Member Info for southcoastbather

Bf - your delusions of what is actually happening with this company remind me of that of the staff I met at the agm earlier this year - they couldn't understand what all the fuss was about with regards to the sp falling to 30p from 400p...do you work at boohoo??

But lets focus on studio retail - yes revenues have fallen but the company has returned to profitability. (seems like their restructuring worked)

Boohoo on the other hand managed to double its losses from 80 million to 160 million on falling revenues, this year revenue is likely to drop to 1.2 billion from 1.4 last year and h1 losses this year are already bigger than h1 last year.

"Studio Retail has returned to profitability a year after it was acquired out of administration by Frasers Group.

The online retailer swung to a pre-tax profit of £12.1m in the 53 weeks to 30 April 2023, up from a £75.7m loss the year before.

It comes despite sales plunging 22% from £424.4m to £330.3m. When including credit, revenue fell 20% to £445.7m."

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.

Reardon there are quite a few inaccuracies in your post...

Big mike owned 30 percent of studio retail, he then bid for the company, shareholders turned it down as advised by the board, the company then went bang, mike then bought the assets from the administrator. This had nothing to do with Mike.

Mike's holding here gives him first dibs on NOTHING if this goes bang.

Mike lennon being on the board of boohoo does absolutely NOTHING for Mike Ashley if this company goes bang.

If boohoo called in the administrator then the administrator takes over the running of the company, Mike Lennon and Mike Ashley have no say in what goes on - (Mike Ashley could bid for assets in a formal process along with other bidders however)

Further more Mike Lennon is not a liquidator or an insolvency expert - anyone pushing this agenda is either misinformed or full of rubbish.

Mike lennon's expertise is solvent and formal restructuring -

"A formal restructuring is a legally binding agreement between a company and its creditors that helps the company ease its financial difficulties"

Do you now see why Mike Ashley us recommending Mike Lennon?

One of Boohoo's big problems currently is its short term unfavourable term/terms debt.

This business needs right sizing right now, not in 12 months but now, the infrastructure and staff costs are going to kill this business.

Is everyone now denying that this business needs restructuring while SOLVENT??

If it isn't restructured while solvent in the next 2 years then it will be restructured while insolvent sadly.

I have not seen any credible plan by the current board to stop the losses moving forward - we had all kinds of rumours that shareholder value would be restored with disposals but nothing has happened apart from raising cash to pay pf debt that wasn't due.

Yes debenhams is growing and yes it is making a profit - but 5 million isn't really a lot when you have other brands dying - nastgal for instance the revenue has declined from 140 million down to 26 in 4 years

Group total sales down to 1.2 billion from over 2 billion in 3 years

Losses are growing and not shrinking this year by the looks of things.

Its not that boohoo dont want the Mikes on the board - they don't want anyone on the board. Why on earth would the put a member of the remuneration committee as the new chairman having been embarrassingly beat up over the whole bonus fiasco.

They all need their heads reading for even thinking they deserved a bonus last year!!!!!!

Please read below SOLVENT RESTRUCTURING.

"Mike Lennon is a managing director in the Restructuring practice based in the Manchester office. He has over 11 years of experience in corporate restructuring and advisory. Working within the advisory and formal restructuring teams at Kroll, Mike works with a variety of stakeholders to advise upon and execute solvent and formal restructuring alternatives"

Spidey you forgot to mention Barclays.

Kamani won't leave - no way... Not with his holding.

However there is vote to remove him in January.

Lets be honest though - they have brought this on themselves

Frasers literally said the opposite of this yesterday

"to me the Frasers/MA plan to to break up Boohoo, I don't see Boohoo Group remaining in business with MA as a director."

Ocean - what in the last 3 years gives you confidence the current board can turn this around?

I believe that the current board will steer this mess into administration within 2 years.

"The risk is that Ashley will get on board and do what Kamani was planning to do, run down the business and sell off the assets on the cheap. Mike Lennon as his chosen fellow director makes me nervous as he is not a turnaround specialist, he is a break up specialist. If he were an online retail specialist I would feel more comfortable about his intentions."

Here is the thing though Alex, with both of them on the board this wont happen either way - they will both equal each other out....

This is why we need fresh independent meat on the board - the board at the minute is a one man Kamani band... Nobody dares go against him as they're all buddies...

If both Mikes get a seat I can guarantee that none of the big players are leaving - they all have too much money on the table to walk away....

For a board to function and benefit shareholders there needs to be someone to say no to all the stupid ideas...

Can someone give me 1 example whereby -

Mike Ashley has bought a large chunk of a company, then became ceo, then forced the company into administration, then bought the assets cheap.

We already have 1 example of the opposite happening - a board of directors driving a company into administration after blocking a take over by Mike... Whereby mike was a large holder.

The funny thing is all Mike needs to do is stand back and watch if he wants to pick this up on the cheap....

I think he bought initially for the recovery, but the current board haven't been able to provide one and now he is worried about his 130 million investment here...

If he wanted assets out of here cheap, being a shareholder doesn't help... he was a 30 percent shareholder of debs yet boohoo beat him to buy it and they didn't own a single share....

Jogger it's not a case of believing or not - they have been saying the same thing for 3 years and look where we are.

I keep repeating thatI believe there needs to be independence on the board - as of today there isn't any.

Are you happy with the board as it is today?

Studio retail is possibly the worst use of an example possible....

If that is the best example that can be found to suggest Mikes advances should be blocked then everything being said about Mike really is hot air.

Lets not forget why this company is vulnerable now? Because of Mike? Or because of the current board? A board which hasn't even bothered to get fresh meat in the last 3 years.

Ian - you do realise that Mike didn't have a board seat at studio retail?

Shareholders also turned down his takeover offer due to it being opportunistic amd didn't take into account future growth apparently

Do you think they now wish they took the offer after getting nothing?

Surely studio retail highlights what happens when a board continues to do what it has always done?

You can't simply make up your own rules for appointed board members - this is my point.

Both Mike's will be under the same scrutiny as other board members - a scrutiny that up until now has been missing on this board.

When you take on the role of CEO you agreeing to many things that are part and parcel of the role - no extra agreements are needed.

"5. Repaid its banks £50m of its £97m term loan early. The repayment has been made with funds raised from the placing and through the Group's initiative to reduce stock levels as it becomes a leaner and lighter business, focused on maximising value for all our shareholders."

The only new bit of information we have from that letter is to say say that they paid the load back early - why would a company raise cash and dilute shareholders to pay a loan back early??

The London office is worth 60 million and would have achieved the same objective (if pay the loan back early was the objective).

Sadly the objective was only to bolstr the Kamani voting position.

"4. Appointed Tim Morris as Independent Non-Executive Chair. In this role, Tim is responsible for leading the Board oversight of the Business Review, which is being led by Dan Finley. Tim's experience across legal, governance, business and board advisory, will ensure high standards of corporate governance continue to be upheld in all areas of boohoo Group's work."

Tim Morris sat on the remuneration committee and signed in favour of the ridiculous bonuses earlier this year - we are supposed to trust him why??

Plt up 20 percent and boohoo up 15....

Another possibility is the Mikes do not win but then Mahmud gets voted off at the following agm??

Did anyone catch the suggestion of middleman companies set up to enrich directors and managers??