Farting dog on way out?

SYDNEY: The ownership of Australian street and surfwear brand Mambo could be heading offshore after several domestic apparel groups thumbed their nose at acquiring the label.
The brand's current owner, listed group the Gazal Corporation, recently announced it intended conducting a "strategic review" of the label after what it claimed were approaches from at least three unnamed parties interested in purchasing the business.
But major players approached by Ragtrader - including Tarocash and YD owner Retail Apparel Group, Review and Yarra Trail owner PAS Group, Global Local Surfwear, Roar and Crusty Demons owner Austin Group, Marcs and Morrissey owner M Webster Holdings and fellow ASX-listed company Pacific Brands, all denied interest in purchasing the brand.
This has fuelled speculation international players - including UK company The Outdoor Group, which currently licenses its European sales - could become the new owner of the brand.
Gazal has owned the brand for seven years since buying it from founders Dare Jennings and Andrew Rich for what is believed to be $20 million. Currently Mambo is trademarked in 43 countries but receives licensing and royalty fees from just 12 with Europe its strongest international market. It also leases 10 own brand stores in Australia and wholesales through David Jones, Beach Culture, City Beach and independent surf boutiques.
Origin Capital spokesperson Paul Veltman, who is handling the auction, would not be drawn on the value of the business but admitted Mambo's retail sales - including those from international licensees - were $41 million in the current fiscal year.
Veltman said if it did not find the right buyer or the right price Gazal - which also owns the Bisley workwear and Loveable labels and licenses international labels Nautica, Calvin Klein and Van Heusen - had several other options open to it to help move the brand forward. These included breaking up the manufacturing arm of the business, Mambo Graphics, and the retail arm Mambo, and selling them separately or offering the brand's trademark and licensing agreements up for sale independently. Another consideration was to expand the brand into new categories or alternatively, retaining the business itself.
Veltman said it was hoped a decision on the future of the business would be made by August.