Statement from Harman Technology regarding recent sale to Pemberstone Ventures Ltd.

Xmas · Sep 16, 2015

There is a pending redevelopment request to build houses on the site.
Do you know what a bung is?

Prest_400 · Sep 16, 2015

Took quite a bit to respond, but been lurking and following the topic closely.

RobC said:
The overiding question is, why would an investment company buy out Harman knowing that the lease has only 10 years to run?

[...]
The possibilities are many and varied. We'll just have to wait and see. Just remember that all Pemberstone have bought is Harman with a 10 year lease and not the rights to re-develop something they don't own unless they've bought that too and we haven't been told about it.

So you sleuths, start digging for more information.

I would argue for Management following a Strategy that would beneficial to Ilford in some way. The guys were quite commited and if they moved to the sidelines, I'd like to think that they would leave the company in good hands. Perhaps this has become a win-win solution overall, who knows?

Thomas Bertilsson · Sep 16, 2015

I just came back from three weeks of vacation, and nearly 70 rolls of film to process. Most of them are HP5+, but some are FP4+ and there are a few rolls of Kodak in among them too. I will process them in Ilford Hypam fixer, and then I will make contact prints and eventually enlargements on Ilford paper using Ilford Hypam fixer.
Ilford is still around, folks. They have a new owner.
Time will tell what that means to us.
Nobody will be able to foresee what will happen.
Until the future arrives, keep on keeping on.

The only thing that's inevitable is change.

RobC · Sep 16, 2015

Xmas said:
There is a pending redevelopment request to build houses on the site.
Do you know what a bung is?

The question is, why was it Ilford applying for planning when they don't own the land? I can only think that the land owners (freeholder of the lease) told ilford they could stay if they could get it through planning. They didn't get it through planning but there is a new planning application and we don't know what its for.
The buyout 10 years ago meant the management put a lot of their own money in. I figure they were sceptical about getting planning and survival and wanted to get their money back. Pemberstone may be more optimistic and/or have more funds available but they still need site owners permission unless they have bought the site and not just Harman. And if they've done that, then there's no telling what might happen in 10 years time (or before).

Bungs don't come into it. The directors wanted their money back and weren't able to get it any other way I guess.

Mike Crawford · Sep 16, 2015

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I will process them in Ilford Hypam fixer,

Good luck!

wblynch · Sep 16, 2015

paul_c5x4 said:
...The real value of the company lies in the expertise of the employees and their ability to face new challenges and adapt.

Unfortunately those most talented and experienced individuals are the first to be scrubbed away by the new owners in their incessant goal of cutting 'costs'.

Simon Galley himself is already gone.

mooseontheloose · Sep 16, 2015

Thomas Bertilsson said:
I just came back from three weeks of vacation, and nearly 70 rolls of film to process. Most of them are HP5+, but some are FP4+ and there are a few rolls of Kodak in among them too. I will process them in Ilford Hypam fixer, and then I will make contact prints and eventually enlargements on Ilford paper using Ilford Hypam fixer.
Ilford is still around, folks. They have a new owner.
Time will tell what that means to us.
Nobody will be able to foresee what will happen.
Until the future arrives, keep on keeping on.

The only thing that's inevitable is change.

You sum up my feelings exactly Thomas.

Whatever happens with Harman/Ilford happens. I'm going to assume the best until proven otherwise. And even then I'll still be shooting HP5+/SFX/Delta 3200 and using Ilford chemicals and paper for most of my developing needs as long as its available.

fotch · Sep 16, 2015

wblynch said:
Unfortunately those most talented and experienced individuals are the first to be scrubbed away by the new owners in their incessant goal of cutting 'costs'.

Simon Galley himself is already gone.

Gone, but how? Fired, retired, quit?

Sal Santamaura · Sep 16, 2015

wblynch said:
...Simon Galley himself is already gone.

fotch said:
Gone, but how? Fired, retired, quit?

As previously posted, Peter Elton, still Director of HARMAN, wrote me that Simon retired.

Sirius Glass · Sep 16, 2015

jnanian said:
GOOD

chemical photography isn't all hassle-blads, leicas and "large format"...

Roger Cole said:
No, it's also Nikons, Canons, Pentaxes, Rolleis, Yashicas, Mamiyas...

And many others in all tones and colors.

John Bragg · Sep 16, 2015

I wish Ilford all the best for the future and I for one will be supporting them by using HP5+ as my staple.

xo-whiplock · Sep 16, 2015

Harman has made the step into the big leagues that insures its future. What's not to like about that? The baby has been winged from the bottle and moving on to solid foods.

Jerevan · Sep 16, 2015

RobC said:
The overiding question is, why would an investment company buy out Harman knowing that the lease has only 10 years to run?
/ .../
Pemberstone must know something we don't. They own industrial sites elsewhere. Maybe they're thinking of relocating Ilford to another site altogether since planning on current site doesn't seem to be forthcoming.

But ay, there is the rub ... moving a plant like this is a pretty serious undertaking. It could cause some large disruptions in production, even when having some experienced people working on setting it up again, so where is the incentive to that in the shorter timescale?

RobC · Sep 16, 2015

Jerevan said:
But ay, there is the rub ... moving a plant like this is a pretty serious undertaking. It could cause some large disruptions in production, even when having some experienced people working on setting it up again, so where is the incentive to that in the shorter timescale?

Another site wouldn't have the problem of only a 10 year lease(life). The redevelopment of existing site would I presume get an extended lease or ownership of its new area of existing site.
I stil don't understand why it was Ilford that had to make the planning application. I would have thought it would be the site owner.

Darkroom317 · Sep 16, 2015

Not all young people care for lomography. I'm 25 and shoot mostly b&w medium and large format film. Mostly Ilford film but some Kodak. I print in the darkroom using only Ilford paper. I'm getting tired of the young lomography narrative. As long as Ilford keeps producing high quality products I will continue using them. Perhaps this investment group will open up new opportunities for Ilford, I certainly don't expect this to be the case but one can hope.

kraker · Sep 16, 2015

First of all: David, Sue, Neil, welcome to APUG.

Reading through 20+ pages of comments on the purchase, I saw a lot of "doom and gloom". That's the internet for you, I guess.
Sure, we don't know what the future will bring. That's why it's called the future, isn't it? (Or is it?)

I certainly wish Ilford a very bright* and long future.
We can worry all we want, but there's enough to worry about in life already. I'm just going to keep using Ilford films, papers and chemicals whenever I want for as long as I can.
In fact, I'm running low on some films, so I'll be ordering soon.

* (well, not too bright in the film and paper production areas, that is best done in the dark)

Jerevan · Sep 16, 2015

RobC said:
Another site wouldn't have the problem of only a 10 year lease(life). The redevelopment of existing site would I presume get an extended lease or ownership of its new area of existing site.

I understand the above and agree about it - but I see a challenge in actually moving the machinery, setting it up somewhere else and get it running in an orderly fashion without falling into a hole where you have no products left to sell and a QC nightmare with the new master rolls on your hands.

RobC · Sep 16, 2015

Jerevan said:
I understand the above and agree about it - but I see a challenge in actually moving the machinery, setting it up somewhere else and get it running in an orderly fashion without falling into a hole where you have no products left to sell and a QC nightmare with the new master rolls on your hands.

There is no problem. They don't do coating runs every day or even week. They just produce plenty of stock prior to the move so that availability isn't compromised.
If they built the new buildings on existing site they would need to do this anyway.

Sal Santamaura · Sep 16, 2015

RobC said:
...I stil don't understand why it was Ilford that had to make the planning application. I would have thought it would be the site owner.

Your latest incorrect post.

HARMAN technology Ltd. (manufacturer of Ilford-branded film, paper and chemicals) didn't apply to Cheshire East Council for development permission. HARMAN's landlord, LPC Living, did. LPC living is also the entity that appealed the council's rejection to the central government.

Detail and facts are important. They ought be researched before posting.

xo-whiplock · Sep 16, 2015

Darkroom317 said:
Not all young people care for lomography. I'm 25 and shoot mostly b&w medium and large format film. Mostly Ilford film but some Kodak. I print in the darkroom using only Ilford paper. I'm getting tired of the young lomography narrative.

Imagine Lomography as a lifestyle. It exists and is growing in numbers. There's over 1 Million in their forum membership, and most likely more that are not members, but shoot and subscribe to the lifestyle. I expect that many lomogrpahers also shoot "traditional" shots with the non-lomo look, but pretty sure they are using the philosophy of Lomography. None of us should ignore this lifestyle of photography or try to justify it or to NOT justify it based on a different philosophy of photography. The idea is to include all philosophies of photography and all ages of photographers, along with all possible films these photographers will use to create their own personal art. Therefore, Lomography is a segment, a very large segment, of the film photographers out there. I'd also bet there is an equally large segment of "traditional" photographers out there, and also a combination of the two. The work we all must perform is one of mental re-adjustment to the new reality of what constitutes film photography today and what will that future looks like. I believe this is THE main reason Harman was sold, and the reason Pemberstone bought.

RobC · Sep 16, 2015

Sal Santamaura said:
Your latest incorrect post.

HARMAN technology Ltd. (manufacturer of Ilford-branded film, paper and chemicals) didn't apply to Cheshire East Council for development permission. HARMAN's landlord, LPC Living, did. LPC living is also the entity that appealed the council's rejection to the central government.

Detail and facts are important. They ought be researched before posting.

I did post a link a link to the planning application which I read as Harman. But you're correct, the application was by Argonaught Holdings Ltd and not Harman. And also not by LPC Living as you state. Unless of course cheshire council have got it wrong.

And the latest application is by Savills according to Cheshire council.

Roger Cole · Sep 16, 2015

Statement from Harman Technology regarding recent sale to Pemberstone Venture...

Oh good grief. Lomography is not a "philosophy" except perhaps within the limited context of an approach to the art of photography and it's even less a "lifestyle." I agree it's a currently fashionable style of or approach to photography but that's it. The fact the folks who engage in it buy film is good.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk and 100% recycled electrons - because I care.

Sirius Glass · Sep 16, 2015

Lomography is a fad.

Ian Grant · Sep 16, 2015

Sirius Glass said:
Lomography is a fad.

But it's also a stepping stone to better things.

Ian

Sal Santamaura · Sep 16, 2015

RobC said:
I did post a link a link to the planning application which I read as Harman. But you're correct, the application was by Argonaught Holdings Ltd and not Harman. And also not by LPC Living as you state. Unless of course cheshire council have got it wrong.

And the latest application is by Savills according to Cheshire council.

Argonaught Holdings and LPC Living, two elements of the Pervaiz Naviede Family Trust, are the applicant/appellant. Those terms can be used interchangeably. Savills is planning consultant for the applicant.

Statement from Harman Technology regarding recent sale to Pemberstone Ventures Ltd.

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency