(05-23-2022 05:47 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 03:06 PM)TiminMem23 Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 03:01 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 02:59 PM)TiminMem23 Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 02:43 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  ^^ This ^^
It was never in the master plan & its never been seriously considered. Rudd passed this sandwich onto Hardgrave & took a sabbatical.

And why do you think that is? Here's a hint: The University can't fund it.

If I had to guess, the majority of the of the LB renovations will be funded by tax dollars, with some private donations made.

If it was an OCS, it would be twice the cost and would likely need to be paid for by private donations, which the University can't get. Not enough big $$$ boosters around willing to do it. Not to mention the obstacles involved with acquiring land and finding parking all that.

Embrace what we're getting, not what you wish we'd get.

If we can’t fund it, then how can we compete for P5 membership with others who can?

It's a great question. Probably a big reason why the Houston's and Cincinnati's of the world have passed us by.

Our lack of $$$ issues will be exacerbated in this new NIL world, especially in football.

And why do you people think we have a lack of donor money? It couldn't possibly be because we don't play on campus, therefore there is no alumni Connection to the university, right?

For some reason, NO ONE at our university can connect those dots. Too, they struggle with the correlation between an active, thriving greek system and an active, thriving alumni base. Study after study show greeks participate more as undergraduates & that connection carries over to participation as alumni. Our school, however, consistently works to marginalize greek life on campus & treats greeks as competition for furure alumni dollars instead of the conduit to an active alumni base.

(05-23-2022 05:47 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 03:06 PM)TiminMem23 Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 03:01 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 02:59 PM)TiminMem23 Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 02:43 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  ^^ This ^^
It was never in the master plan & its never been seriously considered. Rudd passed this sandwich onto Hardgrave & took a sabbatical.

And why do you think that is? Here's a hint: The University can't fund it.

If I had to guess, the majority of the of the LB renovations will be funded by tax dollars, with some private donations made.

If it was an OCS, it would be twice the cost and would likely need to be paid for by private donations, which the University can't get. Not enough big $$$ boosters around willing to do it. Not to mention the obstacles involved with acquiring land and finding parking all that.

Embrace what we're getting, not what you wish we'd get.

If we can’t fund it, then how can we compete for P5 membership with others who can?

It's a great question. Probably a big reason why the Houston's and Cincinnati's of the world have passed us by.

Our lack of $$$ issues will be exacerbated in this new NIL world, especially in football.

And why do you people think we have a lack of donor money? It couldn't possibly be because we don't play on campus, therefore there is no alumni Connection to the university, right?

Absolutely 100% true. Donor funds, fundraising and endowment are all much lower than they should be, because we don't have an OCS.

(05-21-2022 10:51 PM)jsw3ent Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 03:24 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 11:05 AM)jsw3ent Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 08:34 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-19-2022 09:55 PM)jsw3ent Wrote:  Good stuff thanks -----he also said at the presser at around the 23:00 mark --that the university was not set on low 40K if they had built the OCS

What do you want him to say? That they wanted the same type of stadium as Colorado State (which he did) and that 50k isn't optimal? His recap of the study specifically mentions it and the costs associated with it. He didn't talk stupidities about a brand new 50,000 stadium that would have cost $550 million.

Btw, they are shrinking it by 10,000 seats so as usual, you are wrong.

Its over 50K just like I said it should be --and the university agreed ---they too thought the suggestion of less fans at the games ludicrous

They reduced seating by 10,000 and would have reduced it to 41,000 if there was an OCS. The study backed up what the admin and 94% on this board said, that 38,000 - 44,000 was optimal.

Wrong again.

The AD clearly stated that 40K was not set in stone.

Quote:The Tigers also looked at a direct comparison with Colorado State’s new stadium, which opened in 2017, as an optimal benchmark.

(05-18-2022 01:08 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-18-2022 10:18 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(05-18-2022 10:03 AM)gusrob Wrote:  

(05-18-2022 09:59 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(05-18-2022 09:39 AM)poppaslaw Wrote:  Like Liberty Park?

No. I mean some of the big arts supporters might pony up if there were some facilities in there for the drama and music departments. I'm talking doable stuff here. A bigger plan would be to put a small particle accelerator under the stadium or something like that.

Dreamers. Thinkers. Doers.

Other legitimate educational things that could be done :
- Video/audio production and technical training for large stadium venues.
- Cell phone and wi-fi coverage for large venues
- Other infrastructure

If you had a facility on campus, the opportunity exists to partner with companies in these businesses to use the stadium as a laboratory. This type of arrangement could allow us to get equipment for no/reduced cost and allow us to develop a unique career development area for our students and faculty.

So much potential just pissed away by a complete lack of vision and imagination. Instead of breaking new ground in education we are rebuilding a 60 year old stadium on the cheap. The saddest thing about it is our students, faculty, and school will get zero educational benefit from the project. The players and fans will have a nicer place, but we as an educational institution have completely missed an incredible opportunity.

Oh well.

Quote:a complete lack of vision and imagination.

The only complete lack of vision and imagination here is you refusing to understand the simple reality, that nobody wanted to, and/or could afford to pay for it. I have the vision and imagination to see how much benefit I would get from buying a 200FT yacht.

Do you (finally) see what the deal is?

Memphis had two options since the city was going to do little to nothing

1) Build a new stadium. To do so and there is a path yet it needed two things; the current proposed financial model in todays paper as well as two specific donations from identified people of $ 50M each to have a chance

2) Significant updating of the two donors say “no”

We are going to raise as much money as some of the big boys did five or so years ago except mow things cost more than 3x with regards to construction.

(05-23-2022 07:09 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-23-2022 05:47 PM)geosnooker2000 Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 03:06 PM)TiminMem23 Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 03:01 PM)Marc Mensa Wrote:  

(05-17-2022 02:59 PM)TiminMem23 Wrote:  And why do you think that is? Here's a hint: The University can't fund it.

If I had to guess, the majority of the of the LB renovations will be funded by tax dollars, with some private donations made.

If it was an OCS, it would be twice the cost and would likely need to be paid for by private donations, which the University can't get. Not enough big $$$ boosters around willing to do it. Not to mention the obstacles involved with acquiring land and finding parking all that.

Embrace what we're getting, not what you wish we'd get.

If we can’t fund it, then how can we compete for P5 membership with others who can?

It's a great question. Probably a big reason why the Houston's and Cincinnati's of the world have passed us by.

Our lack of $$$ issues will be exacerbated in this new NIL world, especially in football.

And why do you people think we have a lack of donor money? It couldn't possibly be because we don't play on campus, therefore there is no alumni Connection to the university, right?

Absolutely 100% true. Donor funds, fundraising and endowment are all much lower than they should be, because we don't have an OCS.

Actually the studies show that at a university like Memphis that’s has a lot of first generation students the very large donations by a large percentage are not by the first generation that made the money but with the second generation of that family.

Memphis has not had enough of those as well as the fact the life of our university is rather short compared to others in our area.

(05-22-2022 03:22 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 10:59 PM)jsw3ent Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 03:48 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 11:05 AM)jsw3ent Wrote:  Its over 50K just like I said it should be --and the university agreed ---they too thought the suggestion of less fans at the games ludicrous

Not at all. Laird clearly said he thought optimum was low 40's. Just let it go and move on.

I will post when and what I want thank you----Laird clearly stated at the 23:00 mark that low 40s was not set in stone/agreed upon/finalized/------the university had the brains to stay at MEMPHIS MEMORIAL STADIUM without alienating many fans ---plus they were not stupid enough to build a tiny mickey mouse at todays mega cost ----and then later have to add thousands more seats at even higher mega mega cost

The model from the studies and the consensus was Colorado State at 41,000. Laird wasn't stupid enough to say that the school didn't get what they want, so Plan B was the next best thing. 38,000 - 44,000 was ideal.

Quote:they were not stupid enough to build a tiny mickey mouse at todays mega cost

Signed...

40,000 Houston
38,000 Cincinnati
41,000 Colorado State
44,000 UCF
45,000 Baylor
45,000 TCU

We may get our wish for an even smaller stadium than 50K, the final seat count is no where near in stone. I’ll be surprised if it’s not much lower than 50k before it’s all over.

(06-03-2022 07:37 AM)griffin Wrote:  

(05-22-2022 03:22 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 10:59 PM)jsw3ent Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 03:48 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 11:05 AM)jsw3ent Wrote:  Its over 50K just like I said it should be --and the university agreed ---they too thought the suggestion of less fans at the games ludicrous

Not at all. Laird clearly said he thought optimum was low 40's. Just let it go and move on.

I will post when and what I want thank you----Laird clearly stated at the 23:00 mark that low 40s was not set in stone/agreed upon/finalized/------the university had the brains to stay at MEMPHIS MEMORIAL STADIUM without alienating many fans ---plus they were not stupid enough to build a tiny mickey mouse at todays mega cost ----and then later have to add thousands more seats at even higher mega mega cost

The model from the studies and the consensus was Colorado State at 41,000. Laird wasn't stupid enough to say that the school didn't get what they want, so Plan B was the next best thing. 38,000 - 44,000 was ideal.

Quote:they were not stupid enough to build a tiny mickey mouse at todays mega cost

Signed...

40,000 Houston
38,000 Cincinnati
41,000 Colorado State
44,000 UCF
45,000 Baylor
45,000 TCU

We may get our wish for an even smaller stadium than 50K, the final seat count is no where near in stone. I’ll be surprised if it’s not much lower than 50k before it’s all over.

I think that might work if the Liberty Bowl Game and SHC can make up the seat revenue by increased suite revenue. That's what I expect to happen. It's money out of the university's pocket, but we seem to be unable to negotiate with any strength.

(06-03-2022 07:37 AM)griffin Wrote:  

(05-22-2022 03:22 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 10:59 PM)jsw3ent Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 03:48 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 11:05 AM)jsw3ent Wrote:  Its over 50K just like I said it should be --and the university agreed ---they too thought the suggestion of less fans at the games ludicrous

Not at all. Laird clearly said he thought optimum was low 40's. Just let it go and move on.

I will post when and what I want thank you----Laird clearly stated at the 23:00 mark that low 40s was not set in stone/agreed upon/finalized/------the university had the brains to stay at MEMPHIS MEMORIAL STADIUM without alienating many fans ---plus they were not stupid enough to build a tiny mickey mouse at todays mega cost ----and then later have to add thousands more seats at even higher mega mega cost

The model from the studies and the consensus was Colorado State at 41,000. Laird wasn't stupid enough to say that the school didn't get what they want, so Plan B was the next best thing. 38,000 - 44,000 was ideal.

Quote:they were not stupid enough to build a tiny mickey mouse at todays mega cost

Signed...

40,000 Houston
38,000 Cincinnati
41,000 Colorado State
44,000 UCF
45,000 Baylor
45,000 TCU

We may get our wish for an even smaller stadium than 50K, the final seat count is no where near in stone. I’ll be surprised if it’s not much lower than 50k before it’s all over.

It will be much less. The renovation of the luxury suites/press box is going to take out a large chunk of seats. In 2016, when we added the 5,600 chairbacks, it reduced capacity by more than 1,000.

IMO, announcing 50,000 was purely political for the benefit of the LB and SHC. 45,000 would be pretty close to perfect.

(06-03-2022 08:31 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 07:37 AM)griffin Wrote:  

(05-22-2022 03:22 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 10:59 PM)jsw3ent Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 03:48 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  Not at all. Laird clearly said he thought optimum was low 40's. Just let it go and move on.

I will post when and what I want thank you----Laird clearly stated at the 23:00 mark that low 40s was not set in stone/agreed upon/finalized/------the university had the brains to stay at MEMPHIS MEMORIAL STADIUM without alienating many fans ---plus they were not stupid enough to build a tiny mickey mouse at todays mega cost ----and then later have to add thousands more seats at even higher mega mega cost

The model from the studies and the consensus was Colorado State at 41,000. Laird wasn't stupid enough to say that the school didn't get what they want, so Plan B was the next best thing. 38,000 - 44,000 was ideal.

Quote:they were not stupid enough to build a tiny mickey mouse at todays mega cost

Signed...

40,000 Houston
38,000 Cincinnati
41,000 Colorado State
44,000 UCF
45,000 Baylor
45,000 TCU

We may get our wish for an even smaller stadium than 50K, the final seat count is no where near in stone. I’ll be surprised if it’s not much lower than 50k before it’s all over.

It will be much less. The renovation of the luxury suites/press box is going to take out a large chunk of seats. In 2016, when we added the 5,600 chairbacks, it reduced capacity by more than 1,000.

IMO, announcing 50,000 was purely political for the benefit of the LB and SHC. 45,000 would be pretty close to perfect.

Whole lot of truth in what you stated.

In my conversations the number if it was going to be an OCS was in the 40,000 range, never anything significantly more, again if it was going to be an OCS.

(06-03-2022 07:54 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 07:37 AM)griffin Wrote:  

(05-22-2022 03:22 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 10:59 PM)jsw3ent Wrote:  

(05-20-2022 03:48 PM)Tiger87 Wrote:  Not at all. Laird clearly said he thought optimum was low 40's. Just let it go and move on.

I will post when and what I want thank you----Laird clearly stated at the 23:00 mark that low 40s was not set in stone/agreed upon/finalized/------the university had the brains to stay at MEMPHIS MEMORIAL STADIUM without alienating many fans ---plus they were not stupid enough to build a tiny mickey mouse at todays mega cost ----and then later have to add thousands more seats at even higher mega mega cost

The model from the studies and the consensus was Colorado State at 41,000. Laird wasn't stupid enough to say that the school didn't get what they want, so Plan B was the next best thing. 38,000 - 44,000 was ideal.

Quote:they were not stupid enough to build a tiny mickey mouse at todays mega cost

Signed...

40,000 Houston
38,000 Cincinnati
41,000 Colorado State
44,000 UCF
45,000 Baylor
45,000 TCU

We may get our wish for an even smaller stadium than 50K, the final seat count is no where near in stone. I’ll be surprised if it’s not much lower than 50k before it’s all over.

I think that might work if the Liberty Bowl Game and SHC can make up the seat revenue by increased suite revenue. That's what I expect to happen. It's money out of the university's pocket, but we seem to be unable to negotiate with any strength.

It looks to be with regards to more revenue opportunities.

(06-03-2022 08:40 AM)griffin Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 07:54 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 07:37 AM)griffin Wrote:  

(05-22-2022 03:22 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(05-21-2022 10:59 PM)jsw3ent Wrote:  I will post when and what I want thank you----Laird clearly stated at the 23:00 mark that low 40s was not set in stone/agreed upon/finalized/------the university had the brains to stay at MEMPHIS MEMORIAL STADIUM without alienating many fans ---plus they were not stupid enough to build a tiny mickey mouse at todays mega cost ----and then later have to add thousands more seats at even higher mega mega cost

The model from the studies and the consensus was Colorado State at 41,000. Laird wasn't stupid enough to say that the school didn't get what they want, so Plan B was the next best thing. 38,000 - 44,000 was ideal.

Quote:they were not stupid enough to build a tiny mickey mouse at todays mega cost

Signed...

40,000 Houston
38,000 Cincinnati
41,000 Colorado State
44,000 UCF
45,000 Baylor
45,000 TCU

We may get our wish for an even smaller stadium than 50K, the final seat count is no where near in stone. I’ll be surprised if it’s not much lower than 50k before it’s all over.

I think that might work if the Liberty Bowl Game and SHC can make up the seat revenue by increased suite revenue. That's what I expect to happen. It's money out of the university's pocket, but we seem to be unable to negotiate with any strength.

It looks to be with regards to more revenue opportunities.

If we can get it down to 45,000 it will create some demand for many games, and the overall experience will be infinitely better, which will make more people want to see the games in person. The revenue for the suites will be night and day.

The university should be able to charge more for tickets, especially for the suites. The canopies will look GREAT and will have the added benefit of doing away with the ugly sombrero look. The outside of the stadium will also look amazing. It isn't an OCS but it sure is a fantastic alternative to doing nothing.

(06-03-2022 08:51 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 08:40 AM)griffin Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 07:54 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 07:37 AM)griffin Wrote:  

(05-22-2022 03:22 AM)Stammers Wrote:  The model from the studies and the consensus was Colorado State at 41,000. Laird wasn't stupid enough to say that the school didn't get what they want, so Plan B was the next best thing. 38,000 - 44,000 was ideal.


Signed...

40,000 Houston
38,000 Cincinnati
41,000 Colorado State
44,000 UCF
45,000 Baylor
45,000 TCU

We may get our wish for an even smaller stadium than 50K, the final seat count is no where near in stone. I’ll be surprised if it’s not much lower than 50k before it’s all over.

I think that might work if the Liberty Bowl Game and SHC can make up the seat revenue by increased suite revenue. That's what I expect to happen. It's money out of the university's pocket, but we seem to be unable to negotiate with any strength.

It looks to be with regards to more revenue opportunities.

If we can get it down to 45,000 it will create some demand for many games, and the overall experience will be infinitely better, which will make more people want to see the games in person. The revenue for the suites will be night and day.

The university should be able to charge more for tickets, especially for the suites. The canopies will look GREAT and will have the added benefit of doing away with the ugly sombrero look. The outside of the stadium will also look amazing. It isn't an OCS but it sure is a fantastic alternative to doing nothing.

If it generates that kind of revenue - and we can keep it - then yes, it is a good thing.

With regards to a higher revenue:

Yesterday I happened to be in a very well know business in Memphis and was chatting with the leader and he informed me that his inventory is very low, the lowest it has ever been yet he is making far more money than he has in over ten years. By having less inventory on hand, his inventory "turn" is 3x what it was and his is doing exceptionally well. The markets have changed and people are adapting to having "less" to choose from yet will pay more for it and the demand is far greater than before.

Economics, funny how they work - time tested more than once.

supply and demand

(i can see my old economics professor drawing a graph on the chalk board)

(06-03-2022 10:21 AM)griffin Wrote:  With regards to a higher revenue:

Yesterday I happened to be in a very well know business in Memphis and was chatting with the leader and he informed me that his inventory is very low, the lowest it has ever been yet he is making far more money than he has in over ten years. By having less inventory on hand, his inventory "turn" is 3x what it was and his is doing exceptionally well. The markets have changed and people are adapting to having "less" to choose from yet will pay more for it and the demand is far greater than before.

Economics, funny how they work - time tested more than once.

In the freight business, suppliers for BMW and Toyota hold told me that the shelf life for parts inventory is anywhere between 15 minutes and 3 hours for most of their parts from the time they are manufactured to the time they are off of the shelf and on their way to a dealer.

Gone are the days where most manufacturers, distributors and suppliers have inventory stacked from the floor to the ceiling. Most of my customers need their freight out the door within a day or two because they don't have room for it at their facilities.

(06-03-2022 11:21 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 10:21 AM)griffin Wrote:  With regards to a higher revenue:

Yesterday I happened to be in a very well know business in Memphis and was chatting with the leader and he informed me that his inventory is very low, the lowest it has ever been yet he is making far more money than he has in over ten years. By having less inventory on hand, his inventory "turn" is 3x what it was and his is doing exceptionally well. The markets have changed and people are adapting to having "less" to choose from yet will pay more for it and the demand is far greater than before.

Economics, funny how they work - time tested more than once.

In the freight business, suppliers for BMW and Toyota hold told me that the shelf life for parts inventory is anywhere between 15 minutes and 3 hours for most of their parts from the time they are manufactured to the time they are off of the shelf and on their way to a dealer.

Gone are the days where most manufacturers, distributors and suppliers have inventory stacked from the floor to the ceiling. Most of my customers need their freight out the door within a day or two because they don't have room for it at their facilities.

This kind of story makes me think self-driving trucks are going to be out there quicker than I thought possible.

(06-03-2022 11:24 AM)Claw Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 11:21 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 10:21 AM)griffin Wrote:  With regards to a higher revenue:

Yesterday I happened to be in a very well know business in Memphis and was chatting with the leader and he informed me that his inventory is very low, the lowest it has ever been yet he is making far more money than he has in over ten years. By having less inventory on hand, his inventory "turn" is 3x what it was and his is doing exceptionally well. The markets have changed and people are adapting to having "less" to choose from yet will pay more for it and the demand is far greater than before.

Economics, funny how they work - time tested more than once.

In the freight business, suppliers for BMW and Toyota hold told me that the shelf life for parts inventory is anywhere between 15 minutes and 3 hours for most of their parts from the time they are manufactured to the time they are off of the shelf and on their way to a dealer.

Gone are the days where most manufacturers, distributors and suppliers have inventory stacked from the floor to the ceiling. Most of my customers need their freight out the door within a day or two because they don't have room for it at their facilities.

This kind of story makes me think self-driving trucks are going to be out there quicker than I thought possible.

I know most are saying that, but I don't see it. Too much that can go wrong and so much more that needs to be done for the technology to be reliable enough. It's bad enough to have a Tesla screw up, it is another thing entirely for it to happen with a 53FT tractor trailer hauling 50,000 LBS of freight.

(06-03-2022 11:21 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 10:21 AM)griffin Wrote:  With regards to a higher revenue:

Yesterday I happened to be in a very well know business in Memphis and was chatting with the leader and he informed me that his inventory is very low, the lowest it has ever been yet he is making far more money than he has in over ten years. By having less inventory on hand, his inventory "turn" is 3x what it was and his is doing exceptionally well. The markets have changed and people are adapting to having "less" to choose from yet will pay more for it and the demand is far greater than before.

Economics, funny how they work - time tested more than once.

In the freight business, suppliers for BMW and Toyota hold told me that the shelf life for parts inventory is anywhere between 15 minutes and 3 hours for most of their parts from the time they are manufactured to the time they are off of the shelf and on their way to a dealer.

Gone are the days where most manufacturers, distributors and suppliers have inventory stacked from the floor to the ceiling. Most of my customers need their freight out the door within a day or two because they don't have room for it at their facilities.

My most recent opportunity was for a Japanese company called Denso in Osceola, AR. We made HVAC's and other parts for Toyota and were partly owned by Toyota. In the past Toyota was big in "just in time" inventory processing but not as much anymore based on the model being built. No freight company was ever used as trucks ran from our plant to Toyota, in Princeton, IN, 5 times a day. We held some safety stock but for the most part we carried no inventory. Toyota however had quite a bit and sometimes an HVAC would go several months before being installed in a vehicle.

(06-03-2022 12:28 PM)Hernando Hills Tiger Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 11:21 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 10:21 AM)griffin Wrote:  With regards to a higher revenue:

Yesterday I happened to be in a very well know business in Memphis and was chatting with the leader and he informed me that his inventory is very low, the lowest it has ever been yet he is making far more money than he has in over ten years. By having less inventory on hand, his inventory "turn" is 3x what it was and his is doing exceptionally well. The markets have changed and people are adapting to having "less" to choose from yet will pay more for it and the demand is far greater than before.

Economics, funny how they work - time tested more than once.

In the freight business, suppliers for BMW and Toyota hold told me that the shelf life for parts inventory is anywhere between 15 minutes and 3 hours for most of their parts from the time they are manufactured to the time they are off of the shelf and on their way to a dealer.

Gone are the days where most manufacturers, distributors and suppliers have inventory stacked from the floor to the ceiling. Most of my customers need their freight out the door within a day or two because they don't have room for it at their facilities.

My most recent opportunity was for a Japanese company called Denso in Osceola, AR. We made HVAC's and other parts for Toyota and were partly owned by Toyota. In the past Toyota was big in "just in time" inventory processing but not as much anymore based on the model being built. No freight company was ever used as trucks ran from our plant to Toyota, in Princeton, IN, 5 times a day. We held some safety stock but for the most part we carried no inventory. Toyota however had quite a bit and sometimes an HVAC would go several months before being installed in a vehicle.

It is pretty cool to see so many moving parts working with exact precision.

(06-03-2022 12:32 PM)Stammers Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 12:28 PM)Hernando Hills Tiger Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 11:21 AM)Stammers Wrote:  

(06-03-2022 10:21 AM)griffin Wrote:  With regards to a higher revenue:

Yesterday I happened to be in a very well know business in Memphis and was chatting with the leader and he informed me that his inventory is very low, the lowest it has ever been yet he is making far more money than he has in over ten years. By having less inventory on hand, his inventory "turn" is 3x what it was and his is doing exceptionally well. The markets have changed and people are adapting to having "less" to choose from yet will pay more for it and the demand is far greater than before.

Economics, funny how they work - time tested more than once.

In the freight business, suppliers for BMW and Toyota hold told me that the shelf life for parts inventory is anywhere between 15 minutes and 3 hours for most of their parts from the time they are manufactured to the time they are off of the shelf and on their way to a dealer.

Gone are the days where most manufacturers, distributors and suppliers have inventory stacked from the floor to the ceiling. Most of my customers need their freight out the door within a day or two because they don't have room for it at their facilities.

My most recent opportunity was for a Japanese company called Denso in Osceola, AR. We made HVAC's and other parts for Toyota and were partly owned by Toyota. In the past Toyota was big in "just in time" inventory processing but not as much anymore based on the model being built. No freight company was ever used as trucks ran from our plant to Toyota, in Princeton, IN, 5 times a day. We held some safety stock but for the most part we carried no inventory. Toyota however had quite a bit and sometimes an HVAC would go several months before being installed in a vehicle.

It is pretty cool to see so many moving parts working with exact precision.

Interesting time to be owing a business that had a "shelf" cash flow tied up in inventory, say your turn was even on the low end of 2 to 4x, that cash flow now is open and added to your bottom line or used to grow your business because of the shift of the market with customers accepting the reality of today and the market change. Found equity like never seen before with businesses that had shelf life products.

It's a good time to acquire businesses that have these types of inventory management levels in place and pick up some equity to expand some business from someone who is ready to cash out and move on.