Trouble at RM?

[psydii]

Many large companies invested heavily (e.g. bought up the smaller agile companies to get control of the right people/products) for BSF.

 

With the sudden termination of the project these assets become under utilised and continue to incur costs to the organisation. If the company cannot find a new revenue stream or market in which to better utilise these assets then they become unwelcome liabilities. Liabilities that negatively impact the bottom line and shareholder value.

 

Divesting themselves of the assets and concentrating on areas of core expertise is one very common approach to this sort of shift in the business operating environment. In this case everybody is in trouble: BSF was huge. RM could be sunk if they didn't respond quickly and decisively to the new education landscape. So they have. The share price reflects the fact that at present the education IT market is no longer an investment priority for government. Several other BSF providers are wholey owned subsiduaries of multinationals and thus not traded and so the impact of BSFs termination on their share value is obscured.

 

That said Gove et al has been making some positive noises of late, and I wouldn't be at all suprised if all Edu IT share prices respond to his opening speach at BETT.

[Flatpackhamster]

RM is a large, multinational company. Over 60% of its shares are held by institutional shareholders like Aviva, Standard Life, Legal and General, Schroder Investment Management etc. The idea that these hard-headed fund managers can have their investment decisions based on anything other than hard facts is fanciful. RM themselves have issued a profits warning - fact. RM have disposed of assets - fact. RM have had a board reshuffle and taken on Andrew Adonis as non-exec - fact. Companies absolutely do not issue profit warning lightly. The share price has fallen because of these facts, not because of rumour. I rest my case, m'lud.

 

I have to disagree with you that institutional shareholders base anything on hard facts. Their traders are moved by sentiment as much as anyone's.

 

That said, RM's share price is tanking because its primary source of revenue is being squeezed. Like crapita, they've got very wealthy leaching off the taxpayer, and I can't say that I'm sorry that they're suffering. I do hope they go under. They're a huge parasite.

[localzuk]

I have to disagree with you that institutional shareholders base anything on hard facts. Their traders are moved by sentiment as much as anyone's.

 

That said, RM's share price is tanking because its primary source of revenue is being squeezed. Like crapita, they've got very wealthy leaching off the taxpayer, and I can't say that I'm sorry that they're suffering. I do hope they go under. They're a huge parasite.

 

I hope they don't. They employ 2700 people.

[Flatpackhamster]

I hope they don't. They employ 2700 people.

 

How many other companies are being squeezed out of the marketplace by their monopolistic behaviour, and how many people would those companies employ?

[localzuk]

How many other companies are being squeezed out of the marketplace by their monopolistic behaviour, and how many people would those companies employ?

 

Monopolistic? How so? Might need some evidence to back up such a harsh claim.

[EdWhittaker]

I don't think RM are going to go out of business. The board is clearly responding to the situation and taking steps to put the company back on an even financial footing. The sale of non-core assets will add some £1.3M onto the profits.

However, I do agree that the anti-competitive practices of companies like RM, and especially Crapita, make it difficult for small companies like mine to get a foothold in the market. We would certainly be looking to recruit more staff, given even a slightly bigger share of the market. However, we face a constant battle against suits from the big companies going in to LAs at high level, promising the moon on a stick, charging the earth and sweeping up exclusive deals. We have gone through such an exercise last year and lost 4 customers to SIMS SLG. Fortunately, all 4 came back this year after finding out it didn't live up to the hype.

[Flatpackhamster]

Monopolistic? How so? Might need some evidence to back up such a harsh claim.

 

As soon as the UK's biggest IT spender (the government) selects a company to deliver a huge programme of works (such as BSF), it creates a natural monopoly. RM can use this money to push out its competitors, either by undercutting them or simply buying them up.

[localzuk]

As soon as the UK's biggest IT spender (the government) selects a company to deliver a huge programme of works (such as BSF), it creates a natural monopoly. RM can use this money to push out its competitors, either by undercutting them or simply buying them up.

 

They won tenders to fulfill contracts. This isn't a monopoly, it is doing their job! Any company could tender for the contracts. So, no monopolistic behaviour there.

[sparkeh]

As soon as the UK's biggest IT spender (the government) selects a company to deliver a huge programme of works (such as BSF), it creates a natural monopoly. RM can use this money to push out its competitors, either by undercutting them or simply buying them up.

There was no 'chosen supplier' to deliver BSF, it didn't work like that. Companies put bids in to LAs and the LAs chose the winning bidder for their area.

RM did win a lot of tenders but they certainly aren't the only winners. Perhaps they were just good at their job in putting together winning bids?

[Flatpackhamster]

There was no 'chosen supplier' to deliver BSF, it didn't work like that. Companies put bids in to LAs and the LAs chose the winning bidder for their area.

RM did win a lot of tenders but they certainly aren't the only winners. Perhaps they were just good at their job in putting together winning bids?

 

Yes, perhaps they really were just the very best in every way. Although I'm not sure how to square they with my experience, and the experience of every person I've ever spoken to, who has hated every single thing RM ever released.

 

Could it be that there's rather going on than simple 'RM are really good'?

[Flatpackhamster]

They won tenders to fulfill contracts. This isn't a monopoly, it is doing their job! Any company could tender for the contracts. So, no monopolistic behaviour there.

 

I can see that if I continue this we're going to have another of those conversations, so if it's all the same to you, I'll drop it now and you can continue with your delusion that the education sector's biggest computer supplier doesn't abuse its market position.

[localzuk]

I can see that if I continue this we're going to have another of those conversations, so if it's all the same to you, I'll drop it now and you can continue with your delusion that the education sector's biggest computer supplier doesn't abuse its market position.

 

Rather than libeling them, which is what you're doing, or backing out of a conversation because you suddenly feel uncomfortable, why not provide some evidence of this supposed behaviour?

 

Anecdotal evidence of someone not liking their software or their hardware is not evidence of the company being 'bad'. I've seen plenty of people on here who have ended up working for RM through the BSF programme who have said they are a great employer. They won an award for being a good employer a couple of years back for example. Hundreds of schools use their gear, as do many universities.

 

A monopoly is a company that is the only one in the market. Anti-competitive behaviour is where they use a monopoly to force their way into another market, or to prevent other companies entering the market. Considering there are dozens, if not hundreds, of competitors (Northgate, Capita, Viglen, Stone, BlueChip, Insight, European Electronique, etc...). None of those companies are 'small'...

[MK-2]

Anecdotal evidence of someone not liking their software or their hardware is not evidence of the company being 'bad'

 

How about them trying to blame their failings on an individual, nearly costing that individual their employment and a 3 year list of incompetencies and lies?

[andyturpie]

Looking at some of the latter posts, could we please add some emoticons after the posts as I can't decide wether i'm in the middle of a genuine flame war or sarcastic posts... lol

 

RM love em or loathe them, its always emotive

[localzuk]

How about them trying to blame their failings on an individual, nearly costing that individual their employment and a 3 year list of incompetencies and lies?

 

Oh look, an anecdote. Come on, evidence. Court cases, investigations, even news reports of things happening. Trying to slate a company with 2700 employees over the handling of a single employee would be like blaming a single employee in a car manufacturer for making a crap car.

 

8-)

 

PS. It isn't flaming, it is semi-sarcastic/semi-trolling/semi-serious!

[featured_spectre]

Righty, I will throw my 2p into the pot

 

I personally dislike RM for their poor service, and poor solutions (in my opinion, not everyone else's).

 

RM however, are a business, and won contracts based on the fact that they are VERY GOOD at contract bids (they won a large bid for the Olympic IT infrastructure and systems along side Cisco!)

 

RM are not good employers (I know friends who have been pushed out by lies, deceit, poor management, constructive dismissal).

 

RM do provide solutions that work, albeit sometimes overpriced (their all in ones are for more expensive than Acer's for example).

 

I do not personally care if they go under or stay up, I used them as a licencing bid, and they were very close to winning and this was without any form of negotiation, they gave their best price the first time round and it battered everyone elses, then others put in the best price and RM lost out by 20p per licence!

 

RM also, were merged at one point with a construction company dealing in the software for construction accounts (redsky I think it is now), and RM split to focus solely on education, and then they diversified where as redsky is now the worlds leading construction accounts software.

 

All disjointed I know but stating facts as I see them

[Gatt]

Righty, I will throw my 2p into the pot

 

I personally dislike RM for their poor service, and poor solutions (in my opinion, not everyone else's).

RM are not good employers (I know friends who have been pushed out by lies, deceit, poor management, constructive dismissal).

 

 

I being one of those people! I initially did like Rm, but after the hell I went through with the school, I quickjly found that RM had no interest and seemed too quick to get - the only saving grace is that my union ensured that i walked away with a good reference and no stains on my otherwise exemplary record... Had it not been for the union, the story could have been far different

 

The worrying thing was that even though I only got as far as an investigatory meeting - RM stated that if I didn't resign, then I would have been dismissed!! Meaning the whole "investigatory" meeting was just for show and so that they could say that they had done their bit - even though they had already made up their mind!..

[MK-2]

Oh look, an anecdote. Come on, evidence. Court cases, investigations, even news reports of things happening. Trying to slate a company with 2700 employees over the handling of a single employee would be like blaming a single employee in a car manufacturer for making a crap car.

 

No, this isn't anecdotal, this is personal experience. I do not wish to post personal, sensitive documents on here nor talk about the matter further (though I assume you will take a moral high ground and criticise me for not doing so).

You asked for evidence of RM being "bad." I gave a situation as to why I feel they are bad. If you now want evidence against all 2700 employees then you are moving the goalposts. You are saying that to complain about a company we must have evidence that every employee at said company is in the wrong.

[psydii]

RedSky was Ramesys for a bit. Not sure they ever had anything to do with RM.

[localzuk]

No, this isn't anecdotal, this is personal experience. I do not wish to post personal, sensitive documents on here nor talk about the matter further (though I assume you will take a moral high ground and criticise me for not doing so).

You asked for evidence of RM being "bad." I gave a situation as to why I feel they are bad. If you now want evidence against all 2700 employees then you are moving the goalposts. You are saying that to complain about a company we must have evidence that every employee at said company is in the wrong.

 

The definition of anecdotal evidence is basically a single account of an event. Its terrible that people have bad experiences with their employers and it should not happen, but the simple fact is one person's experience is not enough to determine that an entire company is bad. I had a bad experience in a Post Office queue once, does that mean that the Post Office are bad for everyone? I had a bad experience with a couple of police officers a few years ago, does that mean that all police officers are corrupt?

 

What I said was that to say that a company is abusing their position or that they're a monopoly, or similar (which was what was said), you need evidence. You are, as always, entitled to your own opinion on any company, but publicly stating that they abuse their position as Flatpackhamster did is basically libel.

[MK-2]

The definition of anecdotal evidence is basically a single account of an event. Its terrible that people have bad experiences with their employers and it should not happen, but the simple fact is one person's experience is not enough to determine that an entire company is bad. I had a bad experience in a Post Office queue once, does that mean that the Post Office are bad for everyone? I had a bad experience with a couple of police officers a few years ago, does that mean that all police officers are corrupt?

 

OK give me a few mins while I call up our team of solicitors to get cracking on this for you.......

Why ask for evidence if even if I were to produce it you would dismiss it as anecdotal. You asked why someone thought RM was bad, I gave my opinion why. Now I need to swear to a jury of my peers and write a signed confession just for you to accept it.

 

I'll have to go along with @Flatpackhamster here, this will go nowhere. I have personal experience of RM, certain employees there, their solicitors, their actions towards myself and the school I work at and the meetings between all mentioned and our solicitors. Personally I don't need any more proof to know I dislike the company, the way they act and the way they treat customers.

If others like the company, superb, that is personal choice and I have nothing against that, but I will not be drawn into discussion as to why I feel they are bad

[localzuk]

OK give me a few mins while I call up our team of solicitors to get cracking on this for you.......

Why ask for evidence if even if I were to produce it you would dismiss it as anecdotal. You asked why someone thought RM was bad, I gave my opinion why. Now I need to swear to a jury of my peers and write a signed confession just for you to accept it.

 

I'll have to go along with @Flatpackhamster here, this will go nowhere. I have personal experience of RM, certain employees there, their solicitors, their actions towards myself and the school I work at and the meetings between all mentioned and our solicitors. Personally I don't need any more proof to know I dislike the company, the way they act and the way they treat customers.

If others like the company, superb, that is personal choice and I have nothing against that, but I will not be drawn into discussion as to why I feel they are bad

 

Way to select just one part of my post. My comments were originally aimed at the 'monopoly', 'abusing their position' and 'handed BSF'... Personally, I'm not a fan of RM. Their hardware is overpriced, their software is not useful to me etc. It doesn't mean I can go around claiming they've basically engaged in illegal behaviour!!!

 

Do people think it is acceptable to make wide-sweeping statements about companies stating that they've engaged in illegal activities then?

[EdWhittaker]

Ding, ding. End of round one!

Look, I think you've all got some fair points. Localzuk is right about not making sweeping statements - except about Crapita (joke, joke!!). It's inevitable than customer experience will vary when dealing with a large organisation. Other people may have bad feeling towards the company because their personal experience. On the subject of court cases and evidence; personally speaking I'm mad about losing a customer last term due to a certain IT provider blaming us for their failure. But small companies like us just have to swallow that and get on, 'cos we can't afford to take people to court.

[synaesthesia]

Oooooh did someone say Cra.... oh, no, best not

[Pottsey]

Yes, perhaps they really were just the very best in every way. Although I'm not sure how to square they with my experience, and the experience of every person I've ever spoken to, who has hated every single thing RM ever released.

 

Could it be that there's rather going on than simple 'RM are really good'?

I have to admit everyone I have spoken to hates RM but we have had nothing but good experience with them. The price is not always the best but the customer’s service has been excellent for us. One of our RM’s failed and what impressed me were no stupid questions on the phone, they accepted my diagnosis and sent an engineer out first thing the next morning with parts to fix the PC. This is without spending extra on support contracts, we just buy base units off them. It’s rare I need RM’s help but when I have the support staff have been excellent.