Kodak to Sell Kodak Park

eddie said:

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Click to expand...

An image of what I see when I have to drive through the old Johnston Mill area of Charlotte, now known as "NODA" (North Davidson St. area), and other such places that were once busy factories and neighborhoods in a bygone time. Now a whole other culture of wierdos, with crazy little shops like "Sunshine Daydreams" and other nefarious holes-in-the-wall of that zombie culture. Every other old shopspace a silly coffee shop before the "art gallery" next door, and another coffee shop next to that. Buildings all with planned graffiti. The mill buildings all sectioned off at city taxpayer expense for the zombie culture to have their little section 8 "apartment". But that's just "NODA". Those sorts of places are all over. Riding through them makes me wonder if SOMEBODY, me or them are from another planet.
I hate to see that happen to a once-vital manufacturing area. In its day Kodak Park was once a beacon of a standard of living and family life that was the envy of the world, I'm sure. Why do I care? I'm not sure. I've been in photography all my life, and by nature of that, a Kodak follower.

jnanian said:

not gonna happen, ricky died in the 80s ..

Click to expand...

But the others are still together and still flying!

pentaxuser said:

Maybe the Brits had no choice and were forced to take pity on Kodak U.S. in the same way I had to take pity the other day on a man who certainly appeared down at heel and who asked if I could spare a few pounds for a poor man whose only possession in life was a loaded Smith and Wesson

Click to expand...

Great post! I love it when people make their points with a little flair and creativity in their writing.

pentaxuser said:

Isn't film production the basis for Alaris which arose out of the rights of the U.K. Kodak pension fund? I wonder what rights the Kodak U.K. pension fund was given when it acquired whatever rights it acquired.

Was it simply that in return for absolving Kodak of its pension obligations to its U.K. employees it got film production but only for as a long as it suited Kodak U.S.?

Click to expand...

That is the $64,000 question.

What happens when the current (final?) EK motion picture film contract expires? Will KA try to purchase and continue operating the coating facilities from EK? Is it worth the risk to the pensioners, who are their primary responsibility, to even consider it? Will Perez's henchmen sneak through the chain link fences under cover of darkness and again plant high explosives just to give him one last ex-CEO thrill?

Or was KA really only primarily interested in the kiosks and other digital properties in the first place? And the residual film product lines just came along for a final tempoprary ride? Or might they try firing up film coating in the UK, where it seems they already own the buildings? I've read through the press releases on the KA website and could find virtually no mention of film-related anything being said. Maybe I missed it somewhere?

Ken

jnanian said:

not gonna happen, ricky died in the 80s ..

Click to expand...

Sorry, but FYI, B-52's are still flying.

All I can say about ilford is they are foolish to not own the properly, too costly to move all that equipment.

As far as cleanup, my grandfathers estate was 2 hour see and a dry cleaners building, he's been gone for almost 20 years and we are STILL cleaning up the perk (Perchlorethylene) ....

The property lot is only about 1600 square feet...

We've spent well over 1,000,000 to clean it up (we being the estate money).

Good luck to them...

StoneNYC said:

All I can say about ilford is they are foolish to not own the properly, too costly to move all that equipment.

As far as cleanup, my grandfathers estate was 2 hour see and a dry cleaners building, he's been gone for almost 20 years and we are STILL cleaning up the perk (Perchlorethylene) ....

The property lot is only about 1600 square feet...

We've spent well over 1,000,000 to clean it up (we being the estate money).

Good luck to them...

Click to expand...

Oh, the old EPA goldmine trick. Seen that one before. Stone, you can forget any inheritance from that. You'll be lucky if you can escape this world without a price on YOUR head over that.

Tom1956 said:

Oh, the old EPA goldmine trick. Seen that one before. Stone, you can forget any inheritance from that. You'll be lucky if you can escape this world without a price on YOUR head over that.

Click to expand...

Tom, so you want to live in a world where you are free to pollute the environment without the responsibility of cleaning it up? And you're offended by a few people with tattoos and piercings? Seems like your priorities are backwards.

Sorry Stone, but better his estate pays for the cleanup than the rest of the public.

L Gebhardt said:

Tom, so you want to live in a world where you are free to pollute the environment without the responsibility of cleaning it up? An you're offended by a few people with tattoos and piercings. Seems like your priorities are backwards.

Sorry Stone, but better his estate pays for the cleanup than the rest of the public.

Click to expand...

You said that; I did not.

Ask the man who owns one

As far as I know the old Packard motorcar plant in Detroit is still empty and forlorn. But, and I don't know how to say this -- the world has survived the demise of what was the "Cadillac" of American cars back when Caddy was just another brand. I know a firm that made horse collars and buggy whips and seat covers for (horse and) buggy seats. Some young whippersnappers in the company wanted to make stuff for new-fangled automobiles but the old timers said no. They split the company and the new company made million of $$$ making auto seat cover replacements. The old company kept making horse collars for years -- sometime a half dozen in a good week. Think about it.

Quote Originally Posted by L Gebhardt:
Tom, so you want to live in a world where you are free to pollute the environment without the responsibility of cleaning it up? An you're offended by a few people with tattoos and piercings. Seems like your priorities are backwards.

Tom1956 said:

You said that; I did not.

Click to expand...

Actually, you have... You often introduce your rather limited world, and political, views into threads.

Everyone seems to forget that Kodak Alaris got Harrow, the colour paper manufacturing facility on it, the right to market the colour paper and the chemistry marketing rights.

Kodak film is an important business, but I would be willing to bet that the paper is pretty important too.

And Stone - it would have been quite surprising if Ilford Harman was able to raise the capital to buy their current premises, given that that entity arose from the ashes of a bankruptcy/receivership.

As best as I can recall, they do enjoy the benefit of a long term lease.

Eddie, allow me to be understood clearly: When I see people I see the good first. The bad, I don't see so well, right off. If that is misunderstood as offense or insult only because of my own lack of literacy to convey that, then please don't take that for contempt. That certainly would be a pity. Regards.

L Gebhardt said:

Tom, so you want to live in a world where you are free to pollute the environment without the responsibility of cleaning it up? And you're offended by a few people with tattoos and piercings? Seems like your priorities are backwards.

Sorry Stone, but better his estate pays for the cleanup than the rest of the public.

Click to expand...

The problem is mostly that 70 years ago when he bought the place from the previous owner, no one knew it was bad, he used to just dump it in the grass behind the store. Later when it came to light that it wasn't ok to do that, he collected it in a tank and had it taken out properly, also there was a gas station down the road the also contaminated the surrounding soil but because they are big mobile, they don't have to help clean up the other toxins they added to out area of soil, so we had to clean up both.

I'm glad we found a way to clean it up, I just think it stinks to be paying for something that we didn't even do in any violation, we did it before the laws and know-how existed...

Anyway it's almost all gone (the money and the bad soil) the EPA released us from them, and now we just deal with the cleanup company so we are almost done.

But anyway the ONLY reason we could cover this tremendous payment was simply that the location of the store was in Greenwich, CT ... So the rent of the buildings is extremely high, otherwise we would have not been able to pay many years ago...

We are really trying to make the best of it for us and the environment of course.

As far as inheritance, I keep telling my aunts and uncles and mother that they should keep the property and be smart like rich families and use the trickle income into retirement but they are all foolish and greedy and want the money now, and my mom doesn't have the ability to buy them both out... So I'm sure it will all be spent by the time it would have gone to me.

Anyway back to kodak, my point was that they will have a heck of a time cleaning the soil if it's truly contaminated. And it will cost them dearly.

I also think they are being just as foolish as my aunts and uncles, it's probably one of the only positive performing assets they have and they are getting rid of it to "do more research" I guarantee some of that money will become a bonus for the board members... Sucking kodak dry seems to be the plan.

MattKing said:

Everyone seems to forget that Kodak Alaris got Harrow, the colour paper manufacturing facility on it, the right to market the colour paper and the chemistry marketing rights.

Kodak film is an important business, but I would be willing to bet that the paper is pretty important too.

And Stone - it would have been quite surprising if Ilford Harman was able to raise the capital to buy their current premises, given that that entity arose from the ashes of a bankruptcy/receivership.

As best as I can recall, they do enjoy the benefit of a long term lease.

Click to expand...

Gotcha, well hope they have the foresight to consider this for long term stability if they are ever in the financial position to do it.

Tom- When you write (disparagingly) about Section 8, the EPA, politics, piercings, etc., it comes across as contemptuous. I believe you when you say you see the good in people first. I'd like you to present the good in you first, rather than the negative rants. I know you have it in you...

eddie said:

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Click to expand...

I don't know but it made me laugh! Let's not get too serious here

NedL said:

I don't know but it made me laugh! Let's not get too serious here

Click to expand...

Good. I'd rather whatever I say be taken in joviality. I've got better things to do that come here and insult people. Nobody here I want to insult. You're photographers. I don't shoot at my own kind.

MattKing said:

Kodak film is an important business...

Click to expand...

Yes, it is. So here's some rank positive speculation.

Given its responsibilities to its pensioners, I would not be surprised in the slightest if there currently exists some level of contractual contingencies that cover the day when EK decides it no longer wants to be the film manufacturer. Maybe before the demolition crews are called KA must be given the right of first refusal to work out financing to lease or buy the facilities. Or at least try.

And if the niche film markets have improved a little by then, maybe they might consider it. At the extreme end for example, what if it were stipulated that when the time eventually arrives, you guys can lease it all for one dollar, if you want to take on the costs associated with keeping it going. It's of no use to us anymore. We're just going to bulldoze it anyway. And by delaying its decommissioning we also delay the environmental day of reckoning. Or something like that.

I might find it difficult to believe that KA would have taken on lines of business they didn't think they could sustain over the long term. They must have given some real serious thought to becoming a Kodak film business, given EK's inability to continue that business successfully themselves. High risk investments don't dovetail real well with retirement portfolios. So maybe they know something more than we do about the future of Kodak film?

Ken

Ken Nadvornick said:

Yes, it is. So here's some rank positive speculation.

Given its responsibilities to its pensioners, I would not be surprised in the slightest if there currently exists some level of contractual contingencies that cover the day when EK decides it no longer wants to be the film manufacturer. Maybe before the demolition crews are called KA must be given the right of first refusal to work out financing to lease or buy the facilities. Or at least try.

And if the niche film markets have improved a little by then, maybe they might consider it. At the extreme end for example, what if it were stipulated that when the time eventually arrives, you guys can lease it all for one dollar, if you want to take on the costs associated with keeping it going. It's of no use to us anymore. We're just going to bulldoze it anyway. And by delaying its decommissioning we also delay the environmental day of reckoning. Or something like that.

I might find it difficult to believe that KA would have taken on lines of business they didn't think they could sustain over the long term. They must have given some real serious thought to becoming a Kodak film business, given EK's inability to continue that business successfully themselves. High risk investments don't dovetail real well with retirement portfolios. So maybe they know something more than we do about the future of Kodak film?

Ken

Click to expand...

+1

Ken Nadvornick said:

Yes, it is. So here's some rank positive speculation.

Given its responsibilities to its pensioners, I would not be surprised in the slightest if there currently exists some level of contractual contingencies that cover the day when EK decides it no longer wants to be the film manufacturer. Maybe before the demolition crews are called KA must be given the right of first refusal to work out financing to lease or buy the facilities. Or at least try.

Ken

Click to expand...

When Kodak/Alaris first appeared, I thought that this is the only way this deal could have happened. I can't believe that the UK governing pension board would have let this deal happen without KA getting exclusive rights to everything film related should EK fall out.

Ken Nadvornick said:

Yes, it is. So here's some rank positive speculation.

Given its responsibilities to its pensioners, I would not be surprised in the slightest if there currently exists some level of contractual contingencies that cover the day when EK decides it no longer wants to be the film manufacturer. Maybe before the demolition crews are called KA must be given the right of first refusal to work out financing to lease or buy the facilities. Or at least try.

And if the niche film markets have improved a little by then, maybe they might consider it. At the extreme end for example, what if it were stipulated that when the time eventually arrives, you guys can lease it all for one dollar, if you want to take on the costs associated with keeping it going. It's of no use to us anymore. We're just going to bulldoze it anyway. And by delaying its decommissioning we also delay the environmental day of reckoning. Or something like that.

I might find it difficult to believe that KA would have taken on lines of business they didn't think they could sustain over the long term. They must have given some real serious thought to becoming a Kodak film business, given EK's inability to continue that business successfully themselves. High risk investments don't dovetail real well with retirement portfolios. So maybe they know something more than we do about the future of Kodak film?

Ken

Click to expand...

According to PE, Kodak in Rochester today can roll an entire year's worth of film demand in a single day (not counting change over times). That level of over capacity makes no sense at all to KA, under any circumstances.

The only hope for KA (as I see it) is that they can walk away from Kodak with the intellectual property of the film formulations and re-set up shop somewhere in the UK on a smaller scale.

RattyMouse said:

According to PE, Kodak in Rochester today can roll an entire year's worth of film demand in a single day (not counting change over times). That level of over capacity makes no sense at all to KA, under any circumstances.

The only hope for KA (as I see it) is that they can walk away from Kodak with the intellectual property of the film formulations and re-set up shop somewhere in the UK on a smaller scale.

Click to expand...

BINGO!

England's not so bad. They do pretty good work over there and pay pretty good attention to the details and quality. I'd buy their film if that's all there was, and not question the quality. Better than none at all.

RattyMouse said:

According to PE, Kodak in Rochester today can roll an entire year's worth of film demand in a single day (not counting change over times).

Click to expand...

They certainly can, as that was the original design goal. But do they have to? What might be the minimum levels of the original design envelope? What might be today's minimum levels, if EK has been able to reduce them somewhat?

There has been speculation in the past about possibly reworking the manufacturing processes to allow much reduced volumes at comparable levels of quality. This has included public speculation by current (at the time) EK researchers on the film side. Were efforts along these lines ever initiated? If so, did they succeed to any significant level?

It may be worth observing that severely reduced demand for film worldwide has already been in place now for how many years? Five, ten? And EK is still supplying a constant, albeit reduced, stream of Portra and TMax and Tri-X into that severely reduced market. Film still has an expiration date. Something seems to have changed at the manufacturing and/or distribution levels.

How are they managing to do it right now today? And how is KA able to promise continuing availability of these films into the future providing that current levels of demand remain stable?

Everyone complains when the price of Kodak film rises. Perhaps it's those very price rises that have made feasible the manufacturing/distribution modifications allowing the lower volumes of production required to keep the stuff available. And in date.

If the complete inability of EK to scale back production levels from the glory years were going to kill that business entirely, wouldn't that have already happened years ago? Especially as EK has aggravated the problem itself by discontinuing so many film product lines over that period?

The glory years were a long time ago.

Just thinking out loud...

Ken

Ken Nadvornick said:

They certainly can, as that was the original design goal. But do they have to? What might be the minimum levels of the original design envelope? What might be today's minimum levels, if EK has been able to reduce them somewhat?

There has been speculation in the past about possibly reworking the manufacturing processes to allow much reduced volumes at comparable levels of quality. This has included public speculation by current (at the time) EK researchers on the film side. Were efforts along these lines ever initiated? If so, did they succeed to any significant level?

It may be worth observing that severely reduced demand for film worldwide has already been in place now for how many years? Five, ten? And EK is still supplying a constant, albeit reduced, stream of Portra and TMax and Tri-X into that severely reduced market. Film still has an expiration date. Something seems to have changed at the manufacturing and/or distribution levels.

How are they managing to do it right now today? And how is KA able to promise continuing availability of these films into the future providing that current levels of demand remain stable?

Everyone complains when the price of Kodak film rises. Perhaps it's those very price rises that have made feasible the manufacturing/distribution modifications allowing the lower volumes of production required to keep the stuff available. And in date.

If the complete inability of EK to scale back production levels from the glory years were going to kill that business entirely, wouldn't that have already happened years ago? Especially as EK has aggravated the problem itself by discontinuing so many film product lines over that period?

The glory years were a long time ago.

Just thinking out loud...

Ken

Click to expand...

The business model of the free-standing drug store doesn't help. No soda fountain/grill, no tobacco, no film, no nuttin. Just overpriced cosmetics and a very systematic, if not bureaucratic pharmacy, and greeting cards. No atmosphere there. You can sell sno-cones to Eskimos with the right retail atmosphere.