% to my liking but you can't argue that the rapid store openings won't help shareholder value. The company is aware of the large shareholder discontent and is unlikely to make the same mistake again imv.

[shanklin] 14/7/2014 13:25

Well I have been buying and am happy to buy more if the offer price gets closer to the placing price.

[davidosh] 14/7/2014 13:21

The company said this just two weeks ago....

We continue to trade very strongly with year to date LFL sales up 13.4%. We are delighted with this performance given LFL sales were up 8% through May and June last year. The strong performance is widely spread across our store portfolio and, added to this, our reduced cost new store fit out has worked well.


I understand that sites are being offered on a regular basis to quality companies who want to get into the high streets especially in the north where charity shops and pound stores have been the only takers. CRAW will be getting offered rent free deals in very good locations and now have the firepower coming to allow them to move quick.


With low cost fit outs, bargain lease deals and growing like for likes on current stores. It is all going in the right direction so why are some of you selling when clearly you were buying much higher ?

[thekida] 08/7/2014 14:50

Thanks for that link ive just ordered some pigs trotters, cow heels, a sheeps head for broth (northeren receipe) and of course 2LB of crawshaws award wininning sausages.

TK:(

[sailastra] 08/7/2014 12:42

I note various comments which express annoyance that the placing is to exclude existing private client shareholders.

The dilution on the issue is in the order of 30%.....A little bit like theft if you believe that the shareholders own the company...

Any way if like me you wish to express your displeasure at such treatment I suggest you follow the link..

[thekida] 08/7/2014 11:30

I think once the £9 million is spent on the new shops that's when the real profits will be made and the share price will jump, until then it may well tread water IMHO.

TK
Ps nothing wrong with PTs selling out in the 60s and buying back in cheaper

[shanklin] 08/7/2014 11:05

tk

I suspect the enthusiastic institutions are using the current weakness to top up their holding by buying from those PIs who are weak holders.

[thekida] 08/7/2014 10:38

Appears to be heading to towards the 42p placing and maybe lower!!

TK

[battlebus2] 07/7/2014 23:29

You hit the nail on the head right there playful!

[playful] 07/7/2014 23:14

You must wonder where these enthusiastic institutions were when the company had their back against the wall?