Why hate Freedom Group?

[ApacheCoTodd]

Hate? None. Disappointment? Considerable.

Having beat some old names down to a position from which they may not recover is somewhat unforgivable.

 

[jbart85]

I worked for a company that was bought out. I saw a lot of changes, some I agreed with, others I didn't. We got a lot of support in changing manufacturing processes to make them more streamlined and lean, which was good. We got a lot of product out. But material quality went down, specifically in the barrels and trigger components. we were told to use parts we would have normally rejected for cosmetic reasons. We were told that times were tough and we all needed to have our pay cut, even when we were hitting record numbers. We lost substantial benefit packages.

I agree that it was their business to do with as they saw fit, but it is stupid to say that, as a consumer, we can do nothing but bask in the glorious light of capitalism. They ruined many good things, and separated a lot of people who worked together for the better part of their lives. Intellectually, I feel fine with it, but for moral reasons, I will never give them my money.

 

[Boxhead]

"While not impressed with the qaulity control aspect, I have no issue with somoene legally obtaining control of a company, making changes, and then getting rid of it at a profit. Being profitable and making money is what business is about, and while I may not like the changes made, its simply not my place to say they should be done differently. When I own a company, I hope people afford me the same respect. Quite frankly, its none of our business what one does with their own property, regardless of the historical significance one may attach to a name or names."

Spot on. The only reason any business should exist is to deliver value to its owners, shareholders, etc. When it can't, it goes away.

 

[JohnBT]

"The only reason any business should exist is to deliver value to its owners, shareholders, etc. When it can't, it goes away."

When it can't deliver value to its customers it often goes away sooner.

I wonder who, if anyone, will step up to buy what's left of these companies.

 

[larryh1108]

The issues I have is when a company is bought out by a venture capitalist and chops, dices, dissects and "improves" the labor costs to make a bottom line look better so it can sell it for a profit. That is fine and what they do. The issues is when they buy a company who built it's reputation on quality and great customer service and turns it into a shell of the original company but the public at large does not realize that this is not the same company. The products are made with cheaper labor with cheaper parts with cheaper QC and the end results are not what is expected when the consumer pays the top dollar to buy this previously excellent product. He gets jobbed. Yes, caveat emptor applies here but how is the public to know until they get the product and realize it's not even close to what was previously produced? It's taking advantage of the trust the company built over decades and sticking it to the consumers to make the share holders happy. Win/lose.

Also, to the OP, what if Obama and Bloomberg purchased Colt Mfg for an investment opportunity. Would you still buy Colt products knowing what they represent and what they feel about the product in general? I know I wouldn't. If Colt fails because of their purchase then it is the fault of the owners, not the consumers or employees.

 

[VVelox]

Marlin was going down hill before they got it.

I have one of the new production ones and am happy with it.

 

[archigos]

They cut a deal to keep Remington in NY despite the anti-rights package in exchange for a big government contract. They won't be getting my money.