Fritz Pienaar denies uncompetitive behaviour

[Dirtbreath]

The owner of my LBS seems to have been there. When I asked him about it he said he wasnt there.

[Thug]

 

Here is the attendance register. Apparently it is also "inaccurate"

 

.....

 

Maverick Cycles                      Mike Bradley

 

 

Interesting.......

 

So the Director of MTB who sits on the Board of Cycling SA attended as well !!

 

Surely that makes his position on the board of CSA untenable !!

 

I would love to hear Greg Till and Groot Lem's comments on Mike Bradley coming up all the way from KZN to attend a meeting where price fixing was discussed !!

 

 

I've known Mike a number of years before he moved to KZN' date=' he is someone I've always known to have a strong sense of integrity!

 

As Summit already stated "Who is to say that anyone and all who were at the meeting, agreed with what was discussed.

Who is to say that EVERY bike shop owner walked away from that meeting and implemented an increase.

Assumption is the mother of all cock ups I dare say."

[/quote']

 

I'm not for one minute suggesting that he agreed with what was discussed.

 

All I'm suggesting is that given his position on the Board of CSA, he should not have attended a meeting where the intention of that meeting was made clear prior to it being held.

 

 

 

 

[Dirtbreath]

 

Here is the attendance register. Apparently it is also "inaccurate"

 

.....

 

Maverick Cycles                      Mike Bradley

 

 

Interesting.......

 

So the Director of MTB who sits on the Board of Cycling SA attended as well !!

 

Surely that makes his position on the board of CSA untenable !!

 

I would love to hear Greg Till and Groot Lem's comments on Mike Bradley coming up all the way from KZN to attend a meeting where price fixing was discussed !!

 

 

I've known Mike a number of years before he moved to KZN' date=' he is someone I've always known to have a strong sense of integrity!

 

As Summit already stated "Who is to say that anyone and all who were at the meeting, agreed with what was discussed.

Who is to say that EVERY bike shop owner walked away from that meeting and implemented an increase.

Assumption is the mother of all cock ups I dare say."

[/quote']

 

I'm not for one minute suggesting that he agreed with what was discussed.

 

All I'm suggesting is that given his position on the Board of CSA, he should not have attended a meeting where the intention of that meeting was made clear prior to it being held.

 

 

 

 

Was it clear what was going to be discussed? Anyone have the invitation?

 

[peloton]

I think that a bit too much emphasis is being given to the fact that an ?industry? meeting was held, and to focus solely on a proposal to raise recommended retail does not display the whole picture. At the same time FP and AM deserve some credit for both their entrepreneurship and cycling-advocacy over the years. Their businesses employ many, benefit an exponential number of service providers, and they are passionate about the sport. Does FP and AM have enough trust banked in the public's trust account? I believe that they have, despite a hefty withdrawal from that account as a result of the somewhat improper management of this ill-fated meetings, and the fallout that resulted.

 

 

 

It is quite possible that the discussion at the meeting could have bordered on anti-competitive price fixing ? a similar question was seemingly asked according to the minute - but the consistent explanation furnished by stakeholders assure us that it was not intended as such. There was certainly crappy minute keeping, that quite possibly did not record what the real gist of the meeting was. If you read the minutes (again) you have to admit that the minutes are inconsequent, and skips a lot. Many un-minuted questions are seemingly answered, and the format of the minute is riddled with typing- , spelling mistakes and formatting errors. Andrew ? in fact - seems quite furious at being mis-quoted...

 

 

 

The crux of the matter is that there is no real price fixing model contained in either the minutes of the meeting, the email of Fritz, or the knee-jerk postings made by AM & FP on the Hub. I looked for it, and although the minute looks somewhat damning , it does not really collude an industry to ransack the consumer. In fact, the minuted proposal is somewhat unclear.

 

 

 

The fact of the matter is that many bikeshops are not making it, primarily the smaller guys, and they need help. In truth, there is nothing wrong with arranging a raise of the recommended retail price, allowing the opportunity for a slightly higher markup to the retailer (which FP & CL said they would be using, and urged others to do so as well). Ironically - as a result of their increases - some shops would be able to even lower (relatively) their asking prices!

 

 

 

Fritz' meeting could have been better managed - sure - but it is also important to see it for what it was seemingly intended. At the meeting itself, concerns were raised whether such 'agreement' would constitute anti-competitive behaviour, but Fritz was of the opinion that it was not. A suggestion was minuted that legal advice ought to be gained on the matter, but what is absolutely, abundantly clear, is that it was not.

 

 

 

This was a mistake, for legal opinion would have advised that caution be applied, and surely the "minute' would have been remedied.

 

 

 

The formal suggestion of raising a recommended retail price is not really price fixing - as (a matter of fact) it can have exactly the opposite effect - but the situation could very easily be misinterpreted, especially seen in the light of Fritz's minuted comment of ?discounters? that could eventually be pissing him off.

 

 

 

It turns out Fritz Pienaar is human, and frustrated by 'discounters'. Allow him that, but not everybody at that meeting would agree with such sentiment. In a certain sense all shopkeepers are discounters. The unfortunate act was that the juicy titbit 'got published', ironically, by himself!

 

 

 

With hindsight - being an exact science - it turns out that a couple of shopkeepers and their suppliers made a hash of a meeting, because they simply underestimated what the effect was of what they were trying to do. Did the meeting try to swindle the industry for their own benefit? No, they say they didn?t. They tried to help the lbs around the corner, and the retailer with accounts past 180 days.

 

 

 

All in all, it seems possible. In any event, those who try to help others will be appropriately punished.

 

 

 

 

[droo]

Attendance at the meeting does not indicate agreement with the agenda / minutes. From what we are told and form reading those minutes it appears that some of those people were opposed to the measures being proposed.

 

Indeed not, but would it not have been prudent to inform the relevant authorities about this alleged anti-competitive talk if said parties didn't agree? Just a thought...

[STEEL Niner]

Back a bit to brands but what about Ellsworth and anything else from greenwall, i heard FP was part owner/shareholder of them with other FP guys?!?!

[BendeBeer]

 

?

 

 

?

 

I think this is the smoking gun indeed.

 

?

 

 

?

 

Lets see a list of attendees. If they responded to this invitation' date=' they knew why they were there. I'd also like to see a list of apologies or a list of people who didn't attend. This could tell us something about who the honest businesspeople may be. Some of course couldn't attend because their daughter featured in a school concert that night, but we have to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

?

 

Ben, do you have such info?

 

?

 

?

[/quote']

 

I'm not an industry insider so all I know is what I've seen on the hub. I can however recognize a smoking gun if I see one

[pastapouch]

...who the honest businesspeople may be.

 

 

imo , does not exist...

[BendeBeer]

In any event' date=' those who try to help others will be appropriately punished.

 

 

 

[/quote']

 

 

 

AM and FP were only trying to help the other shops survive...

[KDEE]

 

I have been to many meetings as regards my industry ( NCR ), some by invite and some by gatecrash. I didnt agree with all the stuff discussed, many times I used the platform to vehemently disagree. I need to know whats going in my industry. Just by attending the meeting does not mean that I agree with what was spoken about and would implement it.

 

In this case, we only have the minutes ( very short for what sounds like a long meeting ) and a badly written email from Fritz Pienaar to go on.

 

Some attendees, like Shamus on the hub, came out and said he did not agree with price collusion and would run his business as he always did.

 

And there is the problem, very few attendees are here on the forum and mainly for that reason are being classed as being in agreement with what the minutes said. In my previous post I said that those dissenting voices were being lost in the clutter.

 

For all we know, many attendees might have sent a snotty email back and got on with business. Many would just keep quiet and adopted a wait and see attitude.

 

The fact of the matter, as JB correctly states, is that wholesalers can and do stop supply to certain shops. Some times because of pressure from other shops, sometimes because the shop in question sells at below RRP.

 

Publishing a list of who attended proves nothing. I would love for those who actively disagreed with what happened to send out their own press statements and or make submissions to the CC hearings.

 

I repeat, the direct quote from Fritz Pienaar as regards getting the wholesalers to stop supply to those shops that sell cheaper than RRP is what disgusted me.

 

I like published RRP ( Bicycle Magazine Price Guide, etc ), it gives me a yardstick to think about stuff without having ask for the prices all the time. It also lets me know If I am being way overcharged or not. When someone dictates the RRP to a store, thats where I have a problem.

 

Edit, very nice post from Peleton, I also tend to believe this is what happened/was the intention. Some parts of the post I dont agree with, but all in all, a good post. Still....Fritz is going to have to answer for some of his words for a long time.

 

KDEE2009-03-18 08:21:16

[pastapouch]

I repeat' date=' the direct quote from Fritx Pienaar as regards getting the wholesalers to stop supply to those shops that sell cheaper than RRP is what disgusted me.

[/quote']

 

well, if a shop can afford to sell less than that, and you can't because you pay a landlord R200,000.00/month for rent... he has the upper hand on you , then you need to revisit your business, and see where you can save... whether having a 'laanie' shop in an expensive shopping centre is worth it....

and yes, RRP stands for Recommended Retail Price, not Minimum Retail Price.

[KDEE]

 

Agreed Cervelo.... I like RRP, but I want to be free to charge what I think I can survive/make profit on/use as a loss leader/buy a new car/etc/etc.. and not be dictated to in terms of supply. Raising a RRP will never be illegal, stopping supply to those who sell below RRP or colluding to enforce that RRP is...

 

Toyota were fined for punishing dealers for discounting too much...

 

This is rife in many industries. But in such a informal/subtle way that most would never know about it.

 

Suddenly your account is COD, suddenly there is no stock in the warehouse. etc, etc.. They do not have to formally stop supplying you, they just make your life a misery.

 

The power an exclusive distributor in a country of a popular and branded product has is vast...

 

KDEE2009-03-18 08:30:01

[STEEL Niner]

KDEE makes a good point, 'its your choice' and after all RRP is Recommended not dictated and should have no + and - tolerance. I also feel it is pretty uncompetitive behavior if a shop owner is a share holder in an import and distribute company in the same industry. This means buy my product from me in my shop and i get 2 times profit, once at wholesale, once at retail. Or by it from another shop and i still make profit at wholesale, if i was a shop owner that would really p me off as "RRP" would no-doubt be the same.

[peloton]

Steel Niner, if the importer also retails, he has the resultant overheads of retailing to carry.He's entitled to a profit, but the profit is not 'twice', as the incurred costs equals it out.

[Wyatt Earp]

Lefty' date='dont you work for a petro company of sorts,your coments are very rich coming from you,being involved in most probaly the most corrupt and price fixing industry in this country.

 

?

 

Secondly Andrew was invited to the meeting,he did not call for it,onse again get your facts right and put your names on it.

[/quote']

 

?

 

Chucky, just working for a price-fixing company doesn't make you a price-fixer. Also, working in a certain disreputable industry - DDT factory, radio-active isotope producer, tree-logger or buthery chain - does not exclude you from commenting about the industry or wanting to effect changes from within.

 

?

 

Besides, I doubt Lefy works for Sasol. He's more of a fashion guy.

 

Does the same not apply to those who were at this very same meeting ?

 

You make plenty accusations, you also seem to assume a lot. (I know of a certain this and that..........)

 

Everyone who read the previous thread on this will know that I was there, my original post is still there to be read as it was first posted, please do enjoy it.

[KDEE]

 

Quite right Peleton. Many manufacturers also have direct retail shops

( Capestorm for one ). Prices are at the same level as normal retail, manufacturer would be stupid to undercut his main market..

 

Where the manufacturer has all the retail outlets and supplies no one else... that a diff scenario.. Market forces would/should dictate the selling price..

 

KDEE2009-03-18 08:46:34