Burberry, which made mistakes, finds itself plunged into an existential crisis

Nor do they seem inclined to believe that the answer lies in further upheaval and new strategic thinking.

More management changes cast Mr Murphy in a bad light. Burberry may have forgotten how to create a success story, but the brand has always been a global champion of succession, and has done so since Mr Murphy took over from Sir John Peace six years ago.

The board was so caught off guard by the departure in 2021 of Mr Akeroyd’s predecessor, luxury goods veteran Marco Gobbetti, that it has been unable to find a successor.

A year later, chief designer Riccardo Tisci and chief financial officer Julie Brown left the company. To dispense with Mr. Murphy’s services might be going too far at this point, but his track record is undeniably unfavorable.

But it was clear from the profit warnings that Mr Akeroyd’s decision to move upmarket for Burberry had not worked. But how could a strategy of charging customers more in the midst of a cost-of-living crisis for products that were essentially the same products to begin with?

It’s the elephant in the boardroom. Even without Mr. Akeroyd, the company continues to blame a luxury market that it says is proving tougher than expected, particularly in China, where the majority of its wealthy clients come from.

There is no doubt that others are struggling – Kering has struggled to revive Gucci, the jewel of its wardrobe – but Burberry denies the extent of its own damage.

Its problems are not merely temporary, nor simply related to consumer weakness. They are evidence of an organization in the grip of a much deeper malaise, one that will not be resolved by another game of musical chairs or a change of leadership.

In a call that disappointed some analysts, Mr. Murphy repeatedly said there would be no major change in strategy under Mr. Schulman.