Your browser is no longer supported. For the best experience of this website, please upgrade to a newer version or another browser.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We'll assume we have your consent to use cookies, for example so you won't need to log in each time you visit our site.
Learn more

Arcadia must jettison 'tired' brands, say experts

Sir Philip Green is drawing up restructuring plans to save his ailing Arcadia Group empire, but industry insiders have told Drapers the business is not sustainable in its current state, and selling the brands that are thought to be underperforming is the only way to revive its fortunes.

Arcadia is said to be weeks away from launching a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) after Green hired advisers from Deloitte in January to explore options including store closures. The group currently has 571 stores and 388 concessions across its UK portfolio.

Arcadia said in a statement last week that “significant” numbers of store closures were unlikely: “Within an exceptionally challenging retail market and, given the continued pressures that are specific to the UK high street, we are exploring several options to enable the business to operate in a more efficient manner. None of the options being explored involve a significant number of redundancies or store closures. The business continues to operate as usual, including all payments being made to suppliers as normal.”

It has been reported that up to 30 stores will close across the group. However, retail property experts have told Drapers that this figure “only scratches the surface”.

One property source suggested that between 25% and 30% of the group’s portfolio – around 230 stores – will have to be offloaded to “fix” the retailer.

Drapers understands that Arcadia had been discussing possible restructuring and CVA options with Deloitte and property services firm CBRE as far back as May 2018. However, Drapers understands that CBRE has now declined to work with the group on any CVA.

JLL also reportedly refused to work with Arcadia’s advisers, but Drapers understands the firm was not approached to advise on this matter. CBRE, JLL and Deloitte declined to comment.

One source said a CVA across the entire group is unlikely but would rather take place across multiple individual brands: “It’s taken Arcadia a long time to create entity to support a CVA. To propose a CVA you have to demonstrate the only alternative is insolvency. I don’t think the whole of Arcadia is ready to go insolvent, so it will be multiple CVAs, across Dorothy Perkins and Burton, for example.”

To stem its losses several industry sources suggested Arcadia needed to sell the loss-making smaller brands, such as Miss Selfridge, Evans, Wallis, Dorothy Perkins and Burton.

“To get back on track, Philip Green needs to sell all of the other brands and keep Topshop,” said Jonathan de Mello, head of retail consultancy at property firm Harper Dennis Hobbs. “The problem is that it’s very hard to do that because the Arcadia brands have shared offices, services, and finance operations. It will be difficult to separate these.”

“Topshop has always been the sole contributor to profits in Arcadia Group and the other brands have not been contributing,” said one finance expert. “Topshop is recoverable, but the other Arcadia brands are tired and stale, and in the long term will be labelled as unstable.”

A partner at a retail property firm agreed: “Brands like Burton and Dorothy Perkins have been struggling over the last 10 years. Arcadia knows they are diminishing brands, therefore needs to get rid of them.”

In its most recent results for the year to 26 August 2017 Arcadia’s parent company, Taveta Investments, reported a 42% drop in group operating profit before goodwill, amortisation and exceptional items, to £124.1m year on year. Total sales were down 5.6% year on year to £1.9bn.

Richard Lim, chief executive of research company Retail Economics, said: “Arcadia needs to take a forensic approach to operating costs. It is under pressure of costs associated with such an expansive store portfolio. Reducing costs and streamlining efficiencies need to be at forefront of its turnaround plan – along with creating a brand and proposition that resonate with its core target audience.”

Arcadia declined to respond to industry comment.


Readers' comments (6)

  • Experts!!! We are at a cross roads on the High Street, the current level of competition in the value sector is unsustainable, Primark, Peacocks, M& co, Pep& co, Matalan, Bon Marche, the list goes on and on, many (not all) of these retailers are asking for extended credit terms 120 days+, a sure sign of distress, they struggle with Etail due to the low cost of their goods so that model for growth becomes unworkable, so we must see some casualties in this sector, with current rates, rents,borrowing, competition etc i just cannot see how it can be sustained. Arcadia doesn't fit in to this category, each Brand does have a niche, each Brand within Arcadia is offering to a different market. Yes 100% it needs to strip right back to the profitable stores but i think all these Brands all have relevance. It requires strong focus for each Brand with dedicated resources to reinvest for each, either within or outside the Arcadia umbrella. Burtons and DP's has always been much maligned over the years, yet currently these Brands are being rejuvenated by the Wholesale market and i u/s have, over the last few months, been the best performing on LvL sales across the group, surely the time has come to offer Topshop and Topman to Asos, this will not only add revenue but open it up to an audience that believe it or not has probably had limited exposure, it also means that someone ordering from T/S can receive it the next day rather than it taking a week as it currently does!!! So any expert can sit on side lines and have a go, yes Arcadia has been rinsed but i see many of these Brands with less competition than the value sector, with the other sectors set to shrink, if they can be managed reinvested in and given a strong leader that is looking for a long term future, then they will rise again, perhaps, given the changing landscape, not to the might they once were but to something definitely viable with relevance. I'd be far more worried about the value sector that works on high volume and strips the guts to give value (rather than invests in the product to give value) , has high rents/ rates, crazy settlement terms and no way of delivering on line as it doesn't fit the returns model and lastly, in a changing more Sustainable World, will become less and less relevant.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • That's a massive comment, you seem so committed, i cant be bothered to read it,

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Arcadia’s brands are very 80’s/90’s and only Top Shop seems relevant. If Green was such a retail genius he would have seen this coming years ago, but he is a retail has been, albeit a very wealthy one.

    On a general note, there isn’t the money in retail any more. Everybody knows that deep down, though many won’t admit it. Brands are folding, retailers are folding, it is no longer an attractive Industry from a financial point of view, so will be shunned and that’s a big concern.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Shame comment two, ignorance is bliss i guess. Unprecedented times, once hit the bottom only one way to go. At some point the new becomes old and the old becomes new.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • If the old becomes new as comment 4 puts it, should green ride it out then?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Think most of Arcadia is still relevant but it needs someone new and dynamic, old needs to make way for new.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions. Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.