VIEW FROM THE TOP
that the procurement engine at NBG is stronger and more established than what IBC previously had in place. Vick’s been very open about letting us lead on procurement, while his team focuses on what they excel at, which is member engagement and support. Where NBG pushes communication through the Hub as standard, IBC relies more on marketing engagement and optional participation. The two approaches are different, but complementary.
As for what comes next, the honest answer is that the next six months are around embedding IBC into NBG. I think all hands are on deck for that. We need to make sure that we settle that in before we start on any other kind of journey. I don’t doubt there’ll be some bumps in the road. The NBG way and the IBC way have been quite different, and bringing them together will generate some friction. But we’re aware of that. Vick and his team are aware of that, and there’s a real willingness to get through it and just behave in a mature, disciplined way.
I honestly believe this will work for the betterment of NBG, IBC and the Suppliers as well. I’ve also been impressed by the IBC team, people like Paul Read and Ian Murphy, who bring professionalism and a depth of experience that will enrich the broader NBG group. And, importantly, this alliance gives smaller merchants access to stronger NBG deals, helping them grow to a point where many could eventually become full NBG Partners themselves.
here. If you’re in mid-table, then you’re going to get a mid-table deal. If you’re in the Champions League spot, then you get a better deal.
I know that Suppliers might see this as our chance to hit them with a bigger hammer, but I really want them to see it as we do; as opportunity. We are now in a position where asking for a better deal is the right thing to do because we can offer them more in return. I think the state of the market is probably helpful for us in getting this moving. Volumes are less than they were two or three years ago. So, as I said, there is some spare capacity out there. If we can commit to certain supply numbers that are, on the back of our alliance with IBC, much bigger, that has to be attractive. The addition of IBC gives NBG the size needed to negotiate from a stronger position. A group capable of moving large volumes, consistently and in a committed way, represents opportunity for us and our Suppliers, not threat. It creates a cleaner
January 2026
route to larger volumes. For Partners, it increases competitiveness in a market where operational efficiency and pricing discipline matter more than ever.
One of the core strengths that I believe NBG brings into this alliance is its approach to compliance. Within NBG, compliance isn’t optional, it’s mandatory. It’s embedded in the LLP and Partners understand their obligations clearly. IBC tends to use the term ‘commitment’, leaving more room for members to pick and choose. If a proposition isn’t compelling enough, they don’t have to support it. While IBC has around twice as many members as NBG, the total spend is roughly half. But if it could achieve the same level of compliance and commitment seen in NBG, its turnover would effectively double.
That’s not just good for IBC; it’s good for NBG. I’ve been clear with our Partners that a successful alliance means both sides should win.
Vick Patel, and his team at IBC, understand
Historically, NBG set a high bar for entry. If a merchant fell just below that bar, there was no natural development path and they went elsewhere. This new alliance creates a pathway. Merchants in IBC who behave like NBG Partners, who are committed, compliant and growing, now have a clear way to transition across.
Conversely, merchants who do not grow to a suitable size will naturally remain on the IBC side, where optional participation makes more sense. It’s a self-selecting system that strengthens the whole structure. Between NBG’s roughly 300 branches and IBC’s 300, the combined network is now double its previous size. For Suppliers, that is extremely attractive: twice the access, twice the opportunity and a much more efficient route to market.
And crucially, the decision wasn’t imposed. It came from the Partners, who looked at the data, considered the impact and voted overwhelmingly 99% in favour. It was an eyes-wide-open decision, built around shared benefit and collective strength.
7
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68
