Revision Messed Up

KreechAlthough 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

Skora89Glad 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.

reet.gangI 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.

soupman 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?

Swandog7From 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

kingsskierFrom 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???

kingsskierThe 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.

StaticI 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_QuenchI 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?

StaticIt 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.

Randy_QuenchI 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?

StaticIt 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.

iggyskierI 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

iggyskierSecond - 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

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

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

StaticIt 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.

kingsskierskis.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

iggyskierThree 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

Randy_QuenchThis 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?

Randy_QuenchIn 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.

MikeWeinerONEWord 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.

KreechOne 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

MikeWeinerONEYou 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.

VISHNUThis 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.

MikeWeinerONEYou 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.

brotothis 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

gaper-raperJLev 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.

whoa-dereaccording to his linkedin, bill works as a consultant for a hospital network in florida haha

dkirse"On July 11th Skis.com became aware of allegations against Revision Skis. While Skis.com has purchased and possesses Revision Ski inventory, we at no point dealt with or were associated with Revision Skis, in any way. All current inventory was acquired through a 3rd party liquidation service and Skis.com was unaware of any allegations against Revision Skis at the time of purchase."

tyrolWell they are either lying or totally incompetent and out of touch considering anyone mildly involved in the industry has been watching this unfold for the better part of a year now. Not sure which is worse.

But seriously they have to be lying.

SklarI don't know, I'd venture to guess that a vast majority of skiers have still never heard of Revision.

kingsskierThere are two things I initially thought of:
It doesnt matter if half the people at skis.com know who revision was, the person in the acquisition department may know nothing about skiing. Just some person with an MBA (this is a thought, not saying its a fact).
To argue my above point, why the hell would you buy 30k in skis without research the company first. Thats a big chunk of money to blindly buy. They are extremely stupid if they bought skis without researching how durable they are, how buyable they are, how popular they are, etc.

I could glue a bunch of Popsicle sticks together, call them skis and offer 300 pairs to skis.com. Think they would just see 300 pairs of skis and buy them?

**This post was edited on Jul 13th 2017 at 3:25:49pm

SofaKingSickidk what exactly happened but it's not impossible theyre being truthful. revision is (was) a tiny company and this thread is one of the few places on the internet where you'd even learn about this whole ordeal. much more likely to google the company and find decent reviews etc

SklarI don't know, I'd venture to guess that a vast majority of skiers have still never heard of Revision.

swegatureIf skis.com didn't buy the bulk of revisionskis some other company definitely would've. It's not like a company in this industry would buy skis for approx 30k and just give them away to the poor fellows who got scammed. Why is this even a discussion?

tyrolIt's a discussion because of these possibilities:

-Their statement is total bullshit. They got some discount from a 3rd party and figured "OK LADIDA MUST BE A GREAT DEAL NO NEED TO LOOK INTO THIS" when any google search would have turned up the fiasco. GTFO
-They simply couldn't be this stupid. Really. They can't.
- It's not just possible, but probable that this 3rd party company was owned by Bill. Who is this unnammed 3rd party that they are unwilling to identify, Bill Wanrooy Leisure Co. LLC?

Sharko- Bill was abducted by aliens who sold his skis to skis.com for gas money to get home

tyrolOh without question. The vast majority of skiers have never heard of Armada believe it or not. 2/3 of skiers ski less than 10 days a year and a large portion of them couldn't name any company other than Rossignol and K2.

tyrolIt's a discussion because of these facts:

-Skis.com has worked with Bill Wanrooy before. They bought skis from him when he was operating as the sales manager for Epic Planks. They are a Michigan company.
-Skis.com just released a statement saying they had no idea going on.

It's a discussion because of these assumptions

-Skis.com employs people who work in the ski industry and do the bare minimum amount of research on the brands they sell when they tie up tens of thousands of dollars in inventory- which anyway you slice it is a ton of money for old model skis.

It's a discussion because of these possibilities:

-Their statement is total bullshit. They got some discount from a 3rd party and figured "OK LADIDA MUST BE A GREAT DEAL NO NEED TO LOOK INTO THIS" when any google search would have turned up the fiasco. GTFO
-They simply couldn't be this stupid. Really. They can't.
- It's not just possible, but probable that this 3rd party company was owned by Bill. Who is this unnammed 3rd party that they are unwilling to identify, Bill Wanrooy Leisure Co. LLC?

But most fucking importantly it's a discussion because a bunch of people on this website paid for those god damned skis one time already and the story skis.com is pushing smells like BS.

swegatureI'll gladly apologize for my ignorance.