Trouble at Mill

Read the foot notes to the biker article re accounts and Donnington Hall.

Not a direct comparison I grant but links to dodgy bank deals and grants etc etc
(allegedly I hasnt to add).

I have more money in my one man band company bank acc and no deficit
between assets and liabilities.

It was a great article but between the lines you may find the truth. As I have
always said I wish them luck but there is a long way to go yet.

I was particularly interested in the comments regarding suppliers, as I was
one.

Andy
 
Profit means nothing, positive cashflow and a healthy balance sheet is the key as any decent accountant will tell you.

I worked for Dana Corp, they had a healthy balance sheet that included assets such as tax losses that could be off-set against future profits, they hit a rough patch and these assets got wiped out from the balance sheet by the auditors. No prospect of future profits meant no rebates so no value. Chapter 11 came shortly after.
 
Profit is always preferable to loss!

I can say without a doubt that the stock investments in profitable companies I have that held over the last thirty years have been much better to own than those that started showing losses. In fact, if not for the profitable companies, their capital appreciation and regular, often increasing dividends, there would be no point in owning stock.
Of course it is not simple to figure out which ones will stay profitable, which will go into loss mode etc.

So a small profit for Norton this early in the game is a big plus but is no guarantee of continued success. Lots of startups (like Delorean or Kenny Dreer's Norton Motors) never see a profit and instead collapse under the weight of increasing losses.

Glen
 
andychain said:
Having read the interview DeLorean sprang to mind.
Click to expand...
What is the issue here? I have my new Norton and many others are now being delivered! Building a company from scratch is not an easy thing to get accomplished.
 
worntorn said:
I didn't write the article, but I am assuming it is correct, unless you have facts to the contrary
Click to expand...

Norton turns out a couple dozen bikes, and you believe they've recouped their entire startup investment?

Yikes.
 
yes thats like believing GP saying he has satisfied all his customers with his "rebuilds" :shock:

grandpaul said:
worntorn said:
I didn't write the article, but I am assuming it is correct, unless you have facts to the contrary
Click to expand...

Norton turns out a couple dozen bikes, and you believe they've recouped their entire startup investment?

Yikes.
Click to expand...
 
They should be able to have good piss ups , anyway . Likely with a few MP friends of theiers . :?

Trouble at Mill
 
grandpaul said:
worntorn said:
I didn't write the article, but I am assuming it is correct, unless you have facts to the contrary
Click to expand...

Norton turns out a couple dozen bikes, and you believe they've recouped their entire startup investment?

Yikes.
Click to expand...

Yikes alright, recouping an entire investment has nothing to do with profitability. If it did, there would be almost no profitable Public companies. You are confusing a Balance Sheet with a Statement of Income and Expenses.
Many Public Companies never recoup all their investment but are highly profitable. They continue to invest and grow. The only time total investment might be "recouped" is upon sale of the company.
 
worntorn said:
Yikes alright, recouping an entire investment has nothing to do with profitability. If it did, there would be almost no profitable Public companies. You are confusing a Balance Sheet with a Statement of Income and Expenses. Many Public Companies never recoup all their investment but are highly profitable. They continue to invest and grow. The only time total investment might be "recouped" is upon sale of the company.
Click to expand...

So as long as Mr. Ponzi is still able to bring in new money, they are "profitable", regardless of the profit actually made on the PRODUCT...

Okay, I'll give you your argument, with the above relative comparison being the qualifier of "profitablility".
 
A Ponzi scheme is a totally different thing although it can be made to look on the surface like a profitable company.
Here is a simple example of profit without first recouping one's investment. This is from real life, a good friend pays the rent on this commercial building.
The building sold for 1 million 10 years ago, just about the time my friend took over the lease/rental for his small manufacturing company. The rent has stayed unchanged at 92,000 per year.,
The total cost of taxescand upkeep for the landlord has been 20,000 per year. He owns the building outright and has no interest cost. So his his net profit has been 72,000 per year plus a bit for compounding as the profits accumulate in bank term deposits, leaving him with 760,000 above expenses after ten years. In addition the building is now worth approximately 2 million. So you can see that even though the original investment has not yet been paid back, this has still been a higly profitable venture for the landlord,. He is ahead of the game approximately 1.7 million even though he has not yet fully recouped his original investment.
My friend really wishes he was the Landlord on this property and not the Renter!

Glen
 
I'm really lost on this thread here .

All I know is ..........

Ordered my Norton 961 in July 2013 , the cost was £14,000 on the road , I paid a deposit then ...... Norton delivered it November 2013 , after paying for what was owing.

Their new place at Donnington , looks very nice , must admit I have never been there .

They delivered a bike for me at home for no extra charge.

They taped two free tickets on the number plate to the Bike Show at the NEC , which I thought was very kind .

And thats it really . Can't say anything about the past , first time I rode the Norton 961 , or had anything to do with them , was during a test ride in July this year.
 
Sorry, it is the internet, things do go off on a tangent. Made a simple statement that Norton declared a profit, that is called BS and off we go. It is always an adventure. It does seem there are those who are determined to hold out hope that Norton will lose money and collapse. After that the bikes will all blow up and their predictions of impending Cataclysmic Doom will have been proven correct afterall!

Glen
 
Just a point of clarification:

I DO NOT hope Norton fails, I hope they do well enough to lower the price point of the basic Commando to a more realistic level, on relative par with it's relative peers in the marketplace. I would love to have one, but won't be able to afford one in the forseeable future.
 
BPHORSEGUY said:
Al-otment said:
If there's any justice in the world there should have been an Oscar nomination for Garner's portrayal of a "sincere man" in the following clip.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-le ... e-15923229
Click to expand...

Hey Al, Check it out , this is 2014, do you know how old this thread is and that video, get over it!
Click to expand...

+1 Seems to be a lot of 961 envy out there. There is a new Norton in town and it's here to stay no matter how much you drag the company's name through the mud.
 

Similar threads

DogT
  • Locked
Trouble with mice?
2 3
Replies
54
Views
3,433
speedrattle
speedrattle
Back
Top