Posted on 07/14/2009 9:40:52 AM PDT by thesearethetimes...
How much money did Hawken and Smith net off the corporation sale?
“”Hes like Dr. Strangelove - ready to ride the bomb all the way to the bottom.””
Yup.
So many do not understand that The One does not WANT a recovery....
Hmmmm. I was looking for a sequence of the selling/buyout history, and found this -
“”Negative paulhawken
(1 review) On March 20, 2009, paulhawken Mill Valley, CA wrote:
As the founder of Smith & Hawken, I want to back up people’s observations about the quality. When we started in 1979, we were very picky and careful about what we purchased and sold. I left the company in 1991 and it has been through a series of owners. The company is a ghost of itself and many of the items that we originally sold are not being offered by S&H or any other company for that matter. That is a shame since I believe gardening will become more important in the near future as our need to localize our food becomes more acute. I am not sure S&H will ever come back from its shallow grave. It is owned by Scott’s, a company that sells pesticides, the opposite of our intention and value system. It is corporate America doing what it does best, which is not very good for the land or people.
Paul Hawken””
This was copied and pasted from a gardening blog’s commentary section. It appears that ol’ Paul was actively working to poison the well.
Could you expand more? I’m always interested in learning first-hand business intelligence and data...
thanks
About his post - I can tell you that each time I stopped by a store to restore my tool needs, their products had become less and less useful and more expensive. He once sold Bulldog tools, made in England, and worth the price. I have a 35.00 shovel, that I use weekly, or more, it is 28 years old. That is pretty good in the Dallas clay soil.
What a shame. I have an excellent hoe, and set of garden hand tools I purchased there. Heavy weight, durable metal and
NOT made in China.
bttt
I understand your statement concerning the declining quality of the products, but still, I cannot help but feel that his intent to undermine the subsequent owners tells us all more about the man, than he may have wanted us to know. Since it would appear that he had no qualms about taking the money when he was initally bought out, for him to suddenly feel the need to give voice to such outrage about the way business was being conducted after he departed is out of line. After all, if their products and services were as bad as he kept proclaiming, wouldn’t the marketplace have decided Smith and Hawken’s fate anyway?
As it is, it just looks like another casualty of O’s stimulus.
There is a large mall across town; I believe it is the largest in the region. I hadn’t been there for some time, but a bout a month ago, I made the trip. I was shocked at how many empty storefronts there were. Normally, one can expect one or two or so vacant properties, but there seemed to be 25 or so on this trip. I understand that the owner of the mall, Simon Properties, does not help matters. They have extorted high rent from the tenants, sometimes in order to drive ut small businesses and bring in the high end stores. The problem is that here, where the economy is poor, those upscale businesses aren’t doing so well.
The company was sold at least twice and a seller has no reason to be loyal to his former company if future buyers run it into the ground and give loyal customers a bad product. His declaration that products have declined is nothing more than his personal view point which buyers can ignore. As to the O stuff - this company was dead long ago when the Dow was closer to 14,000.
We got a couple nice things and some stuff that was really trash.
I wouldn’t shop there again.
Argh - sorry to be so late in replying! Anyway, again, while I do understand your point of view, I will say again, that IMHO, his actions reveal a level of vindictiveness that I find offputting, speaking only as one human bean ;}, to and of another.
Even trying to excuse, or explain his behavior as being driven by the fact that the company still bore his name, doesn’t do it for me. Mr. Hawken very well could have stipulated that should the company that he originally sold it to, decide to sell it again, that the name would have to be amended in some way, to indicate that it was no longer the company of old...After all, I believe the original sale was in 1991, uncertain look, and that certainly was well within the modern age of voluminous legalese :P
Take care,
Tatt
thanks for your reply - we will jsut see this diffently. Sometimes a company will buy anotehr, like the folks that bought Yakima and make it better and sometimes people will buy a company like S&H and make it worse. It is not unusual for a founder or customers to comment - years later about those result.s
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.