Belatucadrus 16:06 18 Oct 2007

click here

Hate to dis what is essentially a local company, but this is one phoenix that doesn't really deserve to rise :-
"an overdrawn director's loan account of £650,000 at the time of the company's collapse. "
Not surprising AMD won't deal, this looks like running a company into the ground then letting the suppliers go hang before you try to persuade the world all is shiny and new.
With all the job losses entailed in the re-launch, it looks as if the one that really should have been sacked is hanging on. I usually try to give suppliers the benefit of the doubt, but this is a bit much.

Be interesting to see if PCA has an offical stance on this.

  Lettervanman 16:30 18 Oct 2007

Yes,I have just read the same thing from PC Pro.
I am on my third Evesham and have found them to be very good,not without problems but the support have sorted it out. I just felt that they were spreading their wings to far. Did they really need all those shops?
The first Evesham that I bought I collected it from their small unit on an industrial estate in Evesham.
It will be a problem to find my next PC from company that will give good support. Plenty of good machines out there but some not so clever when there is a problem.
Bit like Northern Rock,the head man at Evesham is still there!!

  Forum Editor 16:30 18 Oct 2007

should we have an official stance?

Events unfold, and we watch them do so, but that's about it. Whether or not the 'phoenix', as you call it will rise remains to be seen. Evesham made good computers, and as far as I'm aware they provided a good level of customer service - that was certainly the impression I gained from watching the forum threads, anyway.

The big problem as far as computer manufacturers are concerned is the way the market has evolved since people have been able to shop online. It has become possible for just about anyone to shop around in the search for the cheapest possible deal, and the result has been a fiercely competitive market sector - gross margins are very tight indeed. That's great for the consumer in the short term, but ultimately it means a reduced number of suppliers, as more and more companies fail to cope with low margins, coupled with high customer service expectations.

  Belatucadrus 19:31 18 Oct 2007

Some magazines seem rather disconceted by the adoption of the go bankrupt, dump creditors then resurection style of business as previously used by Time, Sava/Saverstore. Even to the point of declining to review their products at least in the short term.
I wondered if this peremptory method of dealing with creditors had caused any concern at PCA. Apparently not.

  Forum Editor 22:30 18 Oct 2007

of adding two and two and making it five.Computer manufacturers are no different from other companies when it comes to the law, and as far as I'm aware there's been no suggestion from anyone that there's the slightest question of Evesham directors acting illegally, so why should you think that we would take an "official stance", as you call it?

You may not agree with the law of this country as it relates to corporate insolvency/receivership, but that's no reason to start inferring that we're in some way letting the side down because we're not leaping into print with condemnations. Your original post sails dangerously close to the defamation wind, and I suggest that you take time to think long and hard before you post anymore veiled allegations or inferences.

I shouldn't have to defend our record of being concerned about consumers, it's all here, in our archives for anyone to see, and my articles about consumer issues appear almost every month in print.

  Belatucadrus 01:35 19 Oct 2007

If you find veiled allegations and inferences you're finding stuff I didn't put there. I asked a question, you answered it, end of story.

  Forum Editor 07:30 19 Oct 2007


I think you need to read your first post again.

  Belatucadrus 10:29 19 Oct 2007

My first post indicates very clearly that I don't like the way that Evesham has been re-floated. Nothing veiled or insinuated there.

"I shouldn't have to defend our record of being concerned about consumers"

I never asked you to, at no point have I criticised or impugned PCA editorial policy, this is not the Da Vinci code and there are no hidden messages. You yourself asked why twice, and I quote:-
"so why should you think that we would take an "official stance", as you call it?"
I have attempted to answer this question by pointing out other publications do. You say there is none, OK that answers my question, I'm OK with that. But you are being needlessly defensive.

"that's no reason to start inferring that we're in some way letting the side down because we're not leaping into print with condemnations."

I didn't, indeed I vehemently deny any suggestion that I was making veiled insinuations about PCA editorial policy and their probity.
May I politely suggest that this thread serves no purpose, is generating pointless animosity and would be better completely removed.

This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.

Elsewhere on IDG sites

Fujitsu Lifebook P727 laptop review

Lightwell software lets you create mobile apps without using code

Best value Mac: Which is the best £1249 Mac to buy

Comment désactiver les programmes qui s'exécutent au démarrage de Windows 10 ?