RBD - Restaurant Brands

[jg8512]

so if I understand it correctly they get up to $4.4m for Starbucks, for a minor adverse impact on the current year net profit (excluding non-trading items) result of approximately $1.3 million. So, Starbucks earns circa $1.3m NPAT per annum? And RBD sold it for $4.4m

The May 2018 presentation showed Starbucks had $25.8m of revenues, and $4.8m of EBITDA (and $4.8m and $4.4m in FY17 and FY16).

Tahua have got themselves an absolute bargain.

And don't get me started on comparing the price RBD achieved with what Cooks are paying for Mojo!

Next step ... a companies office search to find it who is behind Tahua Capital - aka the thieving bandits!

[Beagle]

Quite bizarre. It looks like they literally gave it away ?

[winner69]

so if I understand it correctly they get up to $4.4m for Starbucks, for a minor adverse impact on the current year net profit (excluding non-trading items) result of approximately $1.3 million. So, Starbucks earns circa $1.3m NPAT per annum? And RBD sold it for $4.4m

The May 2018 presentation showed Starbucks had $25.8m of revenues, and $4.8m of EBITDA (and $4.8m and $4.4m in FY17 and FY16).

Tahua have got themselves an absolute bargain.

And don't get me started on comparing the price RBD achieved with what Cooks are paying for Mojo!

Next step ... a companies office search to find it who is behind Tahua Capital - aka the thieving bandits!

RBD don’t ‘own’ the Starbucks franchise, its not there’s to ‘sell’

They are only selling the fixed assets and stock in the stores ..might look cheap but probably a bit old. New owners going to spend a bit of money to upgrade stores


Hopefully no issues transferring all the leases to make a clean break

With this Tahua taking over the Starbucks franchise and the staff (obligations) and the leases a nice clean exit by RBD ..well done Russel

[jg8512]

RBD don’t ‘own’ the Starbucks franchise, its not there’s to ‘sell’

They are only selling the fixed assets in the stores ..might look cheap but probably a bit old. New owners going to spend a bit of money.


Hopefully no issues transferring all the leases to make a clean break

Well they're giving up $1.3m NPAT and $4.8m of EBITDA. In return they get $4.4m. that's not much a trade for mine.

Why did RBD get out?

[jg8512]

Well they're giving up $1.3m NPAT and $4.8m of EBITDA. In return they get $4.4m. that's not much a trade for mine.

Why did RBD get out?

is there some big ramp up in the franchise fees payable to Seattle?

[winner69]

Well they're giving up $1.3m NPAT and $4.8m of EBITDA. In return they get $4.4m. that's not much a trade for mine.

Why did RBD get out?

Taken them 20 years or so to build the business up to $1m profit .....maybe that answers your question

Seattle have been the winners

Let RBD put the resources and effort into things that will probably do better

[winner69]

is there some big ramp up in the franchise fees payable to Seattle?

Maybe ...it’s been a 20 year agreement

[Beagle]

Maybe ...it’s been a 20 year agreement

I would say that's the answer. Owners looking to turn the screws tighter on the franchisee's when the agreement comes up for renewal. Pretty much a given with corporate greed these days. Might be time for diligent shareholders to check when the next lot of corporate thuggery will hit RBD's operations with the next master franchise agreement renewal...

[LAC]

I know of a couple stores that would be needing new leases, I would imagine that would be very costly as these malls have been significantly renovated and revamped so they would want a decent $ for rent.

[Snoopy]

Tahua have got themselves an absolute bargain.

And don't get me started on comparing the price RBD achieved with what Cooks are paying for Mojo!

Next step ... a companies office search to find it who is behind Tahua Capital - aka the thieving bandits!

When Starbucks came to NZ, the idea was to bring the 'Starbucks' on every corner kind of mega coverage to the NZ café scene. Leases were taken out willy nilly to get maximum footprint coverage. There was no need to analyse how popular each location would be. The Starbucks on one block would be the de-facto billboard for the next. It was all about getting the name to be ubiquitous. The idea was that Starbucks would become so synonymous for coffee that NZers would just go to Starbucks for their coffee hit without thinking. What RBD didn't realise was that unlike the US where the coffee in general is dreadful, and so Starbucks is an oasis, the coffee culture in NZ is much more sophisticated and the competitive products are much better. So Starbucks in NZ had real competition, and not every NZ coffee drinker wanted to sing 'Yankee Doodle Dandee' as they quaffed down their morning cuppa.

Rather than being the all conquering brand, Starbucks has retreated to become a niche player. The all conquering dream ended probably a decade ago, and Starbucks were left to work through their expensive multi year lease deals. The jettisoning of Starbucks makes sense. It doesn't really fit with the other quick service meal outlets in the RBD portfolio and there must be few supply line synergies that will be lost by getting rid of them. RBD is, these days, about maximising the return from their capital. And a small coffee store in a high rent mall selling 'bits and pieces' does not compare well with a purpose built restaurant rented for a comparative peppercorn with much better cashflow. At least the disposal of Starbuck simplifies the business, decreasing the skill set required to be a director which will in turn flow through to lower directors fees in the future.

SNOOPY

discl: Just one of the sentences in my little diatribe above is a bare faced lie. I will leave it to the discerning reader to figure out which sentence it is!