IBJNews

Finish Line acquires 18-store chain for $8.5M

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint

The Finish Line Inc. has acquired the assets of an 18-store specialty running chain for $8.5 million, the Indianapolis-based athletics retailer said Thursday morning.

The stores operate under banners including the Greater Boston Running Company, New York Running Company and Texas Running Company, and are in Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York and Texas, as well as the District of Columbia.

Altogether, the stores have annual sales of $19 million.

The chain was founded by competitive runner Gene Mitchell in 1996, and the stores are operated by a group of individual owners. The stores have earned a loyal following among serious runners who prefer expert advice and precision-fitted running shoes, Finish Line said.

Key members of the chain’s management team will remain in place following the acquisition. Finish Line also said it plans to continue operating the stores under their current names.

The purchase enables Finish Line to enter the specialty running business, said Glenn Lyon, the company’s chairman and CEO.

“This acquisition is an important step in our strategic plan to drive growth outside of our core Finish Line business,” Lyon said in a written statement. “We plan to expand the number of stores and develop this chain’s first e-commerce capability, as well as pursue other potential acquisitions in the specialty running business.”

Finish Line expects costs associated with the acquisition will dilute its fiscal 2012 earnings by a penny per share.

Company shares closed trading Wednesday at $20.10 each. The stock hit a 52-week high of $23.64 per share in early July.

Finish Line operates 647 stores across the country.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. These higher rates Co. e about only because physicians are now hospital employees. otherwise physicians couldn't charge these rates and share the windfall with the hospital. Community/rural hospitals probably not buying physicians practices and thus weren't getting the windfall anyway.

  2. The incentive for poor people to get themselves off public assistance and "no longer be poor" is even with help...they're STILL POOR! Being poor, even with some assistance, isn't all that pleasant. (I speak from experience) It's a stubborn myth that poor people, who are on public assistance, are sitting in the lap of luxury. You should try living on just those "freebies" that you mentioned and see how meager they actually are. By the way, I didn't mean you had to buy/own a puppy...just pet one. :)

  3. As near as I can tell the minority has ZERO constitutional obligation to offer a quorum to the majority. A requirement for quorum was inserted into the constitution so that tyrannical majorities could not simply shove through odious and objectionable legislation (which is exactly what they did.) By allowing a tyrannical majority to charge fines against the minority for exercising their constitutional prerogative to deny quorum the court as made a mockery of constitutional governance in the state of Indiana.

  4. The voters elected the Reps to make a vote not walk out on the vote. They had to the right to exercise their opinion and vote "no" to the bill. Let me ask you this if you walked out of your job for 5 straight weeks would you get paid? Would you even have a job to go back to? If any elected official walks out on the people they should be arrested for stealing tax dollars from the public. They were elected to do a job and not leave when the job gets stuff.

  5. I have been to several of their locations in Pennsylvania and always go in for 1 item and leave with a basket full of things. I'm very happy they decided on Indiana, now if only they would put the other store in eastside.

ADVERTISEMENT