Member Info for bon_scott

"Still posting a whole load of lies Bon Scott?

Atleast you have dropped your Tradey fantasy fetish for a while so I guess we should be glad for small mercies.

If you genuinely thought £5m was a matter of company survival you would sell up.

But I guess you would need to action shares to do that"

No tradey boy, that isn't how it works. I'll sell my shares at a time of my choosing. As stated numerous times, my shares will go down with the ship in the probable event that it goes into admin or some other dirty trick is pulled by the management to take it private at a snip. And in the slim event that it recovers, I'll cash out at a little over breakeven.

But no matter what, neither me nor anyone else would make an investment decision at the behest of an investing dunce such as yourself, so may as well quit with the constant suggestions.

"Bon Scott - note that was salary, not total remuneration. Still a smug laughing boy?"

Hi joke. Actually, there was nothing comical whatsoever in that. It is a genuine question of company survival. Nobody is smugly laughing at the current situation. Trousering £5M for making a £350M loss is beyond the pale. If the company had made £1B profits, I wouldn't care if the guy's corresponding remuneration was £50M.

"It's strange southcoast seems to be becoming more and more angry

Why lash out at everybody southcoast

Why not try to have a civil and balanced debate for once.

Wolfson is a fantastic CEO who fully deserves the near £4.5m remuneration package he received.

Finley is a cub CEO who has made a decent start and has a salary of £650k this year with no incentive plan currently agreed.

The remuneration committee at Debs got it wrong in paying out in full incentive plans for past and future achievements at Debenhams.com. But to state Finley was massively rewarded for overseeing the massive loss is a lie southcoast. No surprise that Hexam didn't pick you up on it though. He never does.

But, once again, you just focus on the past southcoast with ludicrous statements. Is that because you are scared that the future might be looking slightly more positive?

Why continue to harp on about Ashley, when he hasn't done the one thing he said he would do, which is to nominate a board director?

Do you live your real life constantly obsessing about the past southcoast, just as you do here."

----------

Wow... that is one nuclear powered rant! It isn't even the weekend either.

Bursting with straw man arguments, lazy rebuttals and even a blatant contradiction regarding Dan's remuneration. Good for a laugh, I suppose.

"Just to fill you in southcoast - the next CEO’s salary is 5 times that of boohoo’s"

Thanks for that, joke. More or less proving the point. Excellent remuneration should only come on the back of excellent performance. Our dear leader is pocketing £5m for making a £350M loss.

Looks like it was another sucker rally. Plenty of them on the long ride down. Or maybe the pumpers are right and it's all just more manipulation so Big Mike can hoover up more shares, even though he can't without triggering a bid. Scoundrel that he is, trying to get on the board to ensure that the company got run right.

"Interims have been released in November before.

Brinkmanship seems a very strange term so far out from a deadline and within a timescale that is normal.

Then again you have form for hyperbolic nonsense don't you Bon Scott?"

Instead of flying into a weekend huff as you usually do tradey, it might benefit you to do some research.

13 November 2024 (for the 6 months ended 31 August 2024)

27 September 2023 (for the 6 months ended 31 August 2023)

28 September 2022 (for the 6 months ended 31 August 2022)

30 September 2021 (for the 6 months ended 31 August 2021)

30 September 2020 (for the 6 months ended 31 August 2020)

Only once in the past five years have the interims been released in November. So hardly "normal". A normal view might be to conclude that they are again late, based on the above trend. Suspension awaits if they aren't filed in time, that's the reality. No amount of twisting will detract from that!

So, five weeks remaining in which to release interim results, without which suspension beckons. A lot of (unnecessary) brinkmanship happening these days.

EBT offloading shares. Awarded to employees?

"Come on bon Scott enlighten us l, just how would they do that "

Nobody asked for your input, tradey. Weekend-rage at someone else, thank you!

"You can’t argue both cases simultaneously:

1) a solvent company is about to be stolen by controlling shareholders through an orchestrated rights issue;

2) the company is burning cash and will go bankrupt.

These are mutually exclusive."

I have every suspicion - ahem - confidence - that the company will somehow succeed in achieving both. If anyone can, it's this lot. None of the decisions made in the past four and a half years have been in shareholder interests, and the decisions made in the last year have been solely to maintain control.

"So that's another launch into the US.

Maybe it's not so rare

And the CEO and CFO have changed so exec management is now different

So maybe you will buy some shares"

Oh dear, as we head into the weekend, your usual bad mood is already descending. Why is that, tradey?

The gravy train riders are very much aboard, so your answer is wrong, I'm afraid. Must try harder.

Finally, can you produce some evidence that I am not a shareholder? Nah, thought not!

Collapsing revenue + delayed supplier payments + deceptive practices re. customer refunds = serious cash flow issues?

"I'm not sure sacking him was right but he was wrong, a warning and a email to all staff probably would have been more constructive.

That said it will be interesting to see what else a "common practice" defence can be applied to."

Is this the article you were referring to, mt11?

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/boohoo-gum-theft-unfair-dismissal/

Good news you say? I would welcome some good news. But when the share price is 0.4p off its all time low and the company is making record losses, the good news needs to be factual and significant. Your forceful ramblings don't cut it, tradey.

Blinkered, probably because of the scale of your losses.

"IT WAS CLEARLY ALL BUYS YOU BUNCH OF IDIOTS" Expertly debunked by Hexam. Elegant and right on point.

Cue more deflection about RNS thresholds.

"There was no 0-3% RNS

Wow are you genuinely that uneducated Bon Scott.

There is no disclosure requirement until 3% has been breached. The largest individual trade was less than that.

You really need to stop embarrassing yourself and go and read the rules"

What are you blethering on about, tradey? We all know there is no 3% RNS. That is because no entrant has come in about gone from 0% to >3%. Nor has an existing holder gone from 3%.

No RNSs whatsoever, so no evidence in support. One suspects that you're just trying to deflect from your embarrassing "IT CAN ONLY HAVE BEEN BUYS YOU FOOLS" opinion-is-fact slip up.

In other news, good to see company cash flow being diverted to buying shares to dole out to the management. Bravo.

Dear me. Repeating yourself ever more forcefully doesn't magically make you right.

There was no 0-3% RNS. Nor was there any 1% increment RNS. Ergo, no evidence of a massive buyer or a coordinated collection of large buyers.

Amazing - you're rebutting the very thing that you yourself confirmed. Let me remind you:

Tradey ---> "Any movement over a 1% threshold requires immediate notification, has any been given?"

Furious twisted rebuttal imminent...