Sports Direct shareholders urged to vote against Mike Ashley at upcoming AGM

4519

Sports Direct shareholders have been urged to vote against Mike Ashley at the company’s annual general meeting on September 12.

Proxy adviser Glass Lewis & Co has recommended shareholders challenge chief executive Mike Ashley and chairman Keith Hellawell.

Ashley is accused by Glass Lewis of “repeated poor governance practices”, adding that negative media stories against Ashley have damaged the company’s public image.

Meanwhile Hellawell, chairman of the audit committee Simon Bentley and chairman of the remuneration committee David Brayshaw were accused by the proxy advisor of responding poorly to past concerns of shareholders.

Glass Lewis also pointed to the retailers “poor gender diversity practices”, arguing that Sports Direct does not have a meaningful board diversity policy or measurable gender objectives.

Currently Sports Direct does not have a single female board member.

The comments come as Mike Ashley’s negotiations over the acquisition of House of Fraser unfold, with the department store owing close to £1 billion to debtors.

Ashley has so far refused to take honour the bills of the retailer’s former owners.

Click here to sign up to Retail Gazette‘s free daily email newsletter

5 COMMENTS

  1. You should get it right, Sports Direct has not bought ‘House of Fraser’, it acquired some of the assets relating to HoF from House of Fraser. HoF Group still exists and is in administration.

  2. I think in general public perception, a House Of Fraser shareholder with 11% shareholding refused to assist until HOF went into administration, and then cherry picked the assets leaving all major liabilities with the mess that remains in administration. This is suppliers to the tunes of £m’s, logistics service providers, local government, pensioners and central government. He has then gone back into business within 2 hours of administration being announced. To all those that have lost their jobs, facing losing their jobs and the pensioners, I believe that these kind of deals are not only sickening, but they are a temporary blip for new management to drain what assets are left out of the skeleton that remains. Rover, BHS, Woolworths etc are all prime examples where ‘the knight in shining armour’ is more of a liability than the Board that broke the company in the first place. As a taxpayer, and a finance professional I think that the public is right to be getting upset with these scenarios occurring, it shows how unreliable and poor audit standards have become, how poor business standards have become (admittedly with legislation allowing it to occur), and how all those shareholders dividends and bonus payments in prior years show poor financial control and understanding of ongoing market conditions. Greed is the only way to summarise it.

  3. With all due respect sir. Without you having any proven credentials it is quite unfitting for you to throw around such an ‘insight’ opinion.

  4. It the law thats wrong in this country, cannot blame someone buying a assets for peanuts if you are allowed, it just should not be allowed its wrong. All supplies should not supply Hof unless they are paid what they are owed

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here