A Welsh business co-owner says Brexit cost him £250,000 extra in the first two months of this year.
Children’s bike manufacturer, Frog Bikes, employs around 50 people at it’s factory in Pontypool and has a global customer base, Wales Online report.
However, the affect of Brexit and the UK’s trade agreement means that the company has spent much of this year adapting to a challenging new way of doing business.
Co-founder of Frog Bikes, Jerry Lawson, said: “I couldn’t say there was anything positive.
“There’s extra paperwork, and there’s extra costs. And there’s a whole lot of unknown.”
Mr Lawson co-founded Frog Bikes back in 2013 with his wife Shelley.
The pair were searching for bikes for their children and, after not finding anything suitable, they decided they would go into business creating their own range of affordable bikes for kids.
After three years of growth, in 2016, the company opened its Pontypool factory with support from the Welsh Government.
“The business is growing. The UK [market] last year grew 18%, said Mr Lawson.
Since the company was set up eight years ago Frog Bikes has been selling more and more bikes to EU countries such as Germany, France and the Netherlands.
> Brompton reels from impact of Brexit and Covid
However, in spite of all of its success and continued growth, 2021 has been a difficult year for the company for one reason – Brexit.
Mr Lawson said: “We’re getting stuck in customs both on this side and in European countries.
“The paperwork is also incredible. To begin with, some of the countries wanted the paperwork in their language.
“Now we send them a commercial invoice with a whole lot of customs information. Plus, it’s four or five times we have to print it.”
Until Brexit, standard customs had not been done that way, and the company did not need customs declaration forms for stores in the EU.
The customs declaration includes information about the country of origin, shipping codes, and information about VAT, among other things.
> New bike day turns into £2,000 Brexit nightmare for British cyclist
Additionally, the European stores Frog Bikes sends its products to may also have to pay VAT, courier fees and consignment fees to receive them under the new trade deal between the UK and the EU.
Mr Lawson explained: “Spanish stores are being charged 60 euros per consignment.
“They might be charged a commission or finance fee by the courier. So, they can get the import VAT back but they can’t get the consignment fee, and they can’t get the commission fee or finance fee that is charged.
“So, if we only send three bikes to them, that works out at about a 50 euros increase to the consumer per bike. And that then means it’s a real barrier.
“We are gripping onto them by the skin of our teeth at the moment because a lot of them are very frustrated and concerned.
“I don’t know how long we’ll hold onto them if we can’t find a way around the delays, the paperwork and the extra costs.
“A store we’ve known for seven years who we’ve been trading with… came back and contacted me because they’re really struggling. They don’t know what the costs are every time.”
On top of this, to try and minimise the costs for the consumer, Mr Lawson explained that the cut of profits stores in the EU took home from selling Frog Bikes had decreased.
“If we reduce the margin the stores get by 2% or 3%, that means the price increase to the consumers is lower,” he said.
Prior to Brexit, the EU accounted for roughly 47% of the company’s business. Now, however, Mr Lawson explained he could see that percentage decreasing.
“Unless we find a workable solution to the barriers, the non-trade barriers, we can see that diminishing because we will lose these stores.
“And we know that because we talk directly with the stores. And when we have lots of stores in these markets, and they’re all feeling the pain, it has a risk for our business. And the challenge then is, if we lose those sales where will we make it up?”
In addition to uncertainty surrounding import fees for European stores, Frog Bikes, like other manufacturers, has seen growing component costs and a huge rise in shipping fees.
As a result, the company spent over £250,000 in Brexit-related costs by February of this year alone – just two months after Brexit came into effect.
“That’s wiped out our profit for last year, completely,” said Mr Lawson.
He explained that, in all of his years in business, 2021 was the most difficult period he had experienced.
“We’ve we’ve had various different things over the years.
“There was the dot-com burst, you had the banking crisis, but this is much worse. And if I look at how we were faring last year, based on the pandemic, this is much worse than that as well.”




















90 thoughts on “Brexit cost bicycle business £250,000 in two months”
Why would he be sending Frog
Why would he be sending Frog bikes to Spain with the associated customs headaches when you can’t buy one here for love nor money? That’s just poor business acumen I’m afraid.
Maybe he understands his own
Maybe he understands his own business better than some random on the internet.
Those Brexshit benefits just keep on coming eh?
Eton Rifle wrote:
Tell me which part of my post was factually incorrect?
By the way, according to the man himself he can happily export bikes to the USA and Hong Kong without apparent issue. Interesting that wouldn’t you say?
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Could it be making a sweeping unsupported assertion around business acumen?
You have failed to use facts in forming of your opinion, as there are insufficient data to come to any conclusion about an individual’s”business acumen”. Which by the way is an undefined element in the context of your statement.
I suppose it could be argued that there is nothing factually incorrect, as there were no facts in you post the first place..
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Why, it’s almost as if there’s a difference between having well-established systems for trading with third countries, established over years and suddenly erecting pointless trade barriers where we previously had frictionless trade.
Please stop embarrassing yourself.
Eton Rifle wrote:
It’s almost as if the EU were working against the UK all the time, but in a completely incompetent, self-defeating manner. We’ve already seen what a pigs ear they’ve made of the vaccine roll-out – perhaps it’s just time for you to admit that your masters in Berlin, Paris and Brussels aren’t quite as smart as you think they are?
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Oh good, conspiracy theories now, who’s for popcorn?
Nigel Garrage wrote:
Are you suggesting that he withdraw from EU markets, because at this time there is increased demand in the UK?
Do you know that the UK demand would take all the bikes ccurrently being shipped to fulfil orders from the UK, or are you guessing?
Do you understand the concept of trade deficits? Do you think it is a good idea to stop exporting because of brexit? How does this benefit the UK?
Perhaps part of the reason why you can’t buy one here is that he has essential deliveries held up in customs.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Are you suggesting that he withdraw from EU markets, because at this time there is increased demand in the UK?
Do you know that the UK demand would take all the bikes ccurrently being shipped to fulfil orders from the UK, or are you guessing?
Do you understand the concept of trade deficits? Do you think it is a good idea to stop exporting because of brexit? How does this benefit the UK?
Perhaps part of the reason why you can’t buy one here is that he has essential deliveries held up in customs.— Nigel Garrage
No, what I’m suggesting is that if there are artificial barriers to trade being erected in the EU, and domestic demand can easily absorb those barriers, it makes sense to sell to customers at home and to concentrate on exporting to friendlier trading partners.
By the way, there’s a net-beneficial effect on the balance of trade – as we currently import more bikes from the EU than we export, increasing domestic production can only be a win as we replace EU goods with superior British product. Trading with parts of the world that are fast-growing will also produce net-beneficial trade and growth outcomes.
road.cc wrote:
Does that £250,000 include the component costs and shipping fees?
The wording implies that it does.
If it does then the article is misleading and the headline is downright dishonest.
As an aside, I tried to buy a new Frog bike 2 weeks ago, sold out everywhere.
Didn’t do them in your size?
Didn’t do them in your size?
Apparently they don’t cater
Apparently they don’t cater for 90kg riders.
Fat shaming bastards.
I knew you’d be along to
I knew you’d be along to defend the Brexit shit show. The point of the article is that he’s incurring additional costs that he didn’t before. Quibbling over the magnitude of them is typical of you. Where are all the benefits promised by the Quitlings?
Don’t say vaccines because they are nothing to do with Brexshit. https://fullfact.org/health/coronavirus-vaccine-brexit/
The magnitude of the costs is
The magnitude of the costs is intrinsic to the argument.
Component and shipping costs have increased for every single bicycle manufacturer regardless of where they are based.
Including those costs in the total and then implying they are ‘brexit-related’ is disingenuous at best.
If we want to have a truly informed debate about the costs of Brexit for businesses then need to have an accurate representation of what those costs actually are.
As for the vaccines, I agree that it would have been possible for the UK to do exactly what it did whilst an EU member.
The fact that not a single member of the EU chose to exercise that option indicates that there was significant political pressure not to do so.
It is, of course, entirely speculative but I believe that if a pro-EU party had won the previous election we would currently be embroiled in the same vaccination difficulties as the EU.
Rich_cb wrote:
Oh dear. The levels of sophistry you Quitlings have to descend to in attempting to defend the Brexit shit show.
If the whole sleazy project was not underpinned by racism and xenophobia, I’d almost feel sorry for you.
I do love this type of
I do love this type of argument.
No attempt to engage in the debate whatsoever.
Then accusations of racism and xenophobia.
Please clarify your accusation of sophistry, what part of my argument is inaccurate or misleading?
Before the referendum, I was
Before the referendum, I was asking for 10 legitiate, verifiable benefits for leaving the EU. I dropped the question to 5. I would have taken 1.
Still waiting.
Every single Brexit related
Every single Brexit related comments thread has this claim repeated ad nauseam.
The very same threads usually contain multiple examples of brexit related benefits.
So either you haven’t bothered reading around this subject at all, or you’re lying.
Rich_cb wrote:
Please name one of the multiple benefits.
There you go, have asked.
Added to the dozens of
Added to the dozens of benefits that have already been discussed ad nauseum, we can add another one: how about the tens of thousands of bodies that would have been piled up now if we’d been forced into the EU’s vaccine incompetence?
Nigel Garrage wrote:
“Dozens of benefits”? ?????
Do you REALLY want to have a conversation about Covid deaths? The UK has one of the worst in the world.
If you actually want to look
If you actually want to look at comparable statistics then may I suggest you start here:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/articles/comparisonsofallcausemortalitybetweeneuropeancountriesandregions/2020
The UK was the worst performing EU country during the first wave but one of the better performing countries during the second wave.
Over the whole of 2020 the UK had the 7th highest excess mortality in the EU.
The UK, thankfully, appears to have been spared the worst of the third wave currently affecting much of Europe.
Further analysis after the third wave has subsided should give a true reflection of how each country managed the pandemic.
I would expect the UK to be one of the better performing countries during the third wave.
On top of the 100,000+ caused
On top of the 100,000+ caused by Johnson’s incompetence? We would still have had the option to use the EU vaccine service or not. We could still have run our own vaccine service. Just as most of the “benefits” from Brexit are things we could always have done while still in the EU.
UK authorities can
UK authorities can (potentially) more effectively enforce Marine Conservation Zones, restricting fishing and protecting the seabed from bottom trawling and other damaging practices. Apparently this enforcement was quite difficult whilst we were part of the EU.
Still doesn’t explain the overall enthusiasm of the UK fishing industry for Brexit, but to me it feels like spotting what could be some loose change in the wreckage.
We can also set our own
We can also set our own import tariffs.
We have set (slightly) lower tariffs for many bike parts than the EU. Minimal impact economically but of interest to this forum.
We have reduced import tariffs for some foodstuffs, most noticeably cane sugar, reducing costs for UK consumers.
We have the ability to set our own VAT levels allowing us to, finally, remove VAT from women’s sanitary products.
We can now unilaterally ban the export of live animals, something that animal welfare groups have been campaigning for tirelessly and that was impossible whilst in the EU.
I hope @GMBasix can read the above, their 5 year quest is finally over, can’t imagine how relieved they’ll be.
Rich_cb wrote:
UK had that ability (specifically for sanitary products) within the EU, try again.
I’m afraid you’re wrong.
I’m afraid you’re wrong.
https://fullfact.org/economy/did-mps-vote-against-removing-tampon-tax/
Please provide evidence to the contrary if you have any.
Rich_cb wrote:
We have the ability to set our own VAT levels allowing us to, finally, remove VAT from women’s sanitary products.— Rich_cb
The Eu is in the process of doing just this – now due in 2022. This was one of Camerons govts projects, to enact change on EU policy. It would have happened earlier. The procedure slowed – likely due to the state providing the main impetus (UK) bizarrely deciding to leave, so some pace was lost.
So no, not an advantage, it was happening anyway, due to UK influence.
No, not impossible, it is perfectly possible to change EU policy, as the UK has shown time and time again – see above about the tampon tax. Not that we will be able to do so any more……
We can of course ban live animal export, and probably will by the end of the year. Whilst utterly jacking in the ability to influence the rest of the EU to do the same, and so the live movement of animals will continue in Europe, and from Europe too. Seems a bit of a Pyrrhic victory to me…
No Rich, no net gain at all. In fact, a massive loss in rights, protections, trade, cooperation and influence.
But I have learned something! I have finally had a Brexiter tell me what it was all about – a tiny reduction in the world live animal export trade.
Interesting movement of the
Interesting movement of the goal posts there from any benefit to “net gain” ? good job buddy.
Please tell me what rights or protections we have lost, I’m so curious.
To be clear I voted remain but there are clear arguments to leave the same way there are clear arguments to remain. Taking your little partisan black and white view doesn’t help anyone.
Also we lost influence in the EU but gained influence in the UK, I mean agree or disagree but there are clear benefits from having a greater level of control over your own laws.
Well Hellooooo Mr 1 post
Well Hellooooo Mr 1 post
I would expect a net gain at the least otherwise why do it? Just being specific that I don’t want some glint in the wreckage being offered as a “gain”. More wanting to prevent the moving of goalposts.
But maybe you’re right, I should have been less charitable and more specific by saying a colossal net amount of harm has been done to this country and its people.
Every single one of us [I’m going to edit that. Many arch brexiters have done their best to wangle EU citizenship…… Just not available to the majority I’m afraid] has lost European citizenship and the protections that go with it. Rights to live work and learn in the EU have been forfeited. Participating in EU elections. Free movement across Europe. These are some of the key ones, there are many more. I’ll let you look them up (I don’t think you will). Interestingly we as citizens have forfeited more rights in the EU than EU citizens have lost when in the UK. Again, I’ll let you look it up. Oh, please let me know what I have gained in terms of rights and protections – I’d like to understand the net advantage to me and my family….
Noting that overall an incredibly damaging act of harm has been inflicted on UK citizens is not a black and white view. It is the conclusion when considering the net outcome.
Not sure why you think that your voting remain is relevant – perhaps you think you made a mistake, but luckily it worked out alright. I’m going to leave that one to you.
Captain Badger wrote:
Well Hellooooo Mr 1 post
Well done you can count, excellent first reception to the site ??? I hope it wasn’t too hard, keep at it little buddy ?
(I can’t see how to do the little quote things on my phone being a “Mr 1 post” and all but I’m sure you can work out the context)
I don’t think Brexit was a net gain, but that doesn’t mean some of the arguments being put forward aren’t valid.
Okay you seem to be working from a very interesting view of “rights” by categorising a privilege as a right. Please understand the concept of negative rights before saying you’ve “lost rights”. Also freedom of movement is itself in direct conflict of the rights of the individuals of the country to which one moves
When rights come into conflict you need to select the one that takes precedent, in the case of freedom of movement it basically violates the NAP so the freedom to not have individuals move into your country at will supercedes the freedom of movement of the individual. This is real basic conflict of rights stuff, so looking at rights lost and gained nearly 70 million people gain a right (this would be a true or negative right) and what a few thousand lost a “right” but they can just apply for a visa and do it anyways.
I think it’s relevant because you and I land on the same conclusion: Brexit is a net negative for the country. However, you seem to fall into the camp of “the sky is falling! My remoaning overlords have given me the Holy text from on high and all is lost!! Woe is me!”. Where as I think the totality of Brexit is a negative but there upsides such as (trigger warning since this goes against your holy texts), being able to set limits on immigration, having a sovereign parliament, being able to set up new trade agreements and reducing bureaucracy in research funding to name a few.
Again I think we lost out but I also think you’re a mindless arse.
And to bring it back to the article in hand, @Rich_cb does seem to be correct, the 250,000 being attributed to Brexit alone looks likes it’s being inflated for political points scoring.
The EU had already changed
The EU had already changed their rules on VAT and sanitary products.
British Sugar beet producers must be over the moon with the cane Sugar tariff reduction, that shortly followed tate & lines donation to the Conservatives.
Without a trade deal universal tariffs are applied to all imports without reciprocal tariff reductions for UK exporters.
The EU have not changed their
The EU have not changed their rules on VAT and sanitary products. They are currently working towards doing so. The change may take place in 2022 if all goes well. If you have evidence that the rules have already changed please post it.
The EU imposed heavy tariffs on imported cane sugar to try and create an EU sugar industry. This cost many jobs in cane sugar refining including huge swathes of Tate & Lyle’s UK workforce. EU sugar is far more expensive than cane sugar with the increased prices being passed on to EU consumers.
Protectionism always leads to higher prices for poor consumers in order to benefit relatively wealthy producers. It’s not a policy I support.
There are no such thing as compulsory universal tariffs. You do not have to apply import tariffs to anything if you don’t want to. The only rule is that all countries which you do not have a trade deal with must be treated equally. Singapore is an example of a country which applies virtually no import tariffs.
Rich_cb wrote:
Funny I said that earlier on. Looks like that as a reason for Brexit was somewhat premature, particularly as this change in policy was pushed by the UK, and the main reason it slowed was due to our exit…..
Funny you were saying how wonderful it is that Ribble was able to capitalise on reduced competition from Eu [due to import tariffs] only a couple of posts ago. It’s almost as if your principles shift with the prevailing wind….
Still waiting for one of your elusive benefits though…….
Quote:
Don’t worry, the governements “independent” review into lobbying will stop this type of thing as indicated with the Minister yesterday stating he doesn’t think rules would change.
The Sanitary Products one is a bit of a red herring anyway as most supermarkets had dropped the prices to “absorb” the 5% vat costs AND the Government had also ringfenced the VAT for Womens charities. So removing now for the headlines doesn’t change the prices AND the charities lose this funding at a time when they need all the sources they can. Still headlines hey.
Rich_cb wrote:
But not our export tariffs, and since asymmetry is self-defeating, import tariffs remain. These affect British consumers, not the Treasury, so the government doesn’t mind that.
Right.
However, 57% of all imported food comes from the EU. We didn;t need to do anything about that because… welll… the EU was us.
It is impossible to get across to some people how much influence we used to have in the EU, before we became a global laughing stock. Article 50, for example, was written by Lord Kerr.
VAT on sanitary products was reduced in 2001 to the then-lowest option of 5%. However, that is not the real reason for this injustice. The real reason is that those in government were not bothered enough in this country as in elsewhere. We know this because, in Ireland, they were bothered enough to have a zero rate which took precedence when the EU VAT rate came in. If we (or rather the government) had wanted it badly enough, it would have happened. Now it has happened here, and it is also happening in the EU. Not a reason to leave.
I don’t doubt that you can come up with things you think the EU has got wrong. That is not a reason to leave. Now we have next-to-zero influence on the EU, so if animal welfare was actually a concern, they would have retained that influence to be able to exert it.
The reality is that Johnson and his cronies and certain liespapers managed a whack-a-mole collection of [fake] reasons to leave. As each was debunked with credible analysis, up popped another slightly more ludicrous than the last, yet told with a straight face. You believed it, and now you realise (or ought to) that there was no substance to any of it.
Those ‘reasons’ included misdirection over immigration: equating illegal immigration and assylum seeking; misrepresenting the rules; conveniently overlooking the fact that we had control over immigration (including that from the EU) – we just chose not to exercise it, while not actually accepting anything like our responsibility of refugees. So, when you asked about sophism and xenophobia, that is part of the picture: the hostile environment against those in desparate need, while scapegoating Polish plumbers. And when I weigh up that nasty attitude (in the words of one of its leaders) from our own government, versus the improvements that could be made in the European Union, the flag-waving rhetoric makes me sick; and that is why I find zero evidence of any benefit from leaving.
Britain keeps shooting itself in the foot and removing itself from international relevance. The quest is just beginning to turn ourselves around from this nonsense.
Just one credible reason that makes it worth leaving.
Still waiting.
And there it is.
And there it is.
The goal posts are moved.
At the start of this thread you wanted “legitiate (sic), verifiable benefits for leaving the EU”.
Now you have been presented with said benefits you have decided to add your own subjective caveat.
At least you can slightly reword your tired spiel next time you post it.
But if you really want to know the main benefit of Brexit then consider the following;
It will have taken the EU 7 years to remove VAT from sanitary products if (it’s still an if at this point) they finally manage it in 2022.
Once the UK was free of EU regulations it took us 1 day to do the same.
As an independent nation we are able to move more quickly and act more decisively than a lumbering bureaucracy trying to satisfy the wants and needs of 27 separate countries.
This is true whether the issue is relatively minor as above or a genuine matter of life and death as with Covid-19 vaccine procurement.
The UK, acting independently, was able to make decisions faster and secure more favourable contract terms than the EU.
The EU was once again hampered by bureaucratic inertia and its citizens have unfortunately borne the brunt of that lethargic response.
So Road.CC that’s the 17th
So Road.CC that’s the 17th BREXIT post this year – I think you’ve made your point that you are remoaner cry babies and rather stay in the EU. I ride a bike as a release and enjoyment and don’t really want to read any sulky political articles – for or against. There’s the mainstream news for that.
You still read it and felt
You still read it and felt the need to comment expressing your political viewpoint. Seems disingenuous to me.
The referendum was YEARS ago.
The referendum was YEARS ago. You lost. Try to be a man and accept the fact.
A Watts wrote:
Someone told me only the other day that you don’t actually have to read every single article on Road.cc. You can chose! It was a revelation. I feel I have my life back….
By the way, congratulations on your first post. I do hope there will be more.
I didn’t read it – just saw
I didn’t read it – just saw the headline
Oh no a brexiteer going off
Oh no a brexiteer going off on one without looking at the detail or taking time to appraise the evidence.
First time for everything I suppose…
You lost the referendum five
You lost the referendum five years ago, boo hoo, still whining.
planetjanet wrote:
Well done. Posting the same dumb thing over and over within seconds, reinforcing the stereotype of pro-Brexit voters as being both stupid and wilfilly ignorant. Your mum may regret letting you use her smartphone.
I guess you’re not in a job where Brexit has made it more difficult or more complicated or aspects of your life more expensive. Or made you jobless (yet).
For readers who can construct a coherent sentence or two, this is by ex-Marillion frontman Fish on the difficulties faced by UK artists trying to tour in Europe:
https://www.carryontouring.uk/blogs/carry-on-touring-real-people-real-lives-real-jobs/we-need-a-cultural-passport-for-both-european-and-uk-professional-creatives-fish
Music is a huge industry and touring is a big earner for UK bands and artists, especially nowadays. And of course for those who work with them – roadies, engineers, lighting crew etc. Even a solo artist like Fish has 9 other people with him on tour!
A Watts wrote:
A Brexiter who doesn’t read further than a headline. What a novelty…..
If you had read it, you’d no
If you had read it, you’d no doubt have realised that the article was reporting the issues the business was experiencing as a direct result of the end of the transition period and the new trading relationship between the EU and UK. It’s a factual report, with no editorialising on our part.
They are posting stories
They are posting stories about cycling. If this is the 17th this year then I expect 17 different stories have emerged from cycling sources. Why don’t you find links where Brexit has helped cycling business and link them here so they can use those.
Why doesn’t the original
Why doesn’t the original poster find links where Brexit has helped cycling business and link them here so they can use those? I’m going to stick my neck out and suggest that’s because there aren’t any. Which just goes to show that there’s nothing quite as pitiful as a sore winner.
Strangely, stories of UK
Strangely, stories of UK brands expanding are never accompanied by any mention of Brexit.
Sigma and Ribble have both announced expansion plans this year.
Both businesses will have seen their EU competitors placed at a distinct disadvantage post brexit.
For some unfathomable reason road.cc never even mentioned brexit when reporting the news of their expansion.
Yet when Brompton complained of the difficulties they were currently facing, of which brexit was mentioned as an aside, guess what road.cc chose as their headline?
Rich_cb wrote:
Was it the dastardly EU that was preventing Sigma and Ribble from expanding in the past? EU directive Si-Rib-267-98376, otherwise known as the limit British bike sales bill.
Or could it be, no bear with me, something else going on in the bike market that enables this expansion – more people buying bikes over the past year maybe?
Of course the European competitors no doubt have been placed at a disadvantage when selling to the UK (one country), just as Sigma and Ribble have been placed at a disadvantage when selling to the EU (27 countries). So the advantage when selling in the UK is offset by the disadvantage in the EU.
But don’t worry, they can sell to Vietnam. Well, they always could, but they can still sell to Vietnam. So Brexit’s not all bad – is that one of the advantages you keep refusing to name?
That’s because they are expanding in spite of Brexit not because. Do keep up old boy
Cos it’s relevant.
They mentioned Brexit and
They mentioned Brexit and COVID because he mentioned Brexit and COVID . He barely mentioned COVID either throughout the rest but you didn’t seem to mind that. Admittedly, I don’t have an FT sub to be able to read the original article though.
And as for Ribble and Sigma expanding ( and don’t forget Rapha), where in the original articles do they state that they can only expand now due to the freedoms of Brexit? If it was in there AND road.cc don’t mention it then I will join you in berating them.
It was the headline I
It was the headline I objected to. Brexit was mentioned as an aside in the article yet chosen as the headline. Why?
It’s misleading and borderline dishonest.
It’s not necessarily the freedoms of Brexit, more the impact on their competitors. Any sensible analysis of the situation would include Brexit but it was not even mentioned.
Brexit is given undue prominence in negative stories and ignored altogether in positive stories when it’s clearly relevant.
Quote:
But how can it be relevant? Ribble have raised their prices between December and January. Is that normal for them? Is it because they need extra costs due to extra costs incurred since Brexit? Is it supply and demand? Or is it to pay for a brand new showroom? They have also just carried on from when they were bought by Cap Investors back in 2015 with new bikes, new showrooms in fancy places (Birmingham Mailbox and Bluewater) and budgeting to buy sponsored articles like on this self same Road.cc with the video series on buying a bike to suit the needs last year.
And as Sigma, they had significant investment this year but as most of what they sell is imported items anyway with now price increases, why is their sucess down to Brexit? And like I mentioned, all Road.cc does is accumalate stories from other sources which happens to be about bikes, they are not the FT or other business papers which need economical analysis. So if the original sources or even the companies themselves don’t indicate the growth is down to Brexit effing up competitors, why should Road CC make that analysis.
And I do like how you state look at the good news here because Brexit is good enough to screw up other businesses these companies compete with. So surely it is a down side of brexit and not a plus side neccesarily that other companies are less competitive? Still I suppose it decides on which side of the coin you fall on.
How can it not be relevant?
How can it not be relevant?
For Ribble many of their direct competitors cannot sell to the UK as easily or have to charge more to do so.
This can only be of benefit to Ribble’s market share.
For Sigma the situation is similar. As they sell mainly imported items they fall in to the double tariff trap when exporting to the EU, that is they have to pay tariffs twice on each item, but their competitors face the same problem when exporting to the UK.
Sigma have a lot of EU competitors so this will have a very positive impact on their UK market share.
As both companies are expanding it seems as if this is having a positive overall effect.
By ignoring the positive effects of Brexit and concentrating purely on the negative effects road.cc are letting down their readers.
But again, you are stating
But again, you are stating these are positive effects because other companies are experiencing negative effects due to the B word. One is supposedly benefitting because the others are not.
You are fast to rubbish any story with negative effects stating it is not brexit related but this, that and t’other even when the company involved states they are affected by it. Yet when the company states we have built a new showroom which could be because of lots of reasons AND the company doesn’t state it is because of the boom of Brexit, you are adamant that must be the real reason.
And even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and they have increased because of Brexit, it is not benefitting me as the bikes are not getting cheaper are they? They aren’t passing savings to the customer and instead can charge what they like as they face less competition overall. I know have less choice as Canyon, Trek, Giant, Specialised are all more expensive as well.
You’re misrepresenting my
You’re misrepresenting my position there.
I’m asking for balance.
The article on Frog bikes seemed to put a number of unrelated costs into the ‘brexit-related’ costs basket in order to make a nice headline.
The article on Brompton took a passing mention of Brexit and made it a headline.
Positive articles don’t seem to take the same approach.
How can a reduction in competition be anything but beneficial for Sigma /Ribble?
Why is Brexit not mentioned at all?
The only plausible explanation is bias.
Bikes which are imported directly to the UK will have no brexit related additional costs. Ribble will still have to compete with Giant etc. It’s their EU based equivalents that will face increased costs eg Canyon/Rose.
Well blame Frog bikes if
Well blame Frog bikes if there is a misbalance as they decided to go to Wales Online and state we have had to spend 250k on additional costs AND our valued customers on the continent are suffering as well. Why blame road.cc for repearting the same things?
Yes you have a point on Brompton but they also mentioned Covid in the same headline and the specific mention of Covid was along the same lines as well. So they picked two points out of the article which are currently big news even if not much was covered in it.
But you seem to be missing the point that Road.cc parrot other articles / press releases so unless the sources state “Brexit has had a positive effect because……” then why would they deduce it has had an effect.
Ribble have expanded significantly since 2015 when they were bought by an investment firm and have beem expanding significantly for the last few years so why does Brexit have to be the main reason they opened a new showroom. Was it Brexit when they had a massive boost in sales in 2016 or as they state then, the success of team GB at Rio Olympics?
And sigma has also been expanding their brand alot the last few years and managed to employ Matt Stephens direct from GCN to be their main advertising Spokesman in 2018 or so well before knowledge on how Brexit would effect them was known.
But surely the postive effects will not actually be known for at least a year where the bad are instant due to new import and export rules that are in place. Ribble for example have already lost money on bikes but built up Customer goodwill due to the VAT issues on exports to the continent on shipments after January 1st. So when they can announce the massive profits next year or so and they say “this only occurred because Brexit was so good for us”, then you can be smug that you are right. However if they release “despite Brexit we managed to make massive profits”, then direct your anger at Ribble if Road.cc parrot it.
In fairness I didn’t realise
In fairness I didn’t realise that road.cc had literally cut and pasted that article from another website.
The charge of misleading their readers should really be directed at Wales online.
Still would be nice if road.cc applied any sort of editorial standard to an article before shamelessly lifting it.
The point with the Brompton article was that covid was directly or indirectly the cause of much of their woes. Brexit had virtually nothing to do with it. Yet there it was in the headline.
I didn’t say that Brexit was the main reason for Sigma or Ribble’s recent success. I said that it has to have been beneficial for them from a market share point of view.
If Brexit has even a minor role in a firm’s struggles it is given huge prominence in the write up yet if brexit plays a similarly significant role in a firm’s success it receives no mention at all.
All I’m asking for is balance.
But how is it misleading in
But how is it misleading in with Wales Online. The owners have said that they have had to spend 250k in the last two months because of Brexit related costs AND mentioned that their own customers in the EU which was 47% of there sales have had to take hits because of the changes made by Brexit. Both issues not there before 31st Dec, now there since? So surely if there is any misleading, it is done by Frog directors but being as they know what they have had to spend and not spend, is it misleading?
And I love how you state 250k unscheduled hit as minor? Maybe to your multi million pound daily dealings it is piffle but to them it is last years profits but they could well be misleading us.
I doubt any company who deal with the EU will be able to say it hasn’t caused unnecessary costs and problems. However currently the only ones who can honestly state Brexit has been profitable these last few monthes will be the ones started up to “facilitate” paperwork and “advise” on all the new rulings etc. (and of course all the ones who play stock market games etc who always make a killing on the misfortune of others).
However in a years time I expect the ones like Ribble etc can point to Brexit on their profits if they sell their bikes to customers who would have gone to Canyon or Rose. But it will still be upto them to make a point of it in any press release. As mentioned if they do, and Road.cc ignore that bit, I will side with you on any accusations then.
I’m still not sure on Sigmas boost as they are still competing against most of the other major online sellers like Rutland, Wibble, Tredz etc. I can only see bike-Components.de being affected (chosen as they always come up when I search online for bits but others can be subjected here) but I suppose it will depend on how much Sigma used to ship to the EU compared to how much Bike-components shipped to the UK to see if it is better or worse.
I didn’t state that £250k was
I didn’t state that £250k was minor.
If you look at the quote from the article, which I included in my very first post in this thread, it implies that the £250k is due, in part, to “growing component costs and a huge rise in shipping fees.”
It implies that these are included in the “brexit-related” costs.
That seems fundamentally dishonest.
Well email Jerry and ask him?
Well email Jerry and ask him? But if the article is correct and they have had to spend 250k this calendar year by Feb, and something happened on January 1st which wasn’t there December 30th, then what else could it be?
It doesn’t bother me that
It doesn’t bother me that much to start emailing random people.
The article mentions shipping fees and component costs then implies these are included in the £250k figure.
That’s the issue I have with it. Component costs are almost certainly not brexit related yet they seem to be including them in this total then blaming it all on brexit.
Rich_cb wrote:
…
would be nice if road.cc applied any sort of editorial standard to an article before shamelessly lifting it.— Rich_cb
Didn’t think you were new to the site. About 90% of the articles are like that.
That implies that only 10%
That implies that only 10% are on a rolling ‘update’ cycle…
9.5% – there is the
9.5% – there is the occasional original piece.
Rich_cb wrote:
That’s a curious way of thinking about whether an effect is positive or negative. So the fact that some companies are suffering due to the negative effects, you consider it a positive that a minority are experiencing less competition?
Brexit has put up new trade
Brexit has put up new trade barriers between the UK and the EU.
This harms some businesses and helps others.
If Frog really does have to pull out of some EU markets you can guarantee that another firm will take their place.
This will be a negative for Frog and a positive for whoever takes their place, La Grenouille perhaps?
When companies like Rose pull out of the UK their market share has to go somewhere, companies like Ribble are well placed to take it.
When we read of Ribble or Sigma expanding there never seems to be any mention of the potential brexit effect.
Yet when we read of Cotic or Frog struggling brexit is mentioned prominently. In the case of this Frog article the Brexit effect seems to have been hugely exaggerated.
The issue with that is that
The issue with that is that if their expansion is largely due to trade barriers then we suffer from less choice as consumers. I wouldn’t really classify that as a benefit to us despite the increase in some trade which is likely offset against greater difficulties with UK exports.
I would agree.
I would agree.
Any barriers to trade harm consumers.
But they can benefit businesses/producers.
Rich_cb wrote:
Only the ones who aren’t significantly exporting to the EU…
So the elusive benefit of Brexit is that it punishes UK companies that primarily rely on exports to our closest trading partners?
I see….
Leaving the EU to become a
Leaving the EU to become a self governing nation again was NOT about the cost of your bicycle parts.
Brexit was a scam that sadly
Brexit was a scam that sadly many gullible people fell for, and now the rest of us have to put up with the dire consequences.
Boris Johnson, Nigel farage and the rest of the clowns are laughing their heads off at one of the biggest scams ever to have been perpetrated on a supposedly intelligent population.
Project fear becomes project reality as predicted.
Ahhhh, how sweet, still
Ahhhh, how sweet, still throwing toys out of the ‘I was right’ pram. We had the debate for years, we had a referendum, you lost, grow up, accept the fact. Or move to Brussels.
Isn’t moving to mainland
Isn’t moving to mainland Europe a bit trickier than it used to be, though?
Anyone know what the other 8
Anyone know what the other 8 posts were from Planet Janet? Anything about bikes at all?
Whilst I know it is very
Whilst I know it is very divisive, can I implore people to not use “remoaner” or “Brexshit” or other playground terms. Some posters on both sides have valid points about it but all those terms do is trivialise and just mean post threads devolve into childish ranting. It is embarrassing for all in the long run.
But then Eton Rifle would
But then Eton Rifle would never have been able to use the phrase “Quitlings” which I had not heard before and I rather liked.
FFS the Referendum was nearly
FFS the Referendum was nearly five years ago, grow up, get over it.
Erm, I was asking people not
Erm, I was asking people not to be insulting and using childish terms for both sides and I need to grow up?
Surely one of the biggest
Surely one of the biggest benefits of Brexit has been the free money that’s surely been pumped into the NHS and has enabled the biggest pay-rise for NHS front-line staff in the last few months?
No-one is addressing the
No-one is addressing the elephant in the room: supermarkets don’t seem to have any of those fresh anchovies in their delis anymore.
Edit: I just visited my local Deli and luckily they had some marinated anchovies left.
Are you telling me that there
Are you telling me that there’s a God and he voted leave? I hate anchovies….
Chris Hayes wrote:
I’ve always prefer’d inner tubes.
Chris Hayes wrote:
I don’t think He often gets involved in politics as surely even the Tories are the lesser evil. But to be fair, Cthulhu never created delicious anchovies so maybe you meant some other god?
hawkinspeter wrote:
Wait – deli counters are still a thing?
mdavidford wrote:
He must live in Hampstead….
mdavidford wrote:
Well, maybe in the larger shops. Luckily we have loads of delis near us – we used to have 3 Polish delis within a 50m range.
£250,000? That’s about £25
£250,000? That’s about £25 for every person that voter for Brexit in Pontypool.
I’m sure that now they are feeling truly independent they’re also feeling generous.
Love and hugs