Member Info for bon_scott

"Why would it? Superdry has massive debt and huge high street costs. Not to mention a crap brand.

Boo has none of those things

Pls explain your reasoning bon Scott, assuming you have any?"

Because Coasty hailed it as a stellar recovery play, that's why. Take it up with him.

"Let's hope this crap doesn't follow Superdry, £20 share a few years back now 5p and de-listing. Dunkerton getting it back cheap."

But, but, Coasty was adamant that it was flying and all was well? How can this be? Conned again?

Tradey, you're a legend in your own mind, honestly. If Boohoo's website visits are so superior to ASOS, why is the business doing so poorly, and hence the SP languishing so?

Next you'll be lecturing us that business performance and share price are unrelated anyway. Oh, wait, you already did recently:

"SP and business aren't the same thing"

"The 19% you refer to as a sales decline was actually a figure given in the article with regards to the SHARE PRICE decline. So, nothing to do with sales at all. "

Oh dear, that's rather embarrassing, Tradey! But knowing that you 've clung desperately from the 400s to the 30s, clinging on even when blatantly wrong is exactly in keeping.

Waiting for you to go the full Charlie Bronson, like Alex and the Spunkmeister did over the weekend.

Offering out random strangers on t'interweb, all over the unwilingness to press a filter button. The mind boggles...

"As I said, on a like-for-like basis revenue is likely to be back to pre-Covid levels and the revenue is currently not enough to cover overall costs. "

Absolutely right, Hexam. For the life of me, I can't understand why the company can't be more aggressive in reducing its cost base. Act earlier and cut deeper. Not three years later than necessary. Their forecasting was exposed as being absolutely non-existent during and post-COVID. Stop opening/closing white elephant facilities in rapid succession at a loss of tens of millions a pop. And stop hoovering up defunct and distressed brands, all fuelled by debt, and adding yet more years to the recovery timeline.

At this stage, I honestly think they pick their business ideas out of a tombola hat. What will they attempt next? Bringing Rumbelow's back? Oh no, I shouldn't say that... I might be giving them them ideas.

"There is no reason for BooHoo to go anywhere until we see a string of improving results. No point in getting excited about spikes in the SP or plunges if it is not based on any company specific news.

As for bickering, my only comment is don’t engage with the fake multiple alias poster, and we might actually get a more productive board."

Well Alex, for the umpteenth time: if your ego can't bear to read what certain people post, then the filter feature would be the solution. But you don't, and you won't. That tells its own story!

"Reardon - people like mahmud are the cream of the crop in business....

You have absolute morons here trying to talk like they run companies when they couldn't even run a tap....

Day in day on this forum.... "spot on" "exactly".... Etc etc.... Wasting what little life they have left.

People here with the correct time frame will make an absolute killing.... Others will just die off with time...."

Is everything OK, coasty? You seem upset. Nobody forced you to buy all those shares in the high 300s. Nor will bleating on about a return to past glories when there's zero evidence of it happening. And what's the "correct" timeframe? 2029? Nine years of being locked in, while the rest of the population makes hay with other investments?

"Big Mahmud seems relaxed"

So would I be if I were sitting on £60M and raking in another mil and a half annually, all while shareholders get hung out for the company's wheel-of-fortune decisions.

Https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/article-13297919/The-20-dirt-cheap-UK-stocks-make-packet-youre-brave-against-grain-experts-scoured-market-best-bargains-including-not-considered.html

Oh, look! There's Boohoo in the top 20 underrated and dirt-cheap UK stocks. About time it was recognised!

Just kidding. Nowhere to be seen.

Perhaps because it doesn't make a profit, hasn't done so for years, won't for several more, is hooked on debt, has a massive problem with bloated assets and staffing and seemingly has no plan to get out of the mire.

"maybe it's a measure of the angst that genuine posters and investors feel at the constant troll ****, day in day out. this board is getting so infected."

You're a principal cause of the problem, with your holier-than-thou attitude. God forbid you and Tradey ever experience a tiny difference of opinion. Oh how the sparks will fly.

Absolutely staggering. Why do you think nobody wants to buy this share?

The company doesn't make a profit, hasn't done for years. Results are likely to confirm that the company revenue has decreased by up to 17% in a market which is growing. Amazing. Only now have they woken up to the fact that the organisation is debt-addled, super bloated, brands are unprofitable, and management have only just begun to think about maybe having to get round to creating some sort of a plan to get out of this mess. Maybe. A bit later. Breakfast first.

"As far as i am aware the said post didn't even say I was holder....."

So, you were even in breach of your gaffer's forum rules, which dictate that one must be invested to post? Tut tut.

Bdfinvestor/Trading4good, I do hope you reported your own lieutenant.

"So they havnt made anything, as they havnt sold. "

Spot on, Sam. Pumpers like old spunky and fake rolex boy up to their usual antics, I see. Trying to dress up this unrealised REVB profit as very much in the bag, while trivialising their humongous unrealised losses on BOO as both temporary and teeny tiny. Shocking deception, really.

I do wonder if the board will let this REVB gain ebb away to nothing, and pile in on the failing Ted Baker with yet more debt. Inept, scattergun management, done to the max.

"It's very simple daytrade but you obviously lack the Intellect to work it out.

The US will simply list named companies that can't use di minimis. It's meant to be for tourists or B2B transactions not consumer retail, so will be a simple piece of legislation to create"

Super. The US and other Boohoo-relevant countries' governments will all take prompt and decisive regulatory action. Of course they will. Just like they did against TikTok. And in the end, Shein will just... go away.

This is why I always listen to the artist formerly known as Trading4good. Calling absolutely everything right, all the time, all the way from 400p down to 28p. Oh how everyone has prospered.

Nice one Sam, calling out the old fud merchant. Obvious enough what his tactics are: narrative twisting and cherry-picking stats. Fourth year of him being locked in, must have his poor mind completely twisted.

Oh, Spidey, that's just fud propaganda from a failing rag, desperate to boost is flagging readership.

"He offered me 4%. I’m guessing that’s 4% on the market value p.a.? But I did not go into it so am not 100% sure."

Great story.

Tradey and Spunk, our very own resident regulators of truth: The extract previously linked is from gov.uk, which is the UK government's own domain, in case you didn't know. It is there in plain language - the companies have indeed signed agreements. I honestly don't know how you can claim otherwise and keep a straight face.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/green-claims-cma-secures-landmark-changes-from-asos-boohoo-and-asda

"The firms have each signed undertakings that commit them to an agreed set of rules around the use of green claims. Amongst other things, these include:

Green claims: ASOS, Boohoo and George at Asda must ensure all green claims are accurate and not misleading. Key information must be clear and prominent, meaning it must be expressed in plain language, easy to read, and clearly visible to shoppers.

[long list of corrective actions, removed due to space limitations]

All 3 firms must also regularly provide the CMA with reports on how they are complying with the commitments they signed – as well as taking steps to improve their internal processes."

It would have been lovely if Boohoo had been making fully accurate claims in the first instance, in a way that avoided a market regulator investigating and compelling Boohoo and two other companies into ceasing said practices. As I've always said: I just wish that Boohoo would fly straight. It is absolutely clear that this is a settlement. A signed agreement between regulator and the regulated which, if adhered to, will avert (or mitigate if you like) the need for the CMA to take additional action such as issuing fines or pursuing prosecution. A last chance warning, if ever there was one.

Exposed for ouright lying yet again, Tradey and Spunk. Next you'll be claiming that the CMA isn't a regulator, and that you are actually the law. I bet the moderators are in for a super hard time from you this morning, under fire to make this thread disappear.

"And as usual the trolls report posts in the background so my comment on the new super hero is removed, so thanks for reiterating."

I wish the reporters of posts could be known, actually. You, Trading4good, would stand out like a sore thumb as the most obssessive reporter of the lot. Any post whatsoever which does not fit your view mysteriously disappears.