Member Info for bon_scott

""Troubled online fashion retailer Boohoo "

The telegraph obviously aren't aware there is a credible plan....

They've only said it in 8 rns,'s so far "

Reminds me of the utterances during the Tories' final months - "Only we can be trusted to deliver on the economy / immigration / justice / infrastructure" - after 13 years of total failure.

"Not another planted article Bon?

Await the conspiracy crew of you know who to lecture all on here"

It must be, Spidey. It's the only logical conclusion. It couldn't possibly be the abject failure of another vanity purchase, could it? Can only be a shill article, published by a failing rage desperate to boost its flagging readership. That's the usual line.

Don't know, maybe the structure was damaged by the weight of all those thousands of unnecessary employees, or all that unsold inventory.

You'll notice that the two flag wavers, tradey and O Jog On have themselves failed to explain how the current cabal have benefitted shareholders in the last three and a bit years. No guys, despite your attempts, you can't put a positive spin on the dilution, decimated share price, destruction of profitability of main brands, massive indebtedness on unfavourable terms and a massive cash burn. Even coasty has seen the light. I - and others - are still waiting for you to explain yourselves.

"https://amp.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/aug/29/sports-direct-owner-mike-ashley-faces-shareholder-rebellion"

For goodness' sake, the article is from 2019! Frasers stock trebled after that, and now sits at double that amount today. What's this stock done since then, I wonder?

But here's an article fresh in. Looks like the buyer found concerning things during a survey, and one of the vanity acquisitions won't be getting sold iminently, as trumpeted by several pumpers on here. Read on.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/12/14/boohoo-debt-pressure-rises-bidder-london-office-walks-away/

Despite tradey and O Jog On's attempts to denigrate anyone who plans to vote for any of the resolutions, portraying them as either thick as planks or having an agenda, they fail to produce any evidence of how the incumbents have benefitted shareholders since 2021. All we get in response is deflection, abuse and accusations. They might be delighted at getting rinsed year after year, but I can't imagine the majority enjoying it.

"News just in that Punxsutawney Phil has recommended shareholders vote against the motion and go for groundhog day instead forevermore."

Ha ha, I didn't half chuckle at reading that.

"But let's try a simpler example for you."

Ha ha, the arrogance! Coupled with some olympic standard dodging.

Long, strong and wrong, all the way down from 400p. Amusing, the new fiction of a mid-30s average when we all know it's ten times that. Still in the grip of Stockholm Syndrome, and hopelessly unable to admit that the current cabal is responsible for the rot. Twas all Lyttle, apparently.

Roll on the vote. Let's see what the decision is. I wonder who'll lead the charge for a "second referendum" if the vote doesn't go the way they like?

"Bf - that Stockholm syndrome got real bad huh?!

Bhs?! you couldn't have picked a worse example, literally the epitome of corporate director greed and outright fraud, the owner and board of directors working together to strip the company and its pension fund."

The evidence is damning. Definitely a pattern of failure here. Lennon was also on the board of Carillion, Bear Stearns, Mirror Group, British Leyland and the Dutch East India Company.

D-day is fast approaching! There's just enough time for the senior board members to sneak in one final jaunt to Turkey, and call it "company business". Arsi Enfi City Beach Hotel for only £194pp for the week.

Because rest assured, if the vote goes against the flash boys, it'll be the last time they're allowed to saunter around on company time, while the business goes to ruin.

"Frasers aren't seeking to take on the role of CEO.....yet!

They refuse to sign simple requests. For example, why would they ever want to buy Boo's debt, unless it was for their own purposes. Yet they won't give an undertaking not to.

Something stinks"

Make sure you use your vote, tradey. Make your voice heard.

"GeordieWallace. Completely agree, the vid just shows the quality of boo. We don't need vitriolic attacks on individuals, just look at the history of the man we have as CEO, against Mr Ashley, it's a no brainer. For all those undecided, I think you should have a look at the recent vid https://www.boohooforall.com/watch-now. And there is still time for other to change their vote, and vote against the proposals."

Forgive them board of Boohoo, for they know not what they doohoo.

Going off these actions, if anyone is engaging in deception, it is the current board.

"The next vote is 21 January 2025 - this is a vote to eject Mahmud Kamani. "

Shareholder activism to the max.

On reading this morning's RNS, it appears just to be a bubble & squeak of previous RNSs and letters. An idle rehash, trotting out the same messages and fearmongering as before. I wonder why they bothered.

"I missing something? Do we know what the credible plan is?"

Of course not! From either of the warring parties, it must be noted.

Get this in the RNS:

"The Board ... will at all times act in the best interests of the Company and all Shareholders"

Ha ha, pull the other one.

"I just thought, that the cost to borrow to short Boohoo must have increased as shareholders recall stock to vote?"

FED1, in my experience, the rates being paid to me for lending out shares appear to have stayed the same, if not slightly worse than the past year's average. Before then, the rates for lending out, when shorting was at its highest, were very low indeed. There doesn't seem to be any logic to it.

The company doesn't make a profit, pay any dividends or show substantial prospects of improved performance on the whole. Hence, the SP just goes lower, lower and lower. So yes you poor dears ---shock horror --- I lend shares out to shorters. Happily. It's better than nothing, which is what owing Boohoo stock has done for me and a great many others.

"For all undecided, don't fall for some of vitriol that is spouted from some. Compare what has happened to other Companies, some were in a perilous situation, but the "Stay Calm and Carry On" ethos, managed to see them through difficult time. Don't be conned with the Big Mike will sort it all out brigade, he in my view, can't be trusted."

Makes me wonder what your agenda is, O Jog On.

I and several others are negative because the business performance in recent years has been relentlessly negative. Little positive to say because... surprise surprise... there has been virtually nothing positive of note in recent years. All the updates have been utter guff. Empty promises of future profitability, all the while, successive updates announce staggering losses and waste. Even the supposed jewels in the crown are now unprofitable. It is quite daming to wreck both protifability and slash revenue. The only glimmer of hope, Debenhams, has only just managed to turn a small profit.

You keep bleating on about how the founders might tragically lose their cherished company. This company has been listed for years now and is nobody's personal possession cum empire cum slush-fund, you name it. It isn't theirs to lose. Your argument therefore is completely void. The founders don't want to be completely elbowed out? Don't list, or most of all: don't run the thing into the ground!

I hope all those dubai and turkey jaunts were worth it.

O Jog On, quit with your lectures. Lyttle and the rest of the flash boys have driven this company close to ruin with their recklessness. Their disastrous decision making has affected thousands of private investors.

The entire board appears to have been asleep at the wheel for four years. If any board individual had any conflict of interest or things going on outside of work (no matter who and no matter what) which would compromise service to a publicly listed company, and in turn negatively impact that company's performance, the proper thing would be to 1) declare it to the market, 2) step aside. Neither happened (from anyone on that board), and look at the fine mess the company is in. Yes. Still in.

Things have only changed because there has been utter uproar about the never-ending slide.

Running a publicly listed company is entirely different to running a private one. Want to run the operation like a personal fiefdom? Want to merrily drive the business onto the rocks without being challenged? Don't want the pressure and scrutiny that comes with open sharedholding? Then don't list!

"I did look at Studio Retail. They rejected Frasers’ advances and then went into administration as they tried to go it alone so hopefully BOO shareholders won’t do the same and instead accept the support/involvement from Frasers."

Careful Hexam, you've just taken a wrecking ball into the accusation that Frasers bought into Studio then deliberately placed them into administration. Backpassage will be raging.

"Could FED1 be Mr Ashley?"

You're out of your minds. Get real.