The Central Scrutinizer wrote:dweebe wrote:DOGTOWNB&R wrote:AB-INBEV profits fall 95% this quarter....
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/s ... enDocument
What's the over/under on how long before InBev pulls a Daimler-Benz and unloads A-B?
I've been saying 5 years all along.
ThreeOneFour wrote:Here's another possible "move" from Anheuser-Busch InBev that we saw coming...
March 6 (Bloomberg) -- Anheuser-Busch InBev NV, the Belgian brewer that bought its biggest U.S. rival last year, may move its headquarters to New York and list shares there to focus on the world’s most profitable beer market, analysts said.
Surprise, surprise...
The New York office will handle day-to-day management of the U.S. business, spokeswoman Marianne Amssoms said in an e- mailed statement yesterday. “Leuven is and will remain home to our global headquarters, center of strategic decision-making and primary office,” she said.
Gone Corporate wrote:I think most of this is an initiative of management for standard product diversification, as opposed to backlash consumer sentiments. Either way, though, I'm glad for the option to be drinking quality stouts at games.dweebe wrote:I've noticed a change at Blues games. A couple of years ago the pretty much the only thing you could find in the Savvis/Scottrade Center was Bud/Bud Light/Bud Select. I think they would have one Miller/Coors stand on each level when certain teams visited.
Now this season they have a Guinness/Smithwicks stand, an import beer stand, a Schlafly stand and most of the portable stands carry A-B along with Miller/Coors. Maybe it's the management change: but I think peoples tastes and opions have also changed.
Now all they need is a Canadian beer stand (Molson, Moosehead, Labbatt)
[-o<
ThreeOneFour wrote:^ No complaints- it's just a wait and see attitude.
There's no cause to worry yet, as this move doesn't really change anything, but obviously I'd hate for St. Louis to get the shaft. From the Bloomberg article:
The New York office will handle day-to-day management of the U.S. business, spokeswoman Marianne Amssoms said in an e- mailed statement yesterday. “Leuven is and will remain home to our global headquarters, center of strategic decision-making and primary office,” she said.
Now I suppose St. Louis will remain the NA headquarters for Anheuser-Busch, Inc., i.e. Budweiser and all A-B associated brands. But what relevance will St. Louis have when the shots are called in New York and Leuven remains the company's global headquarters? Like I said, I think there's no legitimate reason to worry at this point, but if the company cannot ultimately deliver the cost savings that made the deal attractive in the first place, what happens to the commitment to St. Louis?
She also reiterated that St. Louis will remain the brewer’s North American headquarters and that the establishment of the New York office “does not affect St. Louis.”
Now I suppose St. Louis will remain the NA headquarters for Anheuser-Busch, Inc., i.e. Budweiser and all A-B associated brands. But what relevance will St. Louis have when the shots are called in New York and Leuven remains the company's global headquarters? Like I said, I think there's no legitimate reason to worry at this point, but if the company cannot ultimately deliver the cost savings that made the deal attractive in the first place, what happens to the commitment to St. Louis?
Plus the "appeal" of being a Belgian brewer must add some lustre to a lackluster company.
I'm not sure on belgian labor laws, but most other European countries have ridiculous closing and severance requirements.
Moorlander wrote:FWIW
She also reiterated that St. Louis will remain the brewer’s North American headquarters and that the establishment of the New York office “does not affect St. Louis.”
dweebe wrote:Gone Corporate wrote:I think most of this is an initiative of management for standard product diversification, as opposed to backlash consumer sentiments. Either way, though, I'm glad for the option to be drinking quality stouts at games.dweebe wrote:I've noticed a change at Blues games. A couple of years ago the pretty much the only thing you could find in the Savvis/Scottrade Center was Bud/Bud Light/Bud Select. I think they would have one Miller/Coors stand on each level when certain teams visited.
Now this season they have a Guinness/Smithwicks stand, an import beer stand, a Schlafly stand and most of the portable stands carry A-B along with Miller/Coors. Maybe it's the management change: but I think peoples tastes and opions have also changed.
Now all they need is a Canadian beer stand (Molson, Moosehead, Labbatt)
[-o<
True for most of the beers listed. But IMHO the growth of Miller Lite and Coors is a different story and a direct result of people turning their back on InBev.
Moorlander wrote:ThreeOneFour wrote:^ No complaints- it's just a wait and see attitude.
There's no cause to worry yet, as this move doesn't really change anything, but obviously I'd hate for St. Louis to get the shaft. From the Bloomberg article:
The New York office will handle day-to-day management of the U.S. business, spokeswoman Marianne Amssoms said in an e- mailed statement yesterday. “Leuven is and will remain home to our global headquarters, center of strategic decision-making and primary office,” she said.
Now I suppose St. Louis will remain the NA headquarters for Anheuser-Busch, Inc., i.e. Budweiser and all A-B associated brands. But what relevance will St. Louis have when the shots are called in New York and Leuven remains the company's global headquarters? Like I said, I think there's no legitimate reason to worry at this point, but if the company cannot ultimately deliver the cost savings that made the deal attractive in the first place, what happens to the commitment to St. Louis?
FWIW
She also reiterated that St. Louis will remain the brewer’s North American headquarters and that the establishment of the New York office “does not affect St. Louis.”
The Central Scrutinizer wrote:dweebe wrote:Gone Corporate wrote: I think most of this is an initiative of management for standard product diversification, as opposed to backlash consumer sentiments. Either way, though, I'm glad for the option to be drinking quality stouts at games.
True for most of the beers listed. But IMHO the growth of Miller Lite and Coors is a different story and a direct result of people turning their back on InBev.
I'd wager that 99% of those people switched to Miller and Coors because they "won't drink no foreign beer".
Morons.
Grover wrote:No one asked, but I stick with Schlafly and New Belgium Brewery.
In spat, Emerson boycotts A-B beer
By Jeremiah McWilliams
ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH
04/16/2009
One of the St. Louis area's largest companies apparently has had enough with what it perceives as rough treatment by Anheuser-Busch.
Emerson, the Ferguson-based manufacturer of cooling equipment, appliances and tools, plans to boycott A-B products to protest stingier payment policies and what Emerson claims are A-B's cutbacks in funding for local nonprofit groups.
According to an internal memo sent to Emerson's business leaders on Tuesday, Emerson will no longer purchase Anheuser-Busch InBev products for its world headquarters, Winfield Conference Center, company aircraft, or its suites at Busch Stadium, Scottrade Center or Edward Jones Dome. The policy is effective immediately.
"With the InBev acquisition of Anheuser-Busch we have seen negative things happening in the St. Louis community and in regard to Emerson doing business with InBev," according to the memo. "InBev payment terms with Emerson have now been stipulated as 120 days — take it or leave it!"
JasonBlack wrote:Is SLDC thinking ahead on this one...or do we have another urban planning meltdown in the making? Corporate promises are empty by their very nature. InBev is going to maintain their 'commitment' to St. Louis until it is economically unfavorable to do so. Establishing a presence in NYC near other brewers is a smart competitive move. The St. Louis operation will slowly (if we're lucky) diminish in importance and will become a financial burden to InBev (old buildings, high maintenance, inefficient production layout - none of these help). The St. Louis operation *will* be abandoned. It's just a matter of time.
So, rather than stand around worrying incessantly about the inevitable march of progress, we should be looking forward. More importantly, SLDC should be looking forward. What are we going to do with that place once the ReMax sign goes up? It's a tremendous facility and the health of that property could make or break this area of the city. We already live in the shadow of the omniously underdeveloped Lemp complex. Let's go into this next major urban transition with our eyes open and a plan in place. Preferably one that doesn't involve bungled sports-complex deals. Two is enough.
So what to do with the place then? The 'village' concept might work - retail and residential but I think the conversion expense would be too great and returns too small. Something less glamorous is more likely - like a major transportation hub. It's only a stone's throw away from several major highways and has a tremendous amount of storage. Maybe we could tie it into the rumored possibility of Chinese investment?
Or, and this won't be popular here, we could be practical (as opposed to sentimental) and raze the place. It is, after all, a hodge-podge of old brick buildings which probably won't serve well beyond what they were originally cobbled together for.
Just sayin.
