AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Sutton & Son stays in the red due to 'diversification costs'

16th February 2006
Page 8
Page 8, 16th February 2006 — Sutton & Son stays in the red due to 'diversification costs'
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

It's been another bad year for Hazchem specialist Sutton & Son, but its parent company reports healthier profits. Bridget Carter reports.

BULK LIQUID transport group Sutton & Son has made a pre-tax loss for the second year running according to accounts for the year ending 30 April 2005. The Cheshire-based firm lost f Lim following f.1.2m losses in 2004.

However, the company's parent group,Thomas Cradley Holdings, earned pre-tax profits of f600,000, mainly thanks to its lucrative international operations.

Andrew Palmer, managing director of Suttons Transport Group, blames the losses on attempts at diversification: "The tanker division did diversify into the food and petroleum sectors from mid-2003 to 2005 and there were mixed results with that.

"The entry costs of getting into the petroleum transport were much higher than expected. largely as a result of management."

In addition a key food distribution client whose business was earning the firm more than ft m in turnover went into administration.

Turnover for the year was £37.5m, up from f30.3in in 2004. Turnover at Thomas Cradley Holdings rose from £65m to £77m, Palmer believes that a management plan put in place last year, and the appointment of a new MD for the tanker division, will help improve Sutton & Son's results for 2006: "At the halfway point of this financial year there had been substantial progress beyond 2005", he says.