Starbucks opening left, right and centre!!

K.Flyer

Last week I noticed that the Starbucks on Mespil Rd beside the Mespil Hotel was closed up and a "To Let" sign hanging up outside.
Thought it strange as it always seemed to be resonably busy, especially on Thursdays with the food fair across the road on the canal.

imme

K.Flyer wrote: »

Last week I noticed that the Starbucks on Mespil Rd beside the Mespil Hotel was closed up and a "To Let" sign hanging up outside.
Thought it strange as it always seemed to be resonably busy, especially on Thursdays with the food fair across the road on the canal.

good news
obviously not the people working there etc

But the level of openings by Starbucks franchises was gone to crazy proportions.

It was sad to see the sameness and poor quality being replicated and people feeling happy to go there.

I feel sadness for them.:(

Ole Rodrigo

I'm sure those guys holed up down in the Paris Bakery would have rather worked for Starbucks.

DominoDub

K.Flyer wrote: »

Last week I noticed that the Starbucks on Mespil Rd beside the Mespil Hotel was closed up and a "To Let" sign hanging up outside.
Thought it strange as it always seemed to be resonably busy, especially on Thursdays with the food fair across the road on the canal.

They have moved to a much bigger unit 2mins away on Waterloo Road , their plan to force the closing of the indie " Coffee 2 Go" (yes that one with the constant fast moving Q) on Mespil Road failed.:cool:

ongarboy

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/starbucks-brothers-buy-ballsbridge-kiosk-for-330-000-1.3142096

Starbucks have taken over the well known kiosk at the busy crossroads junction in Ballsbridge.  The article says there are now 60 Starbucks in the greater Dublin region!!  One opened in Aungier Street last month as well even though there was one only around the corner in Bishops Square/Kevin Street also.  I wonder how may outlets will Starbucks consider saturation point in Dublin? 100?

Wheety

I hate seeing a hoarding come down on a shop front and it's become a Starbucks. Just disappointing that it's not something different.

talkinggal

i actually don't mind it in that kiosk. i'd rather see the kiosk being used than not. it seems like its been there forever

CeilingFly

talkinggal wrote: »

i actually don't mind it in that kiosk. i'd rather see the kiosk being used than not. it seems like its been there forever

98 years - originally built aroung 1919.

Halloween Jack

talkinggal wrote: »

i actually don't mind it in that kiosk. i'd rather see the kiosk being used than not. it seems like its been there forever

The kiosk had been run by an independent for the last 5 years, took a risk in the bad times, built up a loyal clientele, served great, ethically sourced coffee roasted himself.

Landlord asked for double his rent when renewal came up.

Everybody knew then what was coming.

FrancieBrady

Halloween Jack wrote: »

The kiosk had been run by an independent for the last 5 years, took a risk in the bad times, built up a loyal clientele, served great, ethically sourced coffee roasted himself.

Landlord asked for double his rent when renewal came up.

Everybody knew then what was coming.

Is independent opening nearby or gone?

Halloween Jack

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is independent opening nearby or gone?

Last time I spoke to him he was considering options, but not reopened to my knowledge

He has a coffee roasting business so may just concentrate on that.

FrancieBrady

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Last time I spoke to him he was considering options, but not reopened to my knowledge

He has a coffee roasting business so may just concentrate on that.

Shame.
I seen it happen locally, (not with a chain) young fella doing really well from a very basic start, built up a lovely business employing a couple of people. Landlord got greedy, upped the rent and allowed a local chain (two or three shops) to move in.
Young fella opened a few doors away and locals (knowing the story) boycotted new place. Original shop now vacant.

Would love to see it happen there, if what you say is true.

Halloween Jack

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Shame.
I seen it happen locally, (not with a chain) young fella doing really well from a very basic start, built up a lovely business employing a couple of people. Landlord got greedy, upped the rent and allowed a local chain (two or three shops) to move in.
Young fella opened a few doors away and locals (knowing the story) boycotted new place. Original shop now vacant.

Would love to see it happen there, if what you say is true.

Neither I or my colleagues will be patronising the new Starbucks in any case...

Caliden

Sad thing is that there's a bigger Starbucks just further up on Waterloo road. It's a 600 meter walk away...

gizmo81

Could there be protections for independent/indigenous businesses like the one from the Kiosk?

Is it just a case of blocking upwards rents?

Mrs Shuttleworth

ongarboy wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/starbucks-brothers-buy-ballsbridge-kiosk-for-330-000-1.3142096

Starbucks have taken over the well known kiosk at the busy crossroads junction in Ballsbridge.  The article says there are now 60 Starbucks in the greater Dublin region!!  One opened in Aungier Street last month as well even though there was one only around the corner in Bishops Square/Kevin Street also.  I wonder how may outlets will Starbucks consider saturation point in Dublin? 100?

It's a business model Starbucks have to squeeze out all competition in an area. They don't mind having multiple units close together and if some of those lose money if it gets the competition out. Then any real dead ducks they close down the line.

Tabnabs

Halloween Jack wrote: »

The kiosk had been run by an independent for the last 5 years, took a risk in the bad times, built up a loyal clientele, served great, ethically sourced coffee roasted himself.

Landlord asked for double his rent when renewal came up.

Everybody knew then what was coming.

Kiosk bought for €250,000 two years ago and sold now to Starbucks for €330,000.

25% increase in ROI at the drop of a hat or 20 years to break even with renting option. It's a no brainer...

GarIT

gizmo81 wrote: »

Could there be protections for independent/indigenous businesses like the one from the Kiosk?

Is it just a case of blocking upwards rents?

Stuff like that has negative effects on the economy and only hurts the consumer/citizen in the long run. It's neither fair or effective to try to give small businesses an extra advantage over large companies.

A rent cap wouldn't really fix the issue. A rent cap will make the landlord want to sell, and the large company, in this case, Starbucks, are usually in the best position to buy. If the landlord doesn't sell, he will rent to the place that will also give him a few cents for every product sold. If you cap the rent there will always be a way around it.

begbysback

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Neither I or my colleagues will be patronising the new Starbucks in any case...

Can blame ya, worse coffee ever - leaves an awful aftertaste - I have nothing against chains, actually like the costa beans but the employees haven't a clue how to make a cappuccino for the most part, understandable given that they are fresh outta school

Halloween Jack

GarIT wrote: »

Stuff like that has negative effects on the economy and only hurts the consumer/citizen in the long run. It's neither fair or effective to try to give small businesses an extra advantage over large companies.

A rent cap wouldn't really fix the issue. A rent cap will make the landlord want to sell, and the large company, in this case, Starbucks, are usually in the best position to buy. If the landlord doesn't sell, he will rent to the place that will also give him a few cents for every product sold. If you cap the rent there will always be a way around it.

Yet it is fine to allow large foreign companies the vast benefits of 'tax planning' in addition to the economies of scale etc

FrancieBrady

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Yet it is fine to allow large foreign companies the vast benefits of 'tax planning' in addition to the economies of scale etc

Yes, the deck is stacked in their favour, no doubt.
With Subway announcing a huge expansion we are about to enter the Age Of Bland.
One of the worst things about the UK when you visit is that the streets are almost the same whereever you go, same shops, same food outlets everywhere.
And we are just doing the same thing and then people will wonder what went wrong.

wordofwarning

Halloween Jack wrote: »

Yet it is fine to allow large foreign companies the vast benefits of 'tax planning' in addition to the economies of scale etc

I imagine you don't have an issue with the 100k or so employed directly by MNC firms in Ireland and another 250k employed indirectly? I doubt you have an issue with the billions in taxes they pay each year in Ireland.

I personally find it hilarious when people argue for protection against foreign firms, when Irish firms often dominant industries. CRH is only of the largest cement companies and it is one of the largest companies in the world. Ryanair is also one of the largest airlines in the world. Kerry/Glanbia are massive companies in operations against the globe. PaddyPower Betfair is one of/if not the largest bookmakers in the World etc etc. You get the picture ie Irish firms are also global giants too

When we start attacking Starbucks for being successful in Ireland, other countries will attack Irish firms for being successful in their countries. It is a zero sum game where the biggest loser is the consumer.

If you don't like Starbucks, don't buy Starbucks. We don't need a trade war to stop them

Halloween Jack

wordofwarning wrote: »

I imagine you don't have an issue with the 100k or so employed directly by MNC firms in Ireland and another 250k employed indirectly? I doubt you have an issue with the billions in taxes they pay each year in Ireland.

I personally find it hilarious when people argue for protection against foreign firms, when Irish firms often dominant industries. CRH is only of the largest cement companies and it is one of the largest companies in the world. Ryanair is also one of the largest airlines in the world. Kerry/Glanbia are massive companies in operations against the globe. PaddyPower Betfair is one of/if not the largest bookmakers in the World etc etc. You get the picture ie Irish firms are also global giants too

When we start attacking Starbucks for being successful in Ireland, other countries will attack Irish firms for being successful in their countries. It is a zero sum game where the biggest loser is the consumer.

If you don't like Starbucks, don't buy Starbucks. We don't need a trade war to stop them

I do have an issue with the mnc's being here, seeing as the very reason they are here is out aggressive touting of our tax regime, allowing them to defraud other run member states of tax revenues that are rightfully due to them. The ability of large American firms to shop around for the best rates for their profits to be 'earned' is also a huge advantage they hold over their small domestic rivals who are stuck paying the appropriate American rate, rather than whatever rate tin pot countries like ourselves will tout to them.

You are correct that it's a zero sum game though, eventually other countries will start slashing their rates to beat the band and all exchequers will be starved of revenues. The shortfalls will be made up by taxing consumption or workers and the big beneficiaries will of course be shareholders and those lucky few who work for the mnc's

wordofwarning

Halloween Jack wrote: »

I do have an issue with the mnc's being here, seeing as the very reason they are here is out aggressive touting of our tax regime, allowing them to defraud other run member states of tax revenues that are rightfully due to them. The ability of large American firms to shop around for the best rates for their profits to be 'earned' is also a huge advantage they hold over their small domestic rivals who are stuck paying the appropriate American rate, rather than whatever rate tin pot countries like ourselves will tout to them.

Here for just the tax and employ 100k? The IDA would disagree with you there mate. A lot of American firms are in Ireland, as we have excellent staff to work in their factories. Some came for the cheap wages in the 1960s/1970s. But they have remained here despite cheaper wages abroad. Ireland is still a very competitive country to do business in. We have cheap water, electricity, good infastructure, low corruption (yes we do), pro-business attitude etc.

Tax is only a small factor for why countries locate in countries. Why isnt every American firm in Dubai, Luxembourg or Switzerland where tax is lower than Ireland? As the wages are higher, there is a lack of inputs eg vast quantities of water, poor business policies etc

Do you know why American cars are made in Mexico? It is not the wages. It is because Mexico is business friendly. Instead of implying BS protectionism like the US ie high tariffs on imported parts to protect US car part producers. Mexico has no tariffs on imported parts and free trade deals with more countries.

Halloween Jack wrote: »

You are correct that it's a zero sum game though, eventually other countries will start slashing their rates to beat the band and all exchequers will be starved of revenues.

Protectionism is a zero sum game ie what you are advocating by implying we need to do something about efficient Starbucks having better tax planning than Irish firms.

Halloween Jack wrote: »

The shortfalls will be made up by taxing consumption or workers and the big beneficiaries will of course be shareholders and those lucky few who work for the mnc's

The race to the bottom for corporation tax has been talked about for decades and it has yet to materialise.

Who are the shareholders? Do you have a pension? Sorry to break it to you mate, but you are profiting from what you are against...

Halloween Jack

wordofwarning wrote: »

Here for just the tax and employ 100k? The IDA would disagree with you there mate. A lot of American firms are in Ireland, as we have excellent staff to work in their factories. Some came for the cheap wages in the 1960s/1970s. But they have remained here despite cheaper wages abroad. Ireland is still a very competitive country to do business in. We have cheap water, electricity, good infastructure, low corruption (yes we do), pro-business attitude etc.

Tax is only a small factor for why countries locate in countries. Why isnt every American firm in Dubai, Luxembourg or Switzerland where tax is lower than Ireland? As the wages are higher, there is a lack of inputs eg vast quantities of water, poor business policies etc

Do you know why American cars are made in Mexico? It is not the wages. It is because Mexico is business friendly. Instead of implying BS protectionism like the US ie high tariffs on imported parts to protect US car part producers. Mexico has no tariffs on imported parts and free trade deals with more countries.



Protectionism is a zero sum game ie what you are advocating by implying we need to do something about efficient Starbucks having better tax planning than Irish firms.



The race to the bottom for corporation tax has been talked about for decades and it has yet to materialise.

Who are the shareholders? Do you have a pension? Sorry to break it to you mate, but you are profiting from what you are against...

Please show me where I advocated protectionism?

helimachoptor

Caliden wrote: »

Sad thing is that there's a bigger Starbucks just further up on Waterloo road. It's a 600 meter walk away...

And there's another 500m away on Shelbourne Road

CeilingFly

Halloween Jack wrote: »

The kiosk had been run by an independent for the last 5 years, took a risk in the bad times, built up a loyal clientele, served great, ethically sourced coffee roasted himself.

Landlord asked for double his rent when renewal came up.

Everybody knew then what was coming.

Incorrect - he had a short term lease of 4 years 11 months that expired in January.

The 4year 11 month lease is very specific as it means that from day one you know and understand fully that you have no entitlement ot a new lease. It not something made up for this particular unit - its a very standard "short lease".

Once you have a lease of five years or more you have a legal entitlement to a new lease unless you have signed a renunciation of rights.

He may have "hoped" for a new lease, but the owner is not a charioty and has to go for the best deal they have.

Halloween Jack

CeilingFly wrote: »

Incorrect - he had a short term lease of 4 years 11 months that expired in January.

The 4year 11 month lease is very specific as it means that from day one you know and understand fully that you have no entitlement ot a new lease. It not something made up for this particular unit - its a very standard "short lease".

Once you have a lease of five years or more you have a legal entitlement to a new lease unless you have signed a renunciation of rights.

He may have "hoped" for a new lease, but the owner is not a charioty and has to go for the best deal they have.

What did I say that was incorrect? I didn't insinuate that anybody thought they had a right to an extension of the leasehold....

I also didn't offer a moral judgement on the owners nor suggest they run a charity

CeilingFly

Halloween Jack wrote: »

What did I say that was incorrect? I didn't insinuate that anybody thought they had a right to an extension of the leasehold....

I also didn't offer a moral judgement on the owners nor suggest they run a charity

From what I know there was no new lease offered and that would have been clear months beforehand.

I not getting at you, but the general attitude of some people in the area was that "landlord was unfair", "rent was to double" "no support to small guy" etc etc. all of which was totally incorrect but people like to bash "nasty landlords" because its a fashionable thing to do. (no I'm not a landlord, I'm a leaseholder).

odyssey06

wordofwarning wrote: »

Here for just the tax and employ 100k? The IDA would disagree with you there mate. A lot of American firms are in Ireland, as we have excellent staff to work in their factories. Some came for the cheap wages in the 1960s/1970s. But they have remained here despite cheaper wages abroad. Ireland is still a very competitive country to do business in. We have cheap water, electricity, good infastructure, low corruption (yes we do), pro-business attitude etc.

Tax is only a small factor for why countries locate in countries. Why isnt every American firm in Dubai, Luxembourg or Switzerland where tax is lower than Ireland? As the wages are higher, there is a lack of inputs eg vast quantities of water, poor business policies etc

Do you know why American cars are made in Mexico? It is not the wages. It is because Mexico is business friendly. Instead of implying BS protectionism like the US ie high tariffs on imported parts to protect US car part producers. Mexico has no tariffs on imported parts and free trade deals with more countries.

Protectionism is a zero sum game ie what you are advocating by implying we need to do something about efficient Starbucks having better tax planning than Irish firms.

Inappropriate comparison.... I would agree with you 100% if we're talking about the likes of Intel or Oracle.
But, do Starbucks have factories here which are exporting products to other countries? They are not Intel. The reason we want Intel here is because if they weren't here, that commercial activity would not happen, the jobs currently in ireland would be elsewhere... None of this applies to Starbucks.

A strategy that makes sense for MNCs engaged in manufacturing, research, development, production doesn't mean it makes sense for MNCs engaged in retail (or services).