The Decline of Sears
michael-roberto.blogspot.com
michael-roberto.blogspot.com
He started off in that direction, buying Lands End and making a bid for Restoration Hardware. I recall an interview or press release laying out a vision for Sears as a "store of stores" that showcased iconic American brands - Kenmore, Diehard, Lands End, etc.
Somewhere along the line that dream died, and the cash flow was used mostly just to repurchase shares while letting the stores Languish. A bunch of concepts were tried in a handful of stores, but none promised an attractive ROI so they were dropped. Bruce Berkowitz is another investor that used to get compared to Buffett an awful lot, and tied his fate to the Sears project. He's still buying more shares and saying he sees value there.
I don't really have a point other to say that investing is hard, and identifying talented value investors who will outperform in the future is even harder. Whether this was a dumb idea all along, or a poorly executed good idea is tough to say.
Having said that, Lands' End's drop in quality came during the same period that so much manufacturing was moving to Asia. I suspect that whatever corners Lands' End started cutting were the same corners that most of the other brands it competes with were cutting as well. And this may well have happened with or without the Sears acquisition.
But, to your broader point, especially if you're going to use low cost overseas manufacturing extensively keeping up quality implies a lot of hands-on monitoring and working with the manufacturers closely.
[0] http://www.patagonia.com/ca/product/let-my-people-go-surfing...
Edit: linked
I've not read the book yet, so it's not a rhetorical question. Living in the Pacific Northwest Patagonia and their company story and ethos are known to just about everyone who's ventured into the outdoors.
I've been finding screaming deals on ebay for clothes, so have been "NEW without tags" Tommy Bahama stuff. Even the gently used stuff is such good quality that you can barely tell it's been worn at all. So for things like cashmere sweaters it's great value. For example I got a $250 mock sweater for $40 and it's awesome. I get more compliments on that thing than anything else I wear to the office. Kind of like this one but in more of a purple bordeaux color:
http://www.ebay.com/itm/NWT-TOMMY-BAHAMA-Half-1-2-Zip-Sweate...
Anyway, imo the quality of both LL Bean stuff and Tommy Bahama blow J Crew etc all out of the water. They're like how Lands End used to be, before Sears ruined them.
It is not to say that nobody can be successful in brick and mortar retail, but Buffet more or less rode the Great Moderation. Not to take away from him, but after equities stopped rotting around ... 1985ish, things were sort of on autopilot. The Dow broke 2000 in 1986...
I think a similar effect could be claimed for being called the next Buffett. There is a long list of investor casualties after such a comparison (including the ones you mentioned).
Most recently I'm thinking of Bill Ackman, who was on the cover of Fortune last year with the title "Baby Buffett"... right before a painful 20% tumble.
It's like being the MVP of the NBA. The competition is fierce, and you are playing a zero-sum game, hence generating returns greater than available by putting money 'in the market' is hard and (sometimes) ephemeral.
The Berkshire business was a New England textile company that kept suffering as the textile industry was slowly but surely being moved out of the United States. Buffet has said many times that buying Berkshire was a mistake.
Two things: 1) People still act from emotion even when there's a hell of a lot of money at stake and 2) that kindly grandpa thing that Warren Buffett has going is an act.
I think it probably influenced his thinking, and putting more emphasis on known brands. Berkshire Hathaway made suit linings, a commodity, and were not a known consumer brand. After BH, he made investments in See's Candies, Coca Cola, national or global name brands that have a hold on their market - a "moat" as he calls it.
http://www.metafilter.com/62394/The-Record-Industrys-Decline...
The catalog. Allstate Insurance. Coldwell Banker. Dean Witter. Prodigy! The Discover Card.
The goodwill, the name recognition, the money back guarantee. All gone now.
"In 1993, Sears had the most extensive and sophisticated mail-order retail operation on the planet and they closed it. Two years later, Amazon.com launched"
That's got to go down in history.
I think the worst was a socket set I picked up, where the chrome was literally coming off in flakes after a couple months.
The middle market of hand tools has been gutted. If you're not buying top-of-the line stuff like Snap-On, Knipex, etc. you might as well just shop at Harbor Freight and save some money.
The first one lasted about a year before breaking. Then they changed the design to "cheap Chinese chic", and they usually take 1-2 months before they start leaking. A new rubber washer helps at first, but then they start leaking inside the case.
I probably wouldn't bother with the returns if I didn't live so close to the Sears store, but the lifetime warranty is certainly no indicator of product quality.
In any case, I also noticed the downward shift in quality of Craftsman tools, corresponding with the time that the contract manufacturer was switched and a lot of production went offshore. Fortunately, I'd already mostly switched to buying second-hand SnapOn hand tools, and I have to say that while I was generally happy with the old USA Craftsman tools, I wish I'd have switched to SnapOn earlier.
The ratchets in particular are night-and-day better, IMO. Do yourself a favor and try one of the nice common SnapOn ratchets (a T72/TL72 or an F80). They're quite a bit more pleasurable to use, IMO. SnapOn stuff holds its value pretty well, which means it often gets pawned or sold when a mechanic goes out of business. I have bought maybe 5% of my SnapOn stuff new; most has been second/third hand and it's just as good and 30-40% the price.
Snap-on should go out of their way to honor their warranties though.
What Snap-on never really got--was that they are lucky to have customers, at what they charge for tools.
I don't blame the guys running around in trucks--that's a whole other franchise debacle. Snap-on should compensate them(franchise owners) for Any returned tools. Why--because that's what they promised when we bought their first overpriced tools.
If you are dead set on Snap-on, just buy the 3/8" metric, and inch ratchet set. I bought mine second hand. Everything else can be another brand.
I saw guys spend $40,000 on tools. A lot of them were too young, nor cared about ROI.
Never forget the Snap-on rep in automotive school. He was worse than a drug dealer. (I do understand his persistence. I don't think Snap-on makes it easy for their employees/franchise owners.)
Dealers are all franchises, not 'drivers'. The warranty is usually under 2% of sales. If it goes higher than that, the management start to whine. Mine was almost never higher; the most expensive thing I replaced under warranty was a $10,000 engine analyzer.
Getting a dealer to warranty tools should not be considered a hassle for him if you do it at one of his stops. I would generally not go chase warranty - but if someone jumps on the truck with a broken tool I would replace it without thinking. Snap-on compensates the dealers 100% of cost of the tool, so it is not the dealer paying for it. He also gets a chance to sell you something new.
Lucky to have customers? Snap-on has 4000+ dealers in the USA, and each one services about 300 customers. Average sales for a truck is around $500,000 per year now with 35% gross margins. Lots of customers, way more than you would ever think. Some of my biggest customers were in weird locations, like a lawnmower place that had all giant tool boxes in them. A KRL1033 is a big bench toolbox and costs $11,000 for the EMPTY toolbox https://store.snapon.com/KRL1033-Series-Roll-Cabs-Roll-Cab-T... . I wrote 120 extended payment contracts in 1991, most of them for big toolboxes. I was #2 that year at the branch.
$40,000 is a lot of tools, but that is cheaper than some college educations these days with much higher residual value. My biggest single sale was $92,000.00 for a 2 man shop's insurance claim. That was 2 large boxes with hand and airtools in them, no equipment. Granted, they were my best customers and had the receipts to prove it. Insurance company pressured me for 10% off, but that was ok with me.
Your Snap-on dealer may have been persistent just to collect money. Dealers run a no-interest account for most of their 300 customers. The lions share of the job is collecting money, selling tools is easy. Collecting money is hard, especially from students. I ran about $50,000 over 150 customers. I know other dealers that would float $300,000 on the street, guys in Alaska and the other oil spots.
It was a good training business. I don't regret it, I made a lot of money. In 1991 I made $85,000 with only a high school education. I was 21 years old. I call it a training business because it is hard to expand. There is no practical way to hire employees besides having a complete second truck. Also, the more accounts you get sooner or later they want to cut your area. The change to franchising actually gave dealers more rights at that point. My area was cut 3 times in 6 years.
At the end of the day it is a service job, and we are servicing the needs of professional tool users, people that make their living with those tools. It is very competitive and I don't see anyway the service level could be kept up without the high prices and the current margins. The professionals need the service to function, the Snap-on dealer was also the one guy that you knew would have the special tools you needed to get that one thing apart. There is 12,000 items in the catalog and the basic wrenches and screwdrivers make up a small part of it. Most of the tool count is in special wrenches and sockets.
Why not? Isn't that their job? Especially with a box and not a single tool.
Are only covered for 1 year, and of course you've got to provide proof of purchase.
They're insane.
As far as I know, the Craftsman brand mechanics hand tools are still lifetime warranty. The 1 year term is for tools "not of metal construction".
However, by giving any hand tool labeled Craftsman a less than lifetime warranty, they've done terrible damage to the brand, you shouldn't have to worry about this when shopping at Sears.
First delivery attempt, they called the night before to give me a window. Delivery driver called me to make sure I will be home and that he would be there in 30 minutes. They never showed up. After calling I learned the products were not in stock.
They did the exact same thing on the second delivery attempt.
Third delivery attempt they deliver a damaged fridge.
Fourth attempt, they opened the truck and they did not strap down the fridge. Parts everywhere.
Fifth, they got it right. Normally I would have cancelled the order but the experience became a curiosity. How badly could a company mess up? Turns out, a lot.
First attempt. Driver claimed no one was home. I was doing home renovation. My contractor was there, with no less than 10 other people doing work. The front door was even open at the time as two people were working on and around it. Contractor knew to expect delivery.
Second attempt (weeks later). They delivered some parts of a bed, did not assemble what parts were there. Repeatedly gave different stories about where the parts were. They made many claims about where the parts were, none of which seem to be true and some of which conflicted with each other.
Third attempt (more weeks after countless phone calls). Driver claimed he could not make it up hill to house. Left. Argument with customer service. Driver returned. They delivered one more part. Did not assemble anything.
Fourth attempt (months after original delivery date). Finally delivered the final piece. Moved mattress and box spring to hallway. Assembled bed. Left. Didn't bother to put boxspring and mattress back. (I checked their assembly work, which was fine.)
Since then I've gotten multiple phone calls from them telling me the bed is now ready for shipment.
I'm amazed they're even still in business.
Home Depot does this to me a lot. I think it's because the drivers are lazy and don't feel like getting out to attempt the actual delivery.
Edit: I think this is going to have zero impact on their biz. I got a recruiter solicitation earlier this week and started laughing. Additionally, "PhD is a firm requirement."
And then they sat on their comfy chairs as this "Bezos" guy with nothing but some computers and investment cash walked through and did everything they were doing better.
At this point, what does Sears have that even counts as an asset in that competition? Amazon has bigger and more warehouses and a ten year lead in optimization of their supply chain.
But that'd never happen.
Sears literally shuttered the catalog operation right before ecommerce was a thing. They literally had a 100 year lead on the market previously and had moderate success with selling stuff on pre-Internet online networks like Prodigy.
The catalog operation hadn't been a big part of sears in a long time--maybe decades. Amazon's success didn't result from having the bide idea to be "the everything store." It was executing on it--and, by the way, making losses along the way that shareholders would likely never have tolerated in a mature retail chain. I'm not convinced that Sears had any particular unfair advantage as a retailer to dominate in ecommerce just because they had once been known for their catalog.
>stats and excel driven management
I think you can be pretty certain that any successful retailer is highly number-driven from picking sites to handling supply chains.
I am suggesting that if you owned a major retailer with an established catalog model, plus a network of stores and storefronts to deliver catalog orders, PLUS a cash cow insurance company (Allstate), PLUS a broadly established payment network (Discover) in 1993, divesting yourself of those assets at that time is a particularly untimely thing to do. It's also reflective of not seeing the big picture.
Full disclosure: I'm a PhD dropout. Hasn't hurt my salary; probably has helped since I got 3+ years work experience by dropping after quals.
Some businesses do this for other businesses. Staples, Napa, OfficeMax, etc. Why not extend this to the consumer. I would venture to guess they feel that there is no ROI. But if people are not going in the store, give them a reason to buy from you anyways.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/nov/05/amazon-and...
We have dept stores such as John Lewis that have done well integrating their business online but delivering goods to the home same day is something they would struggle to do economically.
They have already had problems with click and collect http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/01/john-lewis-t...
They don't deliver to consumers because consumers don't need enough office supplies to make it worthwhile.
I understand that France still has bookstores because they set minimum pricing on ebooks. Perhaps a more "fine grained" approach might work to keep some US business alive. (Though I would also require community ownership and community management - we have enough billionaires trying to maximize profit at our expense.)
Looking at this from a strictly analytic perspective, we could build distributions for each characteristic of a particular product. We would expect that some products would benefit the seller or distributor by being sold in person, and some products would benefit the buyer by being sold in person. There could be a case argued that society would be better served by both keeping some physical stores around and protecting some products so that they can be sold in those stores. It seems to me that philosophical arguments tend to ignore that different products have different characteristics - and those characteristics impact our society.
I'm down to only going in a store for perishable groceries and the occasional hardware store purchase when I run out of something in the middle of a project. Everything (and I'm not kidding) else, it's more efficient and less aggravating to grab on Amazon and use Prime two-day shipping. If VR finally becomes a real thing, in 5-10 years appliance and furniture showroom stores might well be obsolete.
The way forward is for Sears to move completely over to franchising. I remember working in a small town in West Michigan fifteen years ago when a local opened a Sears franchise store, it carried a small subset of what a regular Sears store carried kind of a greatest hits.
I was certain that it would be a complete failure. I didn't know anyone who shopped at Sears and the brand would be a drag on the new business. I was totally wrong the new store was a huge hit! I got to know the manager and there are a couple hundred of these stores and the overwhelming majority succeed.
Sears is sitting on a lot of valuable real estate that they could sell if the big stores were sold. Franchise stores would popup in the communities that would support them. Just because there aren't any franchise stores in big cities doesn't necessarily mean they wouldn't succeed. Apparently the big brand still has some pull, but the overhead of the big store pulls it down.
The key is local owners who are free to stock Sears brands or chose other merchandise, people who understand their communities and can provide great service.
~4 years ago they announced that they had partnered with some SaaS provider do modernize their systems. It required re uploading all your product data, but I was excited to finally get rid of IE 6. That is until I discovered that they couldn't bare to replace their legacy systems, and the new one was just a flashy way to manage an arbitrary subset of your product data, but other changes still require using the old system.
To the extent that retail is still a profession, anyway. A couple of generations back, retail was a high standards industry with highly trained staff and high expectations among the customers.
I don't get it. The whole point of site to store is for convenience but they seem to make it as inconvenient as possible.
It obviously didn't "get placed in a particular spot at customer service order pick-ups." It was in the normal stockroom treated like normal stock - which means people don't pay attention to quick and easy access and stuff gets piled on top. They have shelves in the site to store area behind the desk. Said shelves are completely empty. It does make sense that they don't want people taking stuff off the site to store shelves so they keep them in the back. Even though the shelves are behind the desk the desk is unattended except whe someone presses the button.
My experience is not unusual at all for Walmart site to store, if you look online you'll see plenty of similar stories.
Frankly you come off way worse than any of the employees in this story.
I didn't complain at all, not even one bit. I sat down on the bench and later layed down on the bench and just waited quietly and said "ok" when he told me he needed more time. Never complained, never said anything nasty, never said anything at all unless spoken to, actually. I didn't yell at anyone or get upset or annoyed, or rude, or use a harsh tone, or anything of the sort. Never said anything but "its alright" when people said "Sorry for the wait."
So I come across as a terrible person for basically showing up and waiting quietly on a bench? What should I have done that would be pleasing to you? Not picked up my order?
Employee had to deal with crappy mismanagement, I wasn't angry at him, and I even helped him out by giving him my pen so he didn't have to go find one for the next people.
Crappy policies and crappy mismanagement causes bad customer service experience. It seems obvious the problems. Site to store orders should be in their own area for quick access and not be comingled with other stock as to not get buried. They should have more than one employee operating site to store so that if one employee is in the middle of something another can take over. Those two things would fix 99% of customer service issues with site to store. I don't think that the employees did anything wrong, they were set up for failure. I worked at a job in high school that set its employees up for failure, so I know how frustrating it can be. There was quite a few grown adults who took great pleasure in screaming at 16 year olds for things outside of their control at that job. I never do that.
I don't even mind waiting at all usually, but there is a reasonable wait time and there are wait times nobody can predict (higher than usual crowd) and theres unreasonable wait times that are avoidable.
I also never said he was young, you made that part up. He wasn't young at all.
It's an especially awful and unpleasant store in the northeast, but generally speaking you get a higher level of service and competence in the south where they are more established and have a cadre of competent management.
Their other consumer goods such as clothing, sporting goods, shoes, and electronics seem somehow lacking. There is a disconnect somewhere. Once, while I was browsing at the local Sears, an employee sourly commented, "We sell fishing rods but no hooks."
The prices are high compared to the other big box retailers, let alone Amazon. Their website lacks the rich shopping experience of Amazon. Speaking of hooks, there is nothing to draw customers into the store, no focus, no reason to go in and browse. It's a dull, utilitarian experience.
Sears is big, has excellent brand recognition, and still occupies a lot of prime commercial real estate. What they seem to be lacking is a refreshed product line, cutthroat pricing, and the brilliant marketing and advertising that is needed to draw in business.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2016/02/11/the-5-way...
Wal-Mart: Cheap
Target: Not as cheap but Sorta hip and clean
Nordstrom: Excellent customer service
Forever 21: Fashionable and cheap
Sears: Not sure??
JC Pennys: Kinda like Sears but at least we are trying
The thing is Sears has been like this for so long. How did they at least not try?
Worse, some of the "Sears" stores in rural areas are actually just using the name under license. They are not doing the parent company any good.
I once worked for an online savings / coupon site that had been a catalog ordering company and transitioned the right way (ShopAtHome.com) from a printed catalog business in the early 90's, and had great respect for the founder's insight in doing so.
Amazon got so much flak for taking advantage of this, they finally decided it was easier to open warehouses everywhere and charge the taxes. But that opened up the possibility of same day delivery.
I think it's an idiotic policy from the point of view of a customer who doesn't want a credit card. Because it slows down the line, all this promotion and paperwork is being done at the cash register.
Sorry, let me start off with a story: So my wife and I are looking to replace a Queen size bed with a King size one - we find the one we want at Sears online, cool, place an order.
Checkout, put in info, order done. Get notification email, I had put in one of the other mattresses we had been looking at (like an idiot) - ok, no problem I think, I JUST made the order, I will cancel it and get the one that we had wanted.
I call the customer service line. "We can't cancel it, it's already with the shipping department." Ok, I don't care - tell them it's cancelled, so I can order the right one? "I'm sorry, I can't do that." Alright, let's do the "Connect me to your supervisor" dance!
Get to the "next level" supervisor; this person says, "I can't cancel the order, it's already on the truck."
...You put an order on a truck within 15 minutes of me clicking the button that isn't set to be shipped for two weeks? Is your warehouse made of trucks?
"Ok, take it off the truck." I say, convinced I had just solved the problem.
"I can't do that. You'll have to receive it, and then return the mattress."
"...You mean I'll have to wait two weeks, for you to ship me a mattress I don't want, just so I can return it? That doesn't make any sense."
ON TO THE NEXT LEVEL OF SUPERVISOR!
By now, what should have been a friendly 30 second call that would replace one order with another one, is 45 minutes of me being increasingly confused and pissed off, but it becomes clear after the third person comes on the line.
"Sorry to hear that you want to cancel the order, sir. Could we convince you to take the order, and accept a discount?"
WHAT THE FUCK, FOR THE WRONG MATTRESS? Then it hits me - they were giving me the run around, specifically to keep that 'sale' in their system, at almost any cost to them.
"NO, cancel the order IMMEDIATELY, and I won't sign for it if you make the mistake of shipping it here!"
This finally convinces them to cancel the order. What a waste of an hour! As an upshot, I am so pissed off at this point that I decide not only to not order the right item from Sears, but never to buy anything there ever again, and to inform everyone I had ever met that Sears is terrible and to advise them never to shop there, ever.
So now that Sears has come up, I'm going to do the same thing I promised to do then:
Don't ever shop at Sears, ever - if there is a damn hurricane and it's the only place with sandbags, I still wouldn't trust them.
I know HN is more meta/intellectual and not a personal anecdote kind of place, and I'd keep to that rule, but the fury came over me when I saw Sears, and I couldn't help myself.
http://www.salon.com/2013/12/10/ayn_rand_loving_ceo_destroys...
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-07-11/at-sears-edd...
The Salon article is rather biased and doesn't actually analyze the specific failure points as it relates to Rand. Selling Rolexes in Sears isn't Randian -- it's just a bad business decision.
The dude's personality also isn't necessarily Randian either and it would seem that was a major contributor to his failures.
There are plenty of Christian business successes and failures -- and they rarely have anything to do with Christianity.
Did he actually follow Rand? Selling a $4000 Rolex in Sears has nothing to do with Rand.
The Salon article even states "discredited free market.." Is that so? I'm not sure many reputable microeconomists would say the free market is discredited any more than the law of supply and demand is discredited. There are distortions that happen surely, but that doesn't 'discredit' anything.
Has Adam Smith been discredited? We could more easily say that Marxism has been discredited based on the fact that nearly every Marxist economy has failed while plenty of free market economies have succeeded.
This failure has zero to do with Rand and everything to do with the personal failings of this CEO.
We could say it, but in fact, it has been claimed that no Marxist state has ever correctly implemented Marxism. "No true Scotsman" is a handy fallacy.
Non-falsifiability is a feature of every mature ideology.
Socialist movements influenced by non-Leninist Marxism (though rarely as the sole Socialist influence) have been quite successful in the developed world, though they don't tend to set up one party states even where they are influential, again, because that's something more associated with the authoritarian paternalism of Leninist vanguardism than it does with non-Leninist Marxism.
So, its perhaps fair to say Leninism has been tested and failed; far less so for Marxism.
"Lampert took the myth that humans perform best when acting selfishly as gospel, pitting Sears company managers against each other in a kind of Lord of the Flies death match. This, he believed, would cause them to act rationally and boost performance."
I would be tempted to blame Ayn Rand as well, but in the end the responsibility is of those who apply what she invented, especially when they should know better.
From what I've heard, Google had similar battles between senior leaders and they've been wildly successful. While these policies probably didn't help the situation at Sears, I'd be very hesitant to say they were the cause of the decline.
I think Salon was looking at the situation without enough objectivity in an attempt to discredit a philosophy they find distasteful. And I think people like you who are laying the blame on the implementation may also be attributing too much of the outcome to how the company was run. Sometimes a company is just destined to fail by circumstance. It's very hard for an established company to constantly maintain the fresh perspective necessary to get out in front of the game-changing trends and not be reactive. If it weren't, startups disrupting existing businesses would not be so successful. That Sears stayed at the top for 100 years seems more of an anomaly rather than their failure in the past 30 or so.
Sears isn't the only company of its sort to have problems...just look at JC Penny. I'd be more willing to chalk Sears failure up to Walmart, Target, Amazon, Best Buy and the rest of the newer companies that ate their market by using newer technologies, better managing the supply chain and otherwise adapting to the changing world. Sears got big by changing the game and dominating mail order and it adapted well to the retail department store/mall eras. But they weren't able to transition to the internet, aren't able to compete on price with the lower-margin retailers and aren't considered premium enough to go up-market. There's very little they can offer right now that others can't do better and that would likely be the case no matter which principles they'd used to run their business.
Yes, applying any single philosophy as a replacement for sound perspective on your business fundamentals seems like a bad idea. However, you don't typically see executives preaching communism as a solution. There is something particularly seductive about Randism to a certain class of corporative executive.
Those battles are for who can make the best product, a winner is crowned and done. It's not the same as making departments constantly battle each other with no end.
i.e. battle for two similar competing products, not unrelated things.
That doesn't sound very objectivist to me.
As in everything there can be implementation failure (as you have so currectly pointed out).
There's also the other failure case of a mismatch between principles and the existing context. Maybe these principles work just fine in other contexts and other fields, but they're a poor match up to this one and can't be used without a lot of tweaking (e.g. Agile techniques applied to the manufacture of airplanes; it can be done but you can't just say 'we will do standups and sprints and everything will fall into place').
> zero to do with Rand and everything to do with the personal failings...
She only takes responsibility for success, because failures, quite simply, have nothing to do with her.
The almighty Ayn Rand just never makes mistakes.
I took my Tv-b-gone to a business school and zapped the TVs that had CNBC and stuff like that and they turned them back on in an hour and the next time I used it they put tape on the IR sensors.
I zapped the TVs at sears and they were still off a year later.
Sears is the only entity that has denied me credit. (Doesn't stop them from asking me to apply.
For years I was a fan of sears auto center because the cashier would sometimes give me 4 tires for the price of one and they were the kind of lovable gearheads that always had the manager's camaro. They went on of business and an mma training center moved in and I don't get it because this is the only state where mma is banned...