I have just read Bill Gleave’s account of the final downfall of BGH and while not doubting some of the events he describes, I have an opinion that other significant events made more of an impact and am disappointed that nowhere does there appear to be an acknowledgement of (or remorse for) possible management failings.

Its not good enough to blame B&Q/Kingfisher. Let's not forget that although Gleave bought Bernstein out of administration in late 2003 he put it back there in 2006 while at the same time shedding millions of pounds of debt and raising even more new funding. It has traded under CVA (Corporate Voluntary Arrangement) ever since, so what we have is a company under CVA scrutiny going into a new administration. Not very impressive by anyone’s standards.

About three years ago the BGH board made changes to the management structure of TKS (The Kitchen Studio) that became, in my opinion, not only inneffectual but life threatening to BGH overall. While the incumbent TKS team weren’t dynamic they were a safe and respected pair of hands who knew their stuff while the direct sell in your home 'sharp shooters' brought in to generate quick cash never took off as envisaged.

So the first recommendation of KPMG administrators was to close TKS as it was hemorrhaging money with a risk of pulling the whole company down. And as if that tinkering wasn't enough, Grovewood became the focus of attention. Again, not a dynamic division but it had doubled its turnover in the previous three years and had returned the best service levels for 16 consecutive months - the best in its entire history - and in the main the team were industry veterans finally making an impression to worry competitors.

So how sad it was that the same BGH directors decided to put people in charge of running Grovewood who knew little about volume rigid kitchens supplied and fitted on time in full to building sites.  In his statement, Bill Gleave called Grovewood his "target growth area" but says orders plummeted quickly prior to the Spring - so that’s just five months after the changes were implemented but long before anyone else saw any significant impact from the slump.  It is my opinion that the writing was on the wall for Grovewood long before the recession.

The one thing I never understood was why 'change' or 'tinkering' as I have previously described it never took place at the top? When a company is struggling, when hundreds of jobs are in jeopardy and when there is a significant knock on effect to suppliers, and local authorities I can’t understand why those creditors in 2006 didn’t join forces and demand that in exchange for their support incumbent directors allow new independent people onto the Board to truly scrutinise and assist?

BGH aside, and in readiness for the next invitation your readers get to a winding up, insolvency, liquidation, administration or any other type of creditors meeting I would urge them not to accept it as a fait accomplit that they have lost their money but to get the list of other creditors and to talk to them before the meeting and form a plan of action; after all they will (jointly) hold the cards and could therefore offer conditional support, and if that means requesting the appointment of a new managing or operations/finance director of their choice to the ailing company, why not?

Let’s not just roll over without some diligence.

Robert Lockwood, former Grovewood Division employee and BGH investor Feb 2004 - July 2007