Member Info for Kent1

Little to get excited by in latest figures. Simply the vision is not great enough to turn the numbers round, something more radical is required. 50 pence hope seems much more grasping at straws than anything less. If Stephen Marks had split his role and announced a new chief executive then there might have been something to look forward to.

It should be pointed out that US business is not owned by Laura Ashley Holdings. They divested it to MUI more than 15 years ago.

Lots of positive comment today. If you think running a company like this is today is easy perhaps it is better you sell. However for us that remain let's look forward to a positive tomorrow. Newspapers have a future, even Jeff Besos owns one. I can't understand why existing JP shareholders continue to denigrate this company.

Andy, well if further restructuring is required then it should be welcomed however difficult the situation. You have to question naysayers motivation do they have a short postion? Are they a disgruntled employee? If they feel they have some good ideas let's hear them. But the silence is deafening.

I feel the Malaysian owners have done more than a reasonable job, in difficult circumstances. Back in the 1990s the boardroom was a revolving door, and there were many changes in strategy and direction. The business was regarded as overly complex, involved in manufacturing and licensing and also in the US, a graveyard for British retailers. So now it is a simpler proposition for investors, the share price reflects sector malaise against bricks and mortar retailers more than anything about this brand.

Anyone heard from Dalooks lately?

Well never said JP agm would be boring, just the fact that they are largely procedural and dull in most cases. I won't be able to make the meeting personally, but I agree there could be some fireworks. I was once at a Mirror agm, shareholder asked was made the share price go up and down. The chairman struggled to give any kind of answer....

Well in my experience they are rather boring, mainly about motions about share capital and reappointment of auditors. They usually have a Q&A at the end and this can sometimes be interesting. However if it is deemed too sensitive RNS would be released before meeting so as to produce orderly market.

Well not much of shakeout after Sunday Telegraph article. It been long reported that FC wanted to renegotiate leases, it was quoted they have made some progress on the Oxford Street lease, leading to critical article. Let's wait for fuller story tomorrow.

What is this L2, that has been referred to for us not in the know?

Whist Stephen Mark's fiduciary duty is sell to the highest bidder, I cannot see him selling to Sports Direct. Their CFD could be used to leverage more fashion into SD, Debenhams had to end up talking to them after CFD was purchased. But at the end of the day that's all it will amount to most probably.

Well as in any corporate turnaround jettisoning loss making assets is key. Possible sales of key assets like Oxford Street grab the headlines, but as important as good price is, how much does the store make for the wider group after the considerable overheads. One could possibly suggest FC would reticent to provide figures. As today's article says the tough decision to sell Nicole Farhi in 2010 was bold and it subsequently folded so proved cany.

As some others have said its a complete red herring, nothing to do with Fccn. Ted Baker is a direct competitor with this company. It also has made moves into home, eyewear, but has positioned its brand better. I feel that Fccn should divest the other three brands in its stable. One brand in this internet age is hard enough to position.