FishWorks Share Discussion Threads

[english bigblls] 30/1/2007 12:23

Has salmon pulled the plug?

[wiganer] 30/1/2007 12:22

They've expanded too quickly in my view. Now they need to retench.

[tonyx] 30/1/2007 12:17

Oh my cod!

This company is a lot of carp.

[wiganer] 30/1/2007 12:16

Mind you, maybe I'll buy a few just for the halibut.

[wiganer] 30/1/2007 12:16

Beware of catching falling fishknives.

[tonyx] 30/1/2007 11:59

News out about the need for refinancing.

Looks like a heavily discounted plaicing on the cards (geddit?!)

[wiseacre] 29/1/2007 12:27

Smothing very fishy about this one

[paraiso] 25/1/2007 15:44

FD is getting the sack according to the Times this morning

They have sacked the wrong people

The ex failed property developer now re invented as a chef is the problem

An incompetent.

[dodddy] 24/1/2007 10:17

wonder what the one off charge will be ? still think they will announce a rights issue within a few weeks probaly at 16-18p

[longshanks] 24/1/2007 09:43

...no mention of a rights issues with the trading update.

Bullish statement presumably to stem the loss of confidence, but smacks of poor management being covered up e.g. why did they get expensive HQ offices in the first place, why have they taken so long to realise they could open on a Monday.

[dodddy] 23/1/2007 10:08

from The FT, no smoke without fire

Fishworks ended flat at 27p despite rumours that the seafood restaurant group, which warned on profits last year, was seeking to raise money via a rights issue.

[dodddy] 19/12/2006 11:56

>tiredoldbroker,
thanks,its what i thought looks like 8 million is an awful lot to pay just for a name then :)

[tiredoldbroker] 19/12/2006 10:57

dodddy, I don't have the report & accounts in front of me, which is what you'd really need to analyse what they own in more detail (e.g freehold against leasehold property).

I believe that their restaurant sites are more likely to be leasehold, given the much higher capital cost which would be involved in buying freehold sites. Also, in sites like Northcote Rd and Fulham Rd, the restaurant is on the ground floor of a Victorian mixed-use building and again this suggests leasehold.

Also the abbreviated balance sheet included in the 19 October announcement showed tangible assets of £5.4m; there was one potential negative indicator in that creditors falling due within 12 months exceeded current assets by 2:1 with a £1.6m shortfall. But again you'd need the R&A to get to the bottom of that.

I would also note that shareholders' funds of £3.36m include intangibles of £1.18m, so there's not really a lot of underpinning if things start to slide. Restaurant leaseholds can soon lose value if a site is unsuccessful and restaurant fixtures & fittings and kitchen equipment can be held in the balance sheet at far more than their realisable value, but only as long as a restaurant is trading.

[dodddy] 15/12/2006 16:09

anyone know what the nav is / what do they actually own ?

[dodddy] 15/12/2006 11:21

nice sell 2p under the bid on FSH mm's definatly dont want any of this stock on their books.

[tiredoldbroker] 11/12/2006 11:01

Pugugly, the only problem with my approach is that I may have a different attitude to many who post on advfn. I have reached that point where one of my main concerns is not to waste what I have - I don't particularly need a major increase in my net worth, I don't have any ambition to be another Warren Buffett or feature on the Sunday Times Rich List. But I don't want to see a large part of my current wealth vapourised. I guess you'd say I'm comfortable where I am and primarily want to secure my position for the indefinite future. Also I don't particularly get a buzz out of dealing. per se.

So I am largely cynical about the market and quite happy at times to have a high proportion of cash on deposit, if I can't find stocks which seem fundamentally underpriced. Whereas I get the feeling that many advfn regulars are looking for a major boost in their wealth, which makes them prone to over-optimism and to get suckered by a hot story which may have little to back it up.

There may be times where my restraint and scepticism mean that I miss out on something; but equally, I'm not sure that many of the compulsive traders on here are actually getting richer.

[paraiso] 06/12/2006 16:32

The bust property developer could go bust again

Property Developer > Cook > New Career ?

[dodddy] 06/12/2006 15:49

>pug id second that

[dodddy] 06/12/2006 14:13

still people wanting out. this will halve from here imho

[paraiso] 04/12/2006 17:03

Lets revert to the acquisition of the supplier

>Why did they do this ?

They are in the retail business It did not make sense What was the real reason ? Hmm

Why the change of Auditors ? Hacker Young > Baker Tilley > BDO

[dodddy] 04/12/2006 16:27

if you had to stick your hand in your pocket and go and buy this as a business how much would u want to pay ? would you pay £11.5 mill ? because thats what its still capped at !!!!!!!

[dodddy] 04/12/2006 13:20

and reading the above post i can see what sort of rns's are going to be released soon im afraid.
>tiredoldbroker nice post i fully agree

[dodddy] 04/12/2006 13:12

>longshanks, no i am short because i firmly believe what i say and think this has a lot lower to go.as a rule of thumb bad bews/profit warnings always come in three's because management never have the balls to state the truth in the first rns and hope things will get better, which they never do

[tiredoldbroker] 04/12/2006 13:09

I am surprised at how little adverse comment the company has attracted, given that even their own RNS announcements give away some pretty fundamental errors.

For example, in April 2006 in their Interims they said about Channel Fisheries "successfully integrated and the Group is now benefiting from the improvement in its supply chain with improved margins, as well as the opportunity to increase supplies to other restaurants"

Yet by the trading statement on 22 Nov 2006, this had become "Due to the revised turnover levels, and without focus on third party sales, the
profit before tax forecast for Channel Fisheries, the Group's supplier
subsidiary, has been reduced by approximately £0.45m".

In other words, they had completely failed on "execution" of the rationale for buying Channel - far from improving margins and supplying other restaurants, they'd simply ended up with an increased stock/spoilage risk and lost 3rd party business.

Or again this November they said "A number of the units which opened during this period have been at the smaller capacity range of the FishWorks model which does limit revenue and has been a key consideration in our review of these forecasts".

In other words, the new sites upon which they based their forecasts a year or less ago are in fact sites which are too small to make a worthwhile contribution. The wrong sites have been purchased - and having been fitted out at great expense, FSH is effectively stuck with them or it has to take some punishing losses on closures and disposals.

Or again, the speed of the Harvey Nicks debacle. In July 2005 they trumpeted "the opening of its fishmongers and seafood bar on the Fifth Floor of the Harvey Nichols store in Knightsbridge... an exciting extension of the already successful FishWorks concept". By the Jan 2006 trading statement the wheels were obviously coming off - "trading that was below anticipated levels". They glosses over it in April '06 but by July '06 had to admit they were shutting down, but played pretend and dressed this up as "Our association with Harvey Nichols and their worldwide reputation and brand has significantly helped enhance the FishWorks brand". So dishonest, in my humble opinion, in that it failed to quantify the losses involved - which the Prelims in October '06 suggested as £744,000 in the year to 30.7.06, on turnover of under £250K. Or 20% of net shareholders funds, on one badly thought out site.

I do not believe the basic business model is working, quite clearly some fundamentally wrong decisions have been made, and it looks as if FSH is stuck with the consequences.