Member Info for alex1621

Perhaps this is not a bad move on behalf of the Kamani's. It always bothers me that Boohoo are held to a higher standard that Shein, Temu and many others in this space, who are much worse. An operation in Morrocco that is run under the rules of that country is fine by me. The workers will not be paid the same as the UK but everything is relative, and it may be a decent wage in Morocco. It may well be that this company can make the clothing better in terms of fit and sizing, and that is something that is increasingly important. As long as they are not breaking any laws I'm not worried about that. More and more companies are going offshore to lower the cost base. It was incredibly stupid to work with a Leicester operation knowing that it was a scandal ticking time bomb.

Ocean - the Daily Mail reported in August 2022 that Cineworld had a £7.5bn debt pile and was worth less than £50m on the open market.

There is simply no comparison. They borrowed to buy a US company and then hit Covid 19. Without debt they would be a viable entity, but the level of debt was crushing. Boohoo could sell a brand to wipe out their debt, but it would be better to see if the business can recover in 2025 before taking drastic action. It would be tragic to sell at the bottom of the market. That was the point Ashley made, and that is why the break up was not to his liking.

BFD - of course you are right, because the Kamani’s have only ever acted on the best interests of all shareholders and are famous for their strict adherence to corporate governance standards?

You have Stockholm syndrome, you are enthralled by your captors.

Reardon - yes, if your plan is to hive off valuable assets on the cheap into your own hands? To do that you need to have control of the business and have a compliant Board. So if £15m gets you that, why not?

No question they see value, but they want it for themselves, not you.

It’s not a sign of confidence, it is a defensive move to stop the business being taken from him.

The retail take up of shares was expectedly low. So increases the % of shares now held by the Kamani’s and friends. Ashley position unchanged. That I believe was the point of the exercise, increase number of shares in the hands of friendliest whilst reducing retail shareholders %.

How well has Kamani done? In the last 3 years would you rather have been invested in Frasers or Boohoo? Ashley has returned for his shareholders, Kamani has failed them. He has abused the trust retail investors have placed in him.

I think every shareholder who has a vote should vote. I don’t believe that Kamani has all the votes in the bag.

Given the mess Kamani has inflicted on the company I read some of these supportive posts and realise that Stockholm syndrome is real.

As opposed to a Board of Kamani acolytes who are doing what they wish?

If Ashley loses the vote I think he might go for the takeover option. I don’t think that would be a bad move for him, even at a premium price. And perhaps that is the best outcome for shareholders. If he offers cash and Frasers paper I believe he could revive the company brands under the Frasers umbrella. That would be my preferred option.

As for the Kamani’s I’m afraid they have shown no interest in shareholders and have only ever pursued their own interests. They are now courting shareholders and talking about “governance” issues, two subjects they have shown contempt for over the years. Without Ashley on the share register I suspect we’d see the offloading of brands on the cheap to themselves. I am not lending them my support.

On boards the main topic of posts is the SP, up or down. When it is going up we get overly optimistic noises, and overly pessimistic noises when it is going down.

It will move upwards on:

1) improved trading results, and signs of stability, and the promise of growth.

2) an asset or brand sale at a surprisingly high price, unlocking value, eliminating debt.

3) a takeover or merger approach.

4) some external event that impacts competitors like Shein. Watch the Trump tariffs very carefully.

If we don’t see any of these it will drift downwards, as it has done the past few years. During the pandemic the company had surging sales and piles of cash. The bulk of that legacy has been wasted by the Kamani’s. Like Ashley or not, his comments about the management are correct.

Okay BFD

So now you have to explain to all of us in what way the Kamani's have been good for shareholders?

You might want to start by justifying their bonuses and incentive packages?

Words spoken in a pub between inebriated people is different from statements made in published documents, or on web sites. The other issue is of course Kamani and family, who would take legal action against him if he tried to pull a fast one. To some extent they both keep each other honest, or as honest as we can hope for.

Boohoo makes sense for Ashley, particularly because Debenhams looks like it could be a much bigger company. Karen Millen works for him also, he has retail space it would fit nicely. The youth fashion brands could become bricks and clicks or he could offload them to the likes of Shein. Under the Frasers umbrella he can do what he wants. But as CEO he has to answer to a Board, and a Chairman. He can’t just do what he likes. A takeover makes sense for him.

We might find out who the US investor(s) are after the RNS on the new shares in issue is released. We can then make a stab at working out the % of shares are owned by Kamani and friends.

The placing is neutral for Frasers, their shareholding remains the same %. This new RNS amounts to additional buying on the open market.

I don’t know what their move is if they lose the CEO vote?

I suspect Ashley barged into the placing/subscription using a legal team. But the 15% of shares issued that were open for retail investors to purchase will not be taken up by them as they could buy for lower in the market. Ashley takes 27.4% of them I would guess, leaving 85% for "friendlies" to pick up.

So my guess is that 19,354,838 x 72.6% was absorbed by friendlies = 14,051,612 shares.

Friendlies Shares after placing/subscription

78,083,916 in placing (107,553,604 x 72.6%)

14,051,612 of retail

--------------

92,135,528

--------------

The new total shares in issue will be 1,395,992,878. The 'friendlies' added shares are 6.6% of the total. The retail part, not taken up by retail shareholders, is around 1%.

Mike Ashley's shareholding as a % of the total has not changed, but the Kamani's plus friendlies have added to their % stake in the company.

The question is whether this is enough to stop Ashley from becoming CEO? That task is more difficult after the fundraiser.

Retail offer was nothing to do about attracting funds from existing shareholders, quite the opposite. It was a ruse to give the impression that they were giving existing shareholders the chance to participate, and probably cover their backsides legally. But the real motivation was to ensure that the "friendlies" accumulated enough new shares to stave of Ashley at the EGM.

Nothing to do with shareholder interests.

All they have done is raised cash from external sources to pay down debt, but not by much?

The way this was done with the late night RNS looked more like a manoeuvre to place enough extra shares in the hands of "friendly investors" to stave off Ashley at the EGM.

It wasn't about the business or the interests of shareholders, it was the interests of the Kamani's.

What do any of you think the Kamani’s would have done absent Ashley on the share register?

They’d have implemented another bonus and shares package and sold the viable assets to themselves leaving a husk for retail shareholders. Sorry, I think we are deluded if we believe they are working for shareholders.

In the same way that Ashley keeps the Kamani’s in check they also have sufficient heft to ensure that he does likewise. So I’m not sure how easy it would be for him to drive the business into the ground and buy it for next to nothing. There is no guarantee that you will be able to buy a business out of Administration, because someone else might beat you to it. For example, Shein have the funds to outcompete him. There is also the Kamani’s and institutional investors to think of - they could sue him if he tried to do this.

So I don’t see that as being the game plan. More likely you will see joint ventures with Frasers to run a bricks and clicks operation, with Debenhams being the obvious example. Karen Millen would work well on the high street also.

Front page of the FT, in the Briefing section (a short summary of what is inside) talks about Beijing lining up tough defences against US tariffs. They are considering laws that could allow it to blacklist American companies.

This is the kind of tit for tat responses that you get with trade wars. And would perhaps result in bans to Chinese companies operating in the US?

Shein and Temu would be obvious targets, as would Tik Tok, and others.