London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Nicholas Thompson retires in the coming weeks as CEO. Raul Curiel standing down as Chairman.
An extremely poor performance by both.
After 20 years as CEO, Nicholas Thompson and Chairman Raul Curiel have left the company with significantly less revenue than the company had 20 years ago. Poor management decisions have littered the results in recent years, resulting in a substantial 3m worth of cumulative losses since 2017. Net Assets have crumbled over 60% in the last four years from 7.1m to 2.6m. Total Liabilities at 8.0m is supported by ever decreasing Current Assets at only 3.2m, plus a few desks and computers!
Thompson & Curiel has been selling fee earning assets this year, to provide cash to survive.
AUK are now a very small 6m turnover practice, with half of the small revenue coming from services completing the 'back end' on other architects designs.
The company could have taken the opportunity at this time for a complete renewal of the poorly performing Board, by appointing the younger fee earning architectural directors – however they have simply rejigged the deck chairs. The company retains a very high cost/non fee earning Board, that have added zero shareholder value in recent years.
Thompson, Curiel, Fry, Carver & Barkwith should have all resigned.
Nicholas Thompson career low must have been when a High Court judge found the company, [Nicholas Thompson as CEO of the company], guilty of fraudulent misrepresentation and deceit, the most serious judgement handed down in the civil courts. Mr Justice Coulson, presiding over the case, said it was Nicholas Thompson’s “wholly unreliable” testimonial statement that had persuaded him that the misrepresentation was intentional, and therefore fraudulent. The judge said the details of the statement were “incorrect, misleading, inaccurate, unfair, and, in at least one case, knowingly untrue.”. A legal source said the seriousness of the judge’s ruling could not be underestimated. He said: “Nicholas Thompson really went out on a limb with this one, and it’s not as if he’s a junior employee – he’s the chief executive. The reputational impact of this individual could be enormous. This is as serious a finding as you get in a civil court.”
Raul Curiel took no action to dismiss Thompson at the time - as low as it gets - but 1p a share was pretty low too.
Toot Toot - the Fat Controller is finally waving goodbye!!
bear17, you clearly know this company well, would you be interested in having a private conversation with others similarly placed?
hi Semantic
I only venture on here periodically with an assessment of the latest AUK piece.
I have followed the company since the reverse takeover over by Fitzroy Robinson. Dug a bit deeper into the past to understand the dynamics.
I guess all I can say now is that 'Aukett has been Torpedoed'.
Worryingly, Nick Clark [Torpedo Factory Group] will become the CEO of an architectural practice – he has never designed a building in his life. Clark is a former director of a UK company that was placed into administration, with £225k shortfall to unsecured creditors.
Three major concerns I see:
1. How will the traditional architectural clients view this outcome? How do you appoint a practice to design your building when the CEO has zero skill at achieving that goal?
2. How do you attract and maintain the highest quality architectural design staff, when the CEO sells audio visual and stage technology ‘stuff’ for a living?
3. How do the traditional engineers, that AUK have worked with for decades, respond to Torpedo Factory Group venturing into their design space?
AUK Results continue to bump along poorly, with yet another loss posted – signing off a miserable exit for the previous CEO & Chairman. [ex Fitzroy Robinson]
History has shown that growth by acquisition has proved unsuccessful to this company for over 20 years. 1+1=1 for AUK.
Despite amalgamation of Aukett Associates, Fitzroy Robinson, S****e and others, the Group’s turnover is less than Fitzroy Robinson achieved 20 years ago, when Fitzroy Robinson flourished with significant profitability when under architectural leadership.
There seems next to zero alignment between architectural services and the new non-architectural skill set of audio visual and stage technology directors and shareholders.
In the end, the former directors of Fitzroy Robinson have exited the business, leaving what appears to be a potential rudderless ship. They have tried for 20 years to gain financial gain from selling the business to others, but failed to attract a buyer. In the end, they hope by some magic, this ‘marriage of convenience’ might give them a future exit, one that has alluded them for 20 years.
My concern is that the architectural side of the business could easily implode if a few key architectural fee earners that are non-shareholders decide ‘enough is enough’ and exit the Group. If this happens, all ‘Torpedo’ will get is a smaller amalgamated revenue outcome, with added costs, added PII liabilities, and a group of retired Fitzroy Robinson directors owning half of their original Torpedo business!
The Chairman has stated: “The younger generation of architects seem now less inclined or less able to take on the large financial commitments required to become owners”. It is not unsurprising that the younger generation of architects in this business would wish to remain, if their fee winning activities and hard work simply gets distributed to retired directors from the past.