Member Info for alex1621

If Mike Ashley and Mike Lennon win the vote what will the market reaction be?

If the shareholders reject their resolution and the Board remains intact what will the market reaction be?

I'll start first - I have absolutely no idea?

I still have not seen any evidence of shorts lightening up? So that theory is out of the window.

Also, I don’t understand the Shein 10% exemption? Do they not expect retail buyers to participate?

SCB - you miss the point here. It's not about the Board leaving, it is about those with hands on operational experience and supplier relationships leaving. A NED leaving who attends a Board meeting once a month is neither here nor there, and I'd agree that none of them deserve to stay. I don't know what the gap is in knowledge and relationships between Kamani, Carol, the brothers etc and the team that works below them? A large number exiting at the same time is not positive, and could create a great deal of chaos. Neither Ashley nor Lennon have experience in the online rag trade and that is a worry. The little bump in the SP we are seeing could quite easily and quickly reverse. I want the situation to get sustainably better ... not worse then better in two years if we are lucky.

That is why I would welcome a Frasers representative on the Board followed by the exit of Kamani in January.

I’ve not seen any evidence of shorts closing out, I’m wondering why they would?

This vote must be going to the wire. Kamani has awakened the retail shareholder, people the Board were happy to ignore.

There is one word that sums up the state that Boohoo got itself into, and that is hubris ... overconfidence and arrogance of Kamani.

They built a very impressive company, and they deserved their reputation of being astute and skilled rag traders and online retailers. I'd bet in the early days every penny was a prisoner, and expenditure and investments were tightly controlled. But unfortunately success got to their heads, and the focus turned to showing off wealth and hobnobbing with celebrities, all on the company dime. SCB is right to point out the 100's of millions that have been wasted on vanity projects, virtue signalling facilities, brand purchases and US expansion. Hubris.

To be fair to Mike Ashley, he doesn't flaunt his wealth or act like a show off. He is down to earth and serious when it comes to business. He is also a shark ... so we all have to be concerned about whether he will really act in our interests as well as his own?

Redundancy programme launched at Manchester Head Office as part of a cost saving plan led by CEO Dan Finley. Reported today in Drapers, by Zoe Hu.

The problem here, the real dilemma, is that none of the two protagonists can be trusted. If the vote goes against Frasers then I don't think it is necessarily all doom and gloom. I don't believe that Kamani has the same power and influence over decisions that he once had. All of the Board will have to be very careful with the decisions that they make going forward. Ashley has deep pockets and he can drag them through the Courts if they are not acting on the interests of all of us. It might also result in a takeover attempt.

The Guardian reporting that the FCA is taking longer to approve the Shein IPO following lobbying from NGO’s … concern is slave Labour.

If they get the green light this company will get shorted heavily. With de minimis legislation, trade tariffs and this type of pressure their business model is not sustainable. I wouldn’t be surprised if they bid for Boohoo as a plug and play alternative. I’ve thought this for a while now but don’t expect anything to happen until the IPO is over.

But it does give hope that their reign over the online space will come to an end soon.

He must be reading the posts?

The FT has just reported that Glass Lewis, the shareholder advisor, has backed Boohoo in its battle with Frasers. The advisory group said that shareholders "would not be well served supporting the appointment ... at this time". Institutional Shareholder Services made the same recommendations on Friday.

They argue that Ashley's commitments regarding conflict of interest issues - "we believe they fall short of the level of protections that are necessary to sufficiently guard against" this. They argued that the company should have the chance to turn its fortunes around under the new CEO Dan Finley.

SCB - I can't see many operational executives at Board level remaining in place after an Ashley coup de tat. And those that don't will be pushed off.

We will be swapping 100% Kamani for 100% Ashley - the original plan to have a Frasers representative on board would have been a better choice.

There is still the argument that if you want to control the outcome then you pay a premium for control. In other words a takeover.

DavidBR

It looks like:

Cash at £1.297 is £2,075

Aviva shares at 0.2867 per DLG share is 459 shares in Aviva

Dividend at 5p is £80

So £2,155 in cash and 459 shares in Aviva. Cash is guaranteed but Aviva shares go up and down.

In theory that would be correct. I think the term is called Merger Arbitrage. The risk is the deal does not go through, or is delayed in some way. So execution risk.

You might do better holding the Aviva shares as they appear to be well managed, pay a decent dividend, and should be able to squeeze more out of DLG than if it were standalone.

I’m not sure what investors will do on day one. The Aviva SP could dip if there is a lot of sales but I personally might hold on to the shares and possibly make more long term.

Everything is down? I’d be surprised if any UK share portfolio ends the day up.

They want Ashley to impose restrictions on himself should he join the Board. The problem is that Mahmud Kamani is not planning to buy the business but he is not restricting a related party from doing so. So his commitment isn’t worth toffee. If Frasers were to impose the same restrictions they would be sitting on the Board whilst a Kamani connected party buys off the prize assets. And they would not have the votes as a Board member to stop it. No one with half a brain would agree to such terms.

If Ashley doesn’t win the vote my sense is that he will bid for the company, and that might bring out other interested parties. And that would be a good outcome for shareholders.

The risk is that Ashley will get on board and do what Kamani was planning to do, run down the business and sell off the assets on the cheap. Mike Lennon as his chosen fellow director makes me nervous as he is not a turnaround specialist, he is a break up specialist. If he were an online retail specialist I would feel more comfortable about his intentions.

We are all between a rock and a hard place, between two protagonists who we cannot entirely trust to act in the best interest of all shareholders.

2-3 months?

You still here Siddeek?

Anyone who’s looked at it doesn’t believe there are grounds for a CMA investigation. The market share gain isn’t enough, added to that you could argue that Aviva would be in a position to offer better terms to its customers.

No one can blame Ashley for refusing to sign up to what is in effect a straight jacket. If someone related to the Kamani’s made a bid for the group or an individual brand he would have no right to make a counter offer? If a brand or indeed the whole group is for sale it should go to whoever bids the highest - and Frasers should not be excluded from participating.

These stipulations have nothing to do with governance or shareholders, and everything to do with preventing Ashley from getting on the Board.

He made a very bold statement- Debenhams is worth more than the entire market capitalisation.

Whatever happens I’d like to see Dan retained in the business. He is one of the few who are delivering.