Member Info for FED1

"Yes, all that is suggestive of Shein but sounds more to me like they are advertising themselves to them rather than already talking to them (let alone being a long way down the road in those discussions)."

Hexam,

I don't know the protocol for how companies invite prospective bidders, but I would imagine Boo's advisers contact Shein's advisers (and ABG directly) to come and look at the books. A CEO making insinuations in an earnings call to illicit a response would seem odd to me. I think they are already in talks with Shein and ABG.

*3 of the 8 directors as independent

We should have ISS recommendation this week.

It be interesting to see if they recommend a vote for Kamani. I reckon they will.

However, it is questionable whether the BoD is majority independent. John Gould is the ex-CEO of Zeus. If he is a non-independent, then that leaves only 3 of the 4 directors as "independent". This is in breach of ISS own guidelines.

I would reckon that Frasers changed strategy this year and instead of going for another open letter, has directly lobbied ISS about Kamani's suitability.

Why would Dan say they are exploring the sale to a "strategic partner",

and then specifically refer to the parties who were looking at TopShop,

and specifically mention "global players" who are impacted by tariff regime in US and potentially in UK as a strategic partner for PLT.

He was hardly speaking in code.

Hexam,

"Are you expecting other changes then aside from PLT FED? They could easily have given guidance excluding PLT since they've already presented the results without it."

That's a good point. We should have had ex-PLT guidance. I am equally disappointed by the lack of guidance. I was hoping for a fanfare presentation where Dan delivered a 50pg slide deck which had detailed numbers and projections. As analyst presentations go, that was poor and I felt Dan and his CFO did not fully engage the sell-side. This is why sell-side did not upgrade ratings and predictably downgraded target price to be consistent with share price and its rating.

In answer to your question about "other changes" which would explain sketchy guidance, then I can only speculate:

1) Dan did mention a JV with "strategic partner" which I think was the most interesting part of presentation. Maybe the re-organisation is not simply disposing PLT. Hopefully we will get further clarity in 1H results although I suspect they will push this back.

2) The jobs are only at risk at Burnley. Although the group's internal projections for FY26 most likely includes shuttering Burnley, it has to at least go through the redundancy process before announcing these projections to market.

You’re correct Hexam. Must be going crazy. I saw +£24.1m

Hexam,

I have looked at page 155 of annual report to get FCF for PLT (discontinued operations). Seems positive to me.

Hexam,

Re: "Results not as bad as expected"

I meant in terms of all businesses now being profitable on an adjusted EBITDA basis. I think I even saw that PLT was FCF positive on a standalone basis.

yes we can debate adjusted vs reported, and the magnitude of the reported loss, but the results were a kitchen sink. It looks like they have already taken the hit on PLT through P&L. Burnley and 1200 redundancies will have further one off in 2026 but if they can get a good price, then we may be in a good position for FY27 which starts in March 2026.

I am long this share but if I was a sell side analyst, I would have a Neutral rating. I think the risk of a PLT transaction makes underweight too risky now.

I am hoping the reason that Dan is holding back from giving us a proper investor presentation (wasn't impressed with the one given) is because there is about to be some monumental strategic changes and it is nonsense to give detailed guidance under current structure.

I am not sugar-coating the raft of price target cuts but feel I should explain process:

1) There has been an earnings event. Sell Side analysts will then use this to reassess their forecasts for new information and update target prices. Each broker will have a mechanism for target prices and ratings. It would be odd to have a 20p target price on Debs and an underweight or neutral weighting, when share price is 15p. Therefore, target prices tend to lag actual share price movements. Although, I would note Barclays cut to 13p. In short, when a sell side analyst cuts a target price to match the current share price, then it may simply be to conform with the parameters set by the broker.

2) We are all smart enough on here to exercise independent judgement when looking at the results. The results actually didnt seem as bad as predicted. Boo has sorted out the liquidity issue. However, there was no proper guidance and I felt that Dan and his CFO were reluctant to fully engage with the analysts. Dan did drop heavy hints on a possible deal on PLT but given the track record of disappointment, why would any sell side analyst risk their reputation on unsubstantiated promises.

I know it’s speculative to talk about a possible JV with Shein for PLT, but Dan did leave strong hints.

I think a JV would suit Shein. It seems they would primarily buy PLT for US exposure. However, they seem under resourced in terms of UK headcount and infrastructure. When you make razor thin margins on a couple billion revenues in UK, it probably makes sense to start building up your own logistics rather than outsource and give up a bit of precious margin. Shein have their offices in London and Manchester and its UK Chief Product Officer is ex-PLT.

Sounds like a good strategic fit to me. Boo can still keep an equity stake in PLT but raise enough to get to net cash.

Yes, it was released earlier in week.

https://www.debenhamsgroup.com/files/agm/2025/boohoo-notice-of-general-meeting-aug-2025.pdf

Has anyone voted their shares yet?

Still on the fence about Kamani and Chairman?

Waiting to see if PLT deal announced in early September?

An odd co-existence. But still better than AFDVN.

I remember studying English Literature and the teacher talking about how literature usually had a sub-plot; a secondary story. An additional story that runs alongside the main story.

This message board reminds me of that. Two concurrent narratives: 1) a fundamental discussion on Boo; and 2) well we all know

FY26 is clearly another transition year in terms of right-sizing which will be reflected in the restructuring costs. When I was a junior, I was told to look out for some companies which had perennial restructuring costs as the reported numbers were more accurate than the adjusted numbers when forecasting. I was also cynical but I did find that when a company goes through a period of readjustment, there are restructuring costs for 3-4 years, and then they disappear.

I am hopeful that Dan can rightsize business this fiscal year and that it will be lean in FY27. What I am unsure off is when Youth Brands (ex PLT) will stabilise.

The further restructuring into FY26 and the lack of FCF guidance (unusual) probably signifies that FY26 is another negative FCF year.

I think the annualised savings from closing Burnley will be significant. The reduction in headcount is massive. Yes, selling PLT means a big drop in revenues so they have to cut headcount by a commensurate amount. I actually do not think the cash costs of closing Burnley will be significant. Statutory redundancy payments and a phased closure should not eat that much into cash but quickly deliver cash savings in FY2027. If you look at the US DC closure, I believe the write-down was mainly investment already made, rather than closure costs.

Dare I say, the Sheffield Automation has been one good point of Lyttle's tenure.

If Shein is interested in PLT, then considering it outsources its UK distribution, then maybe it could look at this plug-and-play option.

With the closure of Burnley in 1Q 2026, and analysts reporting further inevitable "bleeding" of restructuring costs into FY26, I am hoping that Dan will have right-sized the business going into FY27.

Sometimes forget how big Boohoo is and it being a major employer in Burnley. Given the jobs at risk announcement, it probably explains why there was a delay in results.