Member Info for bon_scott

Thank-you tradey for what is your opinion, cunningly dressed up to look like fact. I look forward to reminding you of this when next year's results feature subbornly high double-digit millions of exceptionals. You have a year to prepare your excuses.

"That is not true reg Invez Tradey.

You don't half make stuff up dear chap."

And he really does. He just makes it all up and decides it's the truth. His truth.

Tradey, you're a wonder, you truly are. This share has completely broken you financially and mentally, yet you continue to sneer.

Hexam, pardon me, but that is precisely what I'm driving at. Still suffering further exceptionals from yesteryear's profligacy.

"What, you don't think they have made cost savings already?"

Regular supply chain costs, yes. Always room for more optimisation.

Exceptional costs... hell no. £103M in the most recent financial report. Still going crazy, splashing cash on facilities (some complete white elephants, some dubious as to whether they'll truly pay off). These costs would be great if they just stopped dead.

""I did ask if you could provide the specific graph for online retail for the past few years to see if that statement is true"

It's not on the graphs it is in the underlying data sheets.

Online total up 7% in year to Feb 24.

Textile, clothing and footwear stores - online up 11%.

Non-store on-line retailing up 6%.

BOOHOO down 16% (UK)"

Now watch him pick anything BUT the above measures, to try to claim he's right.

Not sure what exactly Hexam has to prove to you, Tradey. All the data is fully available on Statista and Global data, and no matter whether you consider post-COVID or the longer term trend (remember, you unfairly persist in doing both, depending on what you're arguing), they're both sloping up.

As for revenue, you do accept that Boohoo's revenue fell by a whopping 17% from the previous year, yes? Or are the company results plain wrong?

Someone was hurt at me claiming that Coasty and Tradey together at the AGM would be immense craic, and has reported the post. A bit of ribbing in return for the sheer grief they dish out isn't well received, it seems!

So, tradey:

"1. Comparators. Boo's last set of accounts just published were comparing a 2022/3 with 23/24. So COVID was affecting the comparisons still."

So now you admit that COVID isn't affecting Boohoo any longer, it's affecting your comparisons against a previous year. Genius. You're wheeling the goalposts to wherever you darn well please. Boohoo is performing abymally in a fully normalised uptrending environment after an exceptional couple of wild bonanza bonus years.

2. You trolls keep stating that the online market is growing. You neglect to say that is is growing back to where it was a year or two ago. Therefore the numbers are bound to be lower than they were a year or two ago."

COVID was an exceptional 18-month bonanza period. Two complete outliers insofar as data goes. Even your concubine coasty confirms this. Yet you include it in your arguments when it suits you, and yet you neglect it when it suits you also.

Not even sure what you're trying to assert anyhow. Boohoo is losing revenue in a market which is growing, having failed to plan and provision for a time after the bumper years.

"To be honest I dont give a shi* really. Whilst you are mildly annoying the likes of Spidey, Sam et al are intolerable."

Just use the filter, sheriff. That's what it's there for.

"Incorrect yet Bon Scott, as I've said multiple times the last results were the last time covid impact is a factor"

Even two messages ago you were ranting about COVID actively continuing to weigh heavily. Something like "online sales are nowhere near what they were during COVID". The implication is clear that it will continue to be a factor. You do have a terrible habit of going back on yourself whenever it suits.

"Despite COVID being long gone, it is really handy to keep harking back to it and claiming that four years later, recovery is still ongoing. The excuse that keeps on giving.

Wow apparently lockdowns and structural impacts finished in 2020.

Thanks for sharing that Bon Scott"

Don't talk such nonsense. The situation normalised long, long ago. You'll still trot out "COVID WAAAAA" whenever it suits, though.

Notice that it didn't destroy director remuneration. Funny, that.

So, what tradey is essentially saying is:

Despite clear evidence of excellent performance and profitability, bricks-and-mortar is doing terribly and is doomed.

Despite clear evidence of long-term unprofitaility and structural problems with Boohoo, all is splendid, and the jam is just around the corner. Year after year.

Despite COVID being long gone, it is really handy to keep harking back to it and claiming that four years later, recovery is still ongoing. The excuse that keeps on giving.

It's like a tombola of excuses and faulty-logic arguments.

"Online sales are regaining an upward trend again, but they are nowhere near where they were during the COVID bubble. "

So now that normal market conditions have resumed, Boohoo's current business model has been found to be invalid and unprofitable. Lean and mean in the run up to COVID, gorged themselves during it, now struggling big-time now that the feast is over. That's the take-away from your blatherings.

Thank-you, Hexam. The point is exactly this. However, the board policeman couldn't possibly comprehend it with the blinkers he's wearing.

So, tradey, are you seriously implying that both M&S and Next sales and profitability have absolutely gone off a cliff in the month of April? Total, utter, deluded nonsense.

#BeBetterTradey

"Physical retail was down much further. "

Physical retail down, yet M&S and Next recording splendid results.

Online "the place to be", yet Boohoo and ASOS on the bones of their backsides.

Total, utter nonsense from the pumpers.

"Bf - just called the nomad, Zeus Capital. Waiting for a call back which is standard.... They're always busy until about 3 or 4 calls later when they eventually will take the call... Im going to request a copy via email"

You go girl. Give them hell.

"I'm sure the new plan will be the same, my issue is it's not being made easily visible. "

But there's absolutely no evidence that the new plan will be same. All the more aggravating that it is not being made visible. Based on previous behaviours, I'm reckoning that they will propose an easier way for themselves to be rewarded, less dependent on troublesome little things like profit and share price appreciation.

Be better, tradey.

Sam is right, you know. You have to strive to be better than this, tradey. Be kinder. More mature. Focus on the company. On the debate. The big issues.

"Regale". Oh dear me. And you forgot to place a full stop at the end of your sentence. Quite childish, really. I recall when you retreated into correcting people's spelling in the final days before you were banned as Trading4good.

Lovely RNS phrases.

"Shareholder value creation"... all the while diluting.

"Ensure that the management team is motivated and retained"... all the while that retained team delivers stonking business losses.

What if the board was instead rewarded on account of profits made? Would that not be a better way to do things? I'd have no issue with massive remuneration based on profitability.

10% dilution is still £40M-50M, even at these lowly valuations. Maybe it's small potatoes in mind of fake Rolex boy, but it is rather a lot of money in reality.

Sorry, I think you "forgot" the last paragraph too, which asked you for some evidence that you yourself are invested. Please, regail us.