Revision Messed Up

[AngryGramps]

He found some suckas and licked them

Revision skis = Blac chyna

And like blac chyna revision can also can fuck off into oblivion

But seriously revision wasn't started as a scam. It became one once bill realized he was fucked and in stead of coming clean he took the money and ran

 

[TheClap.]

And like blac chyna revision can also can fuck off into oblivion

But seriously revision wasn't started as a scam. It became one once bill realized he was fucked and in stead of coming clean he took the money and ran

Do you even know how revision started? It was a scam from the begining... Revision knew one thing from the start, how to fuck people over

 

[Snowgoner]

^explain? not doubting you just honestly curious what you mean exactly. seems so far fetched that this was all somehow in Bill's plan.

 

[Sharko]

^^ Yeah, seriously. If you wanted to scam people and make money, why on earth would you choose a tough industry with thin profit margins and a tiny customer base? You'd make more money selling almost any other product.

...Or drugs for that matter. If you wanna get rich illegally, there's really no easier way than drugs.

I just find it hard to believe.

 

[iggyskier]

how revision started

What he is referring to is a rumor related to these specific words. Sounds like a lot more info is gonna drop early this week...

 

[VanMelle]

What he is referring to is a rumor related to these specific words. Sounds like a lot more info is gonna drop early this week...

100% was not started as a scam, nor do I believe that was ever the intent, as Bill spent a lot of money on marketing and advertising. Dan Brown and the NS crew can back up that he did indeed spend money on this site at least. He hooked a ton of riders up with skis and spent even more money on building a following internationally.

Like Iggy said earlier, got in too deep and couldn't get back out is the most likely scenario without going bankrupt and losing everything he had. At this point he is probably trying to get back to a spot where he can fulfill all orders and simply fade out by selling off all remaining stock without saying much. Will he take the money and run? Idk, maybe...But I do know Bill was a good dude with the right intentions when Revision started. Still holding out hope he at least gives everyone their skis that they paid for.

 

[iggyskier]

100% was not started as a scam, nor do I believe that was ever the intent,

got in too deep and couldn't get back out is the most likely scenario without going bankrupt and losing everything he had.

To reiterate - what was being insinuated is very specific to "how revision started" - not the company's intent when it started.

As for the last bit - that is likely an accurate assessment. That said, Revision was set up as a corporation - thus the owner's personal assets are protected from any creditors of the corporation. So, even worse case scenario for the business - declaring bankruptcy - leaves the company's owners/officers personal assets protected (as they should be because you could never get people to start businesses without that protection - this applies to LLC's too).

 

[leprechaunsissy]

100% was not started as a scam, nor do I believe that was ever the intent, as Bill spent a lot of money on marketing and advertising. Dan Brown and the NS crew can back up that he did indeed spend money on this site at least. He hooked a ton of riders up with skis and spent even more money on building a following internationally.

Like Iggy said earlier, got in too deep and couldn't get back out is the most likely scenario without going bankrupt and losing everything he had. At this point he is probably trying to get back to a spot where he can fulfill all orders and simply fade out by selling off all remaining stock without saying much. Will he take the money and run? Idk, maybe...But I do know Bill was a good dude with the right intentions when Revision started. Still holding out hope he at least gives everyone their skis that they paid for.

Really?

 

[Gman094]

http://kdvr.com/2017/07/06/bbb-issues-warning-against-littleton-based-revision-skis/

 

[Rparr]

http://kdvr.com/2017/07/06/bbb-issues-warning-against-littleton-based-revision-skis/

well it's about damn time

 

[Sklar]

https://www.newschoolers.com/news/read/The-Rise-Fall-Revision-Skis

 

[kingsskier]

https://www.newschoolers.com/news/read/The-Rise-Fall-Revision-Skis

Seems like Bill is either really bad at money management, did not price his product high enough to pay for production, or needs to be looked into for embezzling money.

Good write up and investigation.

 

[J.D.]

That said, Revision was set up as a corporation - thus the owner's personal assets are protected from any creditors of the corporation. So, even worse case scenario for the business - declaring bankruptcy - leaves the company's owners/officers personal assets protected (as they should be because you could never get people to start businesses without that protection - this applies to LLC's too).

This actually wouldn't be the case if it the whole thing was, in fact, a scam... but given that the more likely explanation is that despite good intentions at the outset everything went tits up, yeah, basically.

 

[hi_vis360]

It sounds like the whole issue was with the factory and it got handled in a terrible way. I work with a guy who has done stuff for jibberish and saga and he's always stressing how important it is to have shit straight with the people who are actually making your product.

**This post was edited on Jul 10th 2017 at 3:26:24pm

 

[Kreech]

It sounds like the whole issue was with the factory and it got handled in a terrible way. I work with a guy who has done stuff for jibberish and saga and he's always stressing how important it is to have shit straight with the people who are actually making your product.

**This post was edited on Jul 10th 2017 at 3:26:24pm

Although according to the article twig and sklar just put out, the shit about the cores getting messed up by the factory was also a lie and the real reason for the initial delay was that they placed their order late and then paid for it even later. Pretty fishy

 

[hi_vis360]

Although according to the article twig and sklar just put out, the shit about the cores getting messed up by the factory was also a lie and the real reason for the initial delay was that they placed their order late and then paid for it even later. Pretty fishy

yeah it certainly doesn't seem like the factory messed up but clearly the relationship between the company and the factory was not good, which led to more problems down the road

 

[Bassin]

Glad this article came out and I've been seeing more stuff about this Revision mess popping up on other forums/social media outlets. Hoping some of the people who got scammed can get some answers/justice for not receiving the products they paid for and did not receive.

 

[Swandog7]

Glad this article came out and I've been seeing more stuff about this Revision mess popping up on other forums/social media outlets. Hoping some of the people who got scammed can get some answers/justice for not receiving the products they paid for and did not receive.

Well the article pretty much did give people answers/justice. They know where their skis are, and that is not made. Bill didnt pay his balance to the factory which means not even a lot of the skis and orders for them don't really exist. Some are now at Skis.com, some at Blind2 and some nonexistent. It wasn't the factories fault, it was obviously Bill's managing the companies money.

 

[reet.gang]

I can't believe my skis ended up on skis.com. It hurts me to see people paying less on skis.com for something that is basically mine.

 

[soup]

I can't believe my skis ended up on skis.com. It hurts me to see people paying less on skis.com for something that is basically mine.

man I totally agree wtih you, this is some bullshit! can not believe this company is trying to profit off this. NS we gotta stop this whos already spamming them?

 

[Swandog7]

man I totally agree wtih you, this is some bullshit! can not believe this company is trying to profit off this. NS we gotta stop this whos already spamming them?

From my understanding Skis.com bought them through a third party and had no contact with Revision itself, but some of those pairs just might be some of NS'ers. Who really knows, this whole thing is shit

 

[kingsskier]

From my understanding Skis.com bought them through a third party and had no contact with Revision itself, but some of those pairs just might be some of NS'ers. Who really knows, this whole thing is shit

From what was in the article, skis.com buys bulk skis like this from distributors and warehouses that are trying to recover debts. Kinda like a bank selling a foreclosure cheap just to recover some debt and get rid of some overhead. It sounds like revision didnt pay the warehouse for storing/distribution and they took ownership of this bulk amount to cover the debt. Then they offloaded them to skis.com for a low price. The warehouse/distributor nor skis.com owe anyone anything unfortunately (though it would be cool if they hooked you up with something). There is almost no way either knew that Revision had those sold.

This all sounds like Bill took business advice from the Fyre festival guys. He was probably out living like a king at the mountains promoting, blowing all his money that he needed to actually get the skis to customers. I wonder if he was begging anyone to invest at the end???

 

[SofaKingSick]

From what was in the article, skis.com buys bulk skis like this from distributors and warehouses that are trying to recover debts. Kinda like a bank selling a foreclosure cheap just to recover some debt and get rid of some overhead. It sounds like revision didnt pay the warehouse for storing/distribution and they took ownership of this bulk amount to cover the debt. Then they offloaded them to skis.com for a low price. The warehouse/distributor nor skis.com owe anyone anything unfortunately (though it would be cool if they hooked you up with something). There is almost no way either knew that Revision had those sold.

This all sounds like Bill took business advice from the Fyre festival guys. He was probably out living like a king at the mountains promoting, blowing all his money that he needed to actually get the skis to customers. I wonder if he was begging anyone to invest at the end???

This exactly. Can't really blame skis.com, though it is a weird situation

 

[Static]

The warehouse/distributor nor skis.com owe anyone anything unfortunately (though it would be cool if they hooked you up with something). There is almost no way either knew that Revision had those sold.

I think it's extremely naive to assume Skis.com didn't know about the situation, especially considering their geographic proximity to Revision and their past sales of Epic Planks.

 

[Randy_Quench]

I think it's extremely naive to assume Skis.com didn't know about the situation, especially considering their geographic proximity to Revision and their past sales of Epic Planks.

I disagree. It's business. And for a bigger online distributor like skis.com I would be surprised if they never even heard of a small freeski company like Revision before being offered the bulk order.

But it still doesn't matter, even if skis.com knew the whole story. The skis did not belong to you and they never did. When bill didn't pay the warehouse the skis they produced became their own asset to do whatever they wanted with. What would you prefer happen? The warehouse just torch 331 pairs of skis?

 

[Static]

I disagree. It's business. And for a bigger online distributor like skis.com I would be surprised if they never even heard of a small freeski company like Revision before being offered the bulk order.

But it still doesn't matter, even if skis.com knew the whole story. The skis did not belong to you and they never did. When bill didn't pay the warehouse the skis they produced became their own asset to do whatever they wanted with. What would you prefer happen? The warehouse just torch 331 pairs of skis?

It certainly matters, at the very least on principle, if skis.com or anyone else is profiting off skis they know to have come from a scam.

"it's just business" is some bullshit.

"oh Bill's not liable, revision is a corporation, it's just business"

"no one is entitled to a refund, the dispute period was 120 days, it's just business"

"skis.com is selling what are essentially stolen skis (even if there are many corporate entities between them and the people who got fucked), either because they didn't perform due diligence or because they dgaf, it's just business"

Personally I do think the factory should be left holding the skis (assuming there's no way they make it to the people who pre-ordered), I don't think they should be able to find a retailer scummy enough to pass them onto, or skiers willing to ski on them.

 

[SofaKingSick]

It certainly matters, at the very least on principle, if skis.com or anyone else is profiting off skis they know to have come from a scam.

"it's just business" is some bullshit.

"oh Bill's not liable, revision is a corporation, it's just business"

"no one is entitled to a refund, the dispute period was 120 days, it's just business"

"skis.com is selling what are essentially stolen skis (even if there are many corporate entities between them and the people who got fucked), either because they didn't perform due diligence or because they dgaf, it's just business"

Personally I do think the factory should be left holding the skis (assuming there's no way they make it to the people who pre-ordered), I don't think they should be able to find a retailer scummy enough to pass them onto, or skiers willing to ski on them.

why are you trying to conflate bill/revision's actions with the others'?

the factory is trading skis for money. skis.com is trading money for skis which they then trade for a little more money. that's business. the only problem is that bill/revision received money but did not give skis in return.... i don't know how to break this down any more.

ill be the first to say that "it's business" is a shitty excuse to act immorally but i don't understand why you think skis.com or the factory is doing something too bad here. would it make it better for you if the skis somehow shipped without the brand name on them? i dont think we need to worry about advertising for a defunct company

 

[iggyskier]

I think some people need to go back and reread the article because some basic elements are being missed/misinterpreted.

I disagree. It's business. And for a bigger online distributor like skis.com I would be surprised if they never even heard of a small freeski company like Revision before being offered the bulk order.

But it still doesn't matter, even if skis.com knew the whole story. The skis did not belong to you and they never did. When bill didn't pay the warehouse the skis they produced became their own asset to do whatever they wanted with. What would you prefer happen? The warehouse just torch 331 pairs of skis?

Three things just to add here:

I doubt Skis.com would buy 30k+ in skis from a brand they don't know, even at the price of $100/pair. That shop has to sell those skis, and in this case, you're talking about having to move about 100k in product (331 pairs). I've spent years talking to dealers - your brand name matters and shops only buy things they know they can sell. I could be wrong here, but it wouldn't mesh with my experience trying to sell to ski shops the past 5-6 years.

Second - Bill did pay the factory. That is confirmed by the factory (who said he paid one month late) and the customs information that is available online. I've attached both the custom documents & the tracking information of the container - both easy to track down online. The skis wouldn't have been shipped by the factory without payment.

Edit: Moved images to attachment below.

The above Bill of Lading confirms the order went to a supply chain management company in Aurora. So...If the skis were dumped to a third-party, it would likely have been done so by the supply chain company and it would have been for non-payment.

Warehousing and fulfillment, in the scheme of things, isn't that expensive so it would be surprising to me to hear that Revision forfeited 331 pairs of skis to the supply chain company because they couldn't pay the warehousing fees....but anything is possible.

Lastly - Skis.com has, for at least the time being, pulled all the Revision skis off the website. Not sure what that means, but interesting nonetheless.

**This post was edited on Jul 11th 2017 at 11:26:28am

 

[kingsskier]

It certainly matters, at the very least on principle, if skis.com or anyone else is profiting off skis they know to have come from a scam.

"it's just business" is some bullshit.

"oh Bill's not liable, revision is a corporation, it's just business"

"no one is entitled to a refund, the dispute period was 120 days, it's just business"

"skis.com is selling what are essentially stolen skis (even if there are many corporate entities between them and the people who got fucked), either because they didn't perform due diligence or because they dgaf, it's just business"

Personally I do think the factory should be left holding the skis (assuming there's no way they make it to the people who pre-ordered), I don't think they should be able to find a retailer scummy enough to pass them onto, or skiers willing to ski on them.

skis.com owns the skis legally and fairly. Bill owns the liability to its customers who paid for skis and never received them. You paid him, he owes you. Just because the skis were built to a print he made, he lost their ownership in the supply chain. They were stored/distributed on credit and he never fulfilled his duties. skis.com likely assumed he went out of business since they were getting a bulk supply from someone other than his company, but they almost assuredly did not know that he had those skis paid for and in reality, if they did, its not their job to clean up after someone elses fuck up.

**This post was edited on Jul 11th 2017 at 11:30:32am

 

[Rparr]

oh man this never ends lol

 

[SofaKingSick]

I think some people need to go back and reread the article because some basic elements are being missed/misinterpreted.

Three things just to add here:

I doubt Skis.com would buy 30k+ in skis from a brand they don't know, even at the price of $100/pair. That shop has to sell those skis, and in this case, you're talking about having to move about 100k in product (331 pairs). I've spent years talking to dealers - your brand name matters and shops only buy things they know they can sell. I could be wrong here, but it wouldn't mesh with my experience trying to sell to ski shops the past 5-6 years.

Second - Bill did pay the factory. That is confirmed by the factory (who said he paid one month late) and the customs information that is available online. I've attached both the custom documents & the tracking information of the container - both easy to track down online. The skis wouldn't have been shipped by the factory without payment.

Edit: Moved images to attachment below.

The above Bill of Lading confirms the order went to a supply chain management company in Aurora. So...If the skis were dumped to a third-party, it would likely have been done so by the supply chain company and it would have been for non-payment.

Warehousing and fulfillment, in the scheme of things, isn't that expensive so it would be surprising to me to hear that Revision forfeited 331 pairs of skis to the supply chain company because they couldn't pay the warehousing fees....but anything is possible.

Lastly - Skis.com has, for at least the time being, pulled all the Revision skis off the website. Not sure what that means, but interesting nonetheless.

**This post was edited on Jul 11th 2017 at 11:26:28am

hmm good points. no point stopping there, though. what's your theory on what happened?

 

[Murdock]

This is such a sad thread to read. I met bill wanrooy 4-5 years ago up at the epic planks "warehouse/factory" in grand rapids when one of his team riders who was one of my close friends at the time needed skis because his delammed. Bill was the only person there and seemed to be a super nice and down to earth dude, he even gave us two free passes to cannonsburg after he mounted up Bryan's new skis. Just goes to show you can't ever judge a book by its cover, I feel horrible for everyone who didn't get their skis. This is the deifiniton of bullshit and shadiness.

 

[broto]

Second - Bill did pay the factory. That is confirmed by the factory (who said he paid one month late) and the customs information that is available online. I've attached both the custom documents & the tracking information of the container - both easy to track down online. The skis wouldn't have been shipped by the factory without payment.

Edit: Moved images to attachment below.

The above Bill of Lading confirms the order went to a supply chain management company in Aurora. So...If the skis were dumped to a third-party, it would likely have been done so by the supply chain company and it would have been for non-payment.

Warehousing and fulfillment, in the scheme of things, isn't that expensive so it would be surprising to me to hear that Revision forfeited 331 pairs of skis to the supply chain company because they couldn't pay the warehousing fees....but anything is possible.

Lastly - Skis.com has, for at least the time being, pulled all the Revision skis off the website. Not sure what that means, but interesting nonetheless.

**This post was edited on Jul 11th 2017 at 11:26:28am

this is what i'm struggling to understand. Bill paid for the skis. they were shipped to the US, seemingly to a distribution facility in Aurora, CO, which is about a half hour from Littleton, CO, where the BBB says revision is based out of. the one piece you didn't tie in to it, is that if you look in the comments of the article, Sam Zahner says the last contact he had with Bill was briefly in April when they ran out of skis and threatened to leave. At the time (in april), Bill had them drive to a warehouse in, you guessed it, Aurora, CO, to pick up ~7 pairs from a "random employee". if that info is true (and i don't see any motivation for zahner to lie) then i don't think we're not seeing the whole picture or the timeline isn't exactly right. how was Bill able to get molesquad 7 pairs of skis in April from the warehouse in Aurora if he supposedly didn't have control over them or was "unable to fill orders sometime in March"?

the article also quotes skis.com as saying: "Typically when we make these types of purchases through third parties, it is product that [sic] brand had not paid the production and/or warehousing bills for but we never know the exact circumstance." Let's assume that Revision's case is typical. We know Bill paid the production bills, they were just late. We don't know that he paid warehousing bills. Now my dad runs a 3PL (3rd party logistics) warehouse in upstate NY. Just to put a rough estimate on cost: It will obviously vary depending on location, the individual facility, and the company running it, but storage in those types of facilities usually runs at about $5-10, per pallet, per month, and that's on the higher end. If you've got one shipping container, you're talking at most, say maybe 25 pallets. probably safe to say Revision's shipment was smaller than that. i don't think i have to walk ya'll through the math here, but it would seem highly unlikely that Bill would cause this entire fiasco because he couldn't afford a couple hundred bucks in rent at the distribution facility.

i feel like that article just brought about more questions. hopefully someday we'll get all the answers

 

[N41v131355]

Been watching the thread for a long time. The thing I'm struggling to understand (probably cause I'm not living in US or idk) is why the fuck there are zero messages about contacting police. What happened to those who preordered revision skis is basically called fraud, scam, robbery - whatever you want to call it. You ordered goods and the shop never delievered them nor refunded the money. I really don't understand why NS community is investigating this instead of officials. I've seen some mass fraund police investigations in this is how they are handled in EU: you are filling a claim, where you discribe the situation, everything you know about the case, including that you are not the only one affected. Also, you ask people who also got scammed to do the same. After there are several claims, cases will be consolidated. More claims = higher priority and attention to the case. Once they see it's not a shitty hundred bucks fraud they will put alot more time and energy in investigation. From time to time you can call them and ask about the results, because you obviously expect not only the triumph of justice but also a compensation, when the case will be transferred to the court later. From what I see here, all of that should have been done long time ago.

**This post was edited on Jul 11th 2017 at 1:42:31pm

 

[iggyskier]

hmm good points. no point stopping there, though. what's your theory on what happened?

I have no theories, only questions. I think in this case it is best to just stick to the facts. The questions I would have though....

1) Did the skis really end up with a third-party before they went to Skis.com? If not, well...that tells you all you need to know.

2) If so, were they sold to the third-party or were they taken due to non-payment?

3) If they were sold to the third-party, by whom, to whom, & why?

4) Lastly, what is the truth of the situation involving Batalla? The rumor that has been floating around the ski industry there casts a dark shadow over this whole ordeal, but given the legal situation surrounding it, it's unlikely the complete truth ever comes out.

In a nutshell, find out how skis went from delivery in February to Skis.com. The path the skis took there will be what really determines the judgement of the situation.

this is what i'm struggling to understand...

I'm with you there. From my uneducated outside perspective, it seems that some customer service + skis delivered in March (late, but not never) would have saved the company & resolved the situation. Finding out why that didn't happen would tell you a lot about the situation.

This is coming from someone who went through this one year - with really, really late skis (our first year of production, with most delivered in Jan/Feb). It sucked, but the situation was managed as best we could by being open with the people waiting on skis.

 

[Randy_Quench]

It certainly matters, at the very least on principle, if skis.com or anyone else is profiting off skis they know to have come from a scam.

"it's just business" is some bullshit.

"oh Bill's not liable, revision is a corporation, it's just business"

"no one is entitled to a refund, the dispute period was 120 days, it's just business"

"skis.com is selling what are essentially stolen skis (even if there are many corporate entities between them and the people who got fucked), either because they didn't perform due diligence or because they dgaf, it's just business"

Personally I do think the factory should be left holding the skis (assuming there's no way they make it to the people who pre-ordered), I don't think they should be able to find a retailer scummy enough to pass them onto, or skiers willing to ski on them.

In thinking that the factory deserves to be stuck with the skis your "principle" is no better than Bill's. That factory spent money on manufacturing a product, just like NSers spent money on skis. And just like how NSers tried to chargeback through their banks, the factory did the only thing it could do to make up that lost money- by selling off the assets they obtained.

The point is that you are moving blame from those who deserve it (Bill & Revision) to those who are not liable for any of this mess (the factory & skis.com).

(Albeit, iggyskier has now got me asking more questions as to how skis.com acquired the skis, which could totally change my opinion on skis.com's position in the matter.)

skis.com owns the skis legally and fairly. Bill owns the liability to its customers who paid for skis and never received them. You paid him, he owes you. Just because the skis were built to a print he made, he lost their ownership in the supply chain. They were stored/distributed on credit and he never fulfilled his duties. skis.com likely assumed he went out of business since they were getting a bulk supply from someone other than his company, but they almost assuredly did not know that he had those skis paid for and in reality, if they did, its not their job to clean up after someone elses fuck up.

**This post was edited on Jul 11th 2017 at 11:30:32am

This is the point I was trying to make. Sorry if my first comment sounded pro-revision.

Three things just to add here:

I doubt Skis.com would buy 30k+ in skis from a brand they don't know, even at the price of $100/pair. That shop has to sell those skis, and in this case, you're talking about having to move about 100k in product (331 pairs). I've spent years talking to dealers - your brand name matters and shops only buy things they know they can sell. I could be wrong here, but it wouldn't mesh with my experience trying to sell to ski shops the past 5-6 years.

Second - Bill did pay the factory. That is confirmed by the factory (who said he paid one month late) and the customs information that is available online. I've attached both the custom documents & the tracking information of the container - both easy to track down online. The skis wouldn't have been shipped by the factory without payment.

Edit: Moved images to attachment below.

The above Bill of Lading confirms the order went to a supply chain management company in Aurora. So...If the skis were dumped to a third-party, it would likely have been done so by the supply chain company and it would have been for non-payment.

Warehousing and fulfillment, in the scheme of things, isn't that expensive so it would be surprising to me to hear that Revision forfeited 331 pairs of skis to the supply chain company because they couldn't pay the warehousing fees....but anything is possible.

Lastly - Skis.com has, for at least the time being, pulled all the Revision skis off the website. Not sure what that means, but interesting nonetheless.

**This post was edited on Jul 11th 2017 at 11:26:28am

This brings up a lot of good points that didn't occur to me before. I'm curious though, because you seem to be poking at the idea, that skis.com somehow sneakily purchased those skis before they were with a third party? Do you think skis.com is really part of the conspiracy, or did they just get caught up in the mess after a normal business transaction?

 

[iggyskier]

This brings up a lot of good points that didn't occur to me before. I'm curious though, because you seem to be poking at the idea, that skis.com somehow sneakily purchased those skis before they were with a third party? Do you think skis.com is really part of the conspiracy, or did they just get caught up in the mess after a normal business transaction?

I can't see anyway Skis.com is involved in this at all, besides that they were the unfortunate company who ended up with the skis. At absolute worst, they just weren't paying attention. I've had discussions with their buyers before (when we were trying to add Summit Sports as a dealer in Detroit) and they were always professional. They are a big business (see: http://corp.summitsports.com/), so it would be wildly dumb to exposure yourself to any risk for 60k in hardgoods profit.

I'm sure they are caught up in this like everyone else.

I'll just put it out there in the most basic form I can - which I suspect is the question everyone wants to know:

Are the skis sold to Skis.com the unfulfilled preorder skis?

If the answer is yes, then the question is how did they get from point A (warehouse in Aurora) to point B (Skis.com)?

I have no idea what the answer is.

**This post was edited on Jul 11th 2017 at 4:56:49pm

 

[Static]

In thinking that the factory deserves to be stuck with the skis your "principle" is no better than Bill's. That factory spent money on manufacturing a product, just like NSers spent money on skis.

If the factory got paid they were compensated, if they didn't get paid and they shipped a load of skis COD, bet they don't make that mistake again. The same way I doubt people are going to be pre-ordering from new companies.

But who is for sure profiting/benefiting from all this? BW and skis.com

 

[GrandThings]

(makes me sad that this is the most interesting thing on NS right now) Sorry to all the homies that didnt get skis. Honestly cant imagine how mad I'd be

 

[patagonialuke]

To anyone that paid for skis but never got them: I've got a pair of Salomon Rocker2 100's, 170 cm length that I'd be happy to send your way for the price of shipping (from CO). Let me know.

Edit: Skis are now spoken for, heading to a new home soon.

**This post was edited on Jul 13th 2017 at 6:45:17pm

 

[MikeWeinerONE]

Word of advice. Buy from a reputable source and not a fly by night company. This will keep happening. You wanna be core support Saga, Jskis, ON3P etc as opposed to companies that promise "too good to be true dealers, i mean deals". You really think a company has came up with indestructible edges and a gigantic company hasn't yet if they exist? Or the budget to replace broken skis for damage such as that when it's all pre-order? Wish the best to everyone that ordered skis from them and I hope never to hear of this stuff again. Saga and Virtika have done it right but they have very right people running their companies and have a track record of success.

 

[Kreech]

Word of advice. Buy from a reputable source and not a fly by night company. This will keep happening. You wanna be core support Saga, Jskis, ON3P etc as opposed to companies that promise "too good to be true dealers, i mean deals". You really think a company has came up with indestructible edges and a gigantic company hasn't yet if they exist? Or the budget to replace broken skis for damage such as that when it's all pre-order? Wish the best to everyone that ordered skis from them and I hope never to hear of this stuff again. Saga and Virtika have done it right but they have very right people running their companies and have a track record of success.

One of the huge bummers about this entire situation is the amount of doubt/suspicion it's going to create for new companies trying to get off the ground. Don't get me wrong, a healthy amount of skepticism is important when any brand is just getting started, but I'd guess that a lot of people who would maybe be willing to invest in a pair of sticks from a brand new company may take a look at this whole thing and opt to go for a pair of k2s/atomics/salomons/etc. instead. Not that those are bad companies; they all make banger skis, but any brand that's just starting needs people to invest, and sadly I think this sort of thing is going to make starting a new company that much harder, which is a shame because new/small companies can turn out to be some of the biggest assets to the whole industry. Just look at on3p or HG or RMU or Vishnu (still relatively untested, but seem like they're headed in the right direction and have only one negative review I know of, against a boatload of stoked customers, but I digress). Think about what the ski industry would be like if no one was willing to buy any Line skis back in the 90s! Anyway, you get the point

 

[MikeWeinerONE]

One of the huge bummers about this entire situation is the amount of doubt/suspicion it's going to create for new companies trying to get off the ground. Don't get me wrong, a healthy amount of skepticism is important when any brand is just getting started, but I'd guess that a lot of people who would maybe be willing to invest in a pair of sticks from a brand new company may take a look at this whole thing and opt to go for a pair of k2s/atomics/salomons/etc. instead. Not that those are bad companies; they all make banger skis, but any brand that's just starting needs people to invest, and sadly I think this sort of thing is going to make starting a new company that much harder, which is a shame because new/small companies can turn out to be some of the biggest assets to the whole industry. Just look at on3p or HG or RMU or Vishnu (still relatively untested, but seem like they're headed in the right direction and have only one negative review I know of, against a boatload of stoked customers, but I digress). Think about what the ski industry would be like if no one was willing to buy any Line skis back in the 90s! Anyway, you get the point

You make a good point. But I say look at JLev. You can find new comanies, and core companies, whose core, has been designing skis for a long time. Or building them or both.

 

[Kreech]

You make a good point. But I say look at JLev. You can find new comanies, and core companies, whose core, has been designing skis for a long time. Or building them or both.

Agreed. I think a balance is there for sure, in terms of finding the right small company to invest in, which you know is legit and making a solid product and in it for the long run. Definitely a tough judgement call to make when it's someone who's still pretty new to the game.

 

[VISHNU]

This whole thing is such a bummer all around, Jesus Christ. If there's anything to learn from this it is TALK TO YOUR CUSTOMERS I mean come on guy.

 

[.lencon]

This whole thing is such a bummer all around, Jesus Christ. If there's anything to learn from this it is TALK TO YOUR CUSTOMERS I mean come on guy.

Make powder skis.

 

[gaper-raper]

You make a good point. But I say look at JLev. You can find new comanies, and core companies, whose core, has been designing skis for a long time. Or building them or both.

JLev is different with J-Skis, he made his reputation with Line and Full Tilt. Everyone knew from the get go that he was going to be reputable because he already was arguably one of the pioneers in the sport for innovation.

It will be unfortunately difficult for newer companies to get off the ground because they just simply won't have the capital to pay up front for a product in hopes that they will sell it all. Those smaller companies do need to rely on preorders to help pay for all the manufacturing costs up front.

 

[leprechaunsissy]

this is what i'm struggling to understand. Bill paid for the skis. they were shipped to the US, seemingly to a distribution facility in Aurora, CO, which is about a half hour from Littleton, CO, where the BBB says revision is based out of. the one piece you didn't tie in to it, is that if you look in the comments of the article, Sam Zahner says the last contact he had with Bill was briefly in April when they ran out of skis and threatened to leave. At the time (in april), Bill had them drive to a warehouse in, you guessed it, Aurora, CO, to pick up ~7 pairs from a "random employee". if that info is true (and i don't see any motivation for zahner to lie) then i don't think we're not seeing the whole picture or the timeline isn't exactly right. how was Bill able to get molesquad 7 pairs of skis in April from the warehouse in Aurora if he supposedly didn't have control over them or was "unable to fill orders sometime in March"?

the article also quotes skis.com as saying: "Typically when we make these types of purchases through third parties, it is product that [sic] brand had not paid the production and/or warehousing bills for but we never know the exact circumstance." Let's assume that Revision's case is typical. We know Bill paid the production bills, they were just late. We don't know that he paid warehousing bills. Now my dad runs a 3PL (3rd party logistics) warehouse in upstate NY. Just to put a rough estimate on cost: It will obviously vary depending on location, the individual facility, and the company running it, but storage in those types of facilities usually runs at about $5-10, per pallet, per month, and that's on the higher end. If you've got one shipping container, you're talking at most, say maybe 25 pallets. probably safe to say Revision's shipment was smaller than that. i don't think i have to walk ya'll through the math here, but it would seem highly unlikely that Bill would cause this entire fiasco because he couldn't afford a couple hundred bucks in rent at the distribution facility.

i feel like that article just brought about more questions. hopefully someday we'll get all the answers

Just buy some on skis.com then!!!!

 

[whoa-dere]

according to his linkedin, bill works as a consultant for a hospital network in florida haha

 

[MikeWeinerONE]

JLev is different with J-Skis, he made his reputation with Line and Full Tilt. Everyone knew from the get go that he was going to be reputable because he already was arguably one of the pioneers in the sport for innovation.

It will be unfortunately difficult for newer companies to get off the ground because they just simply won't have the capital to pay up front for a product in hopes that they will sell it all. Those smaller companies do need to rely on preorders to help pay for all the manufacturing costs up front.

All for kids trying to make new skis. Look up Slant skis and Praxis. Just was saying an apprenticeship is awesome. People that have experience with bigger companies that branch out and take their ideas and experiences and combine them with proven ideas, and make a new product.