Subject:
|
Re: LEGO® Systems, Inc. sells Enfield complex for $58.9 million
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.general, lugnet.mediawatch
|
Date:
|
Sat, 13 Jan 2007 18:01:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
241 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.general, David Winkler wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Joe Meno wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Gerhard R. Istok wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Harvey Henkelman wrote:
| |
Lego is on it’s way out, plain and simple. By 2012, it will be a memory.
|
No it will still be around. In the future LEGO may not be owned by Kjeld
and Gunhild anymore (Godtfred Kirk Christiansen’s 2 surviving children),
however it will still be around.
There’s too much value in the brand name. A future owner may move
production to China or Vietnam or India. It seems that everything else is
ending up there, a loss for Europe, North America and Australia.
The future offset may be cheaper prices, but less in the way of quality.
Gary Istok
|
Gary’s right. One the things that is happening is that globalization of
resources...the US has higher wages than the rest of the world in many
things, so to bear the costs that consumers want, less expensive places have
to be found to produce products. So like so many other industries, LEGO
chose to streamline costs.
In this particular case, selling the facility was a good choice because it
pushed expense toward maintenance of the building to those owning the
building now, not TLG. It’s like having an apartment as opposed to owning a
house - sure you can have a house, but with that, you have the
responsibility of upkeep. At an apartment, if there’s a problem, you call
the landlord. It’s much cheaper to call the landlord to tell him your water
heater broke as opposed to having to buy a new one.
One thing we have to keep in mind is that LEGO is a product that has to keep
its financial viability to continue. By our choices in buying, we are
creating an impact that TLG has to deal with in one way or another. And it’s
a tradeoff - there are no easy solutions.
Joe
|
IBM did a similar sell-off of their buildings and lease back a couple years
ago. It turns out to save on US taxes.
|
Yes, and C&S, one of the largest grocery distributors in the region is doing the
same thing with a couple of facilities not far from Enfield - selling the
buildings and then leasing them. The company I work for, also in the same
region also leases some of its facilities. So this seems to be normal.
On the issue of TLC moving much of its operations out of Enfield, my wife and
some friends complained about how companies keep moving out of the U.S. and
outsource overseas. But I had to point out that, as a Danish company, being in
the U.S. is itself outsourcing for TLC!
Nonetheless, I am disappointed with the recent changes since I had been building
my resume in hopes of more job opportunities in Enfield. Somewhat by
coincidence, each of my homes has been increasingly close to the TLC facilities
there, up to my current home which is barely 10 minutes away. It’s sad that I
finally get within arm’s reach and have a decent resume, and now... well you get
the point... ...Also sad that a company known for connecting blocks might move
from a place called CONNECTicut... But still, I agree, none of these changes
are indicative of the end of Lego.
-Hendo
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
11 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
