Category: Uncategorized

Boohoo has warned suppliers that payments could be delayed as the fast-fashion group grapples with growing financial pressures.
The retailer, which also trades as Debenhams, wrote to some suppliers saying it was “running behind on payments” and asked how much stock they could deliver in September without receiving further payment, according to an email seen by Business Matters.
The warning comes just months after Business Matters revealed customers were waiting up to a month for refunds. Boohoo admitted at the time that refunds were taking longer to process than usual, without explaining the cause of the delays.
Last month the group secured a £175m borrowing facility, designed to stabilise its finances. However, Mike Ashley’s Frasers Group, Boohoo’s largest shareholder, criticised the deal, claiming the high interest rate of 7.3 percentage points above the Bank of England base rate meant cash was being “sucked out” of the business.
The company’s financial difficulties have intensified after annual losses nearly doubled to £348m, while sales dropped almost 20% to £790m. The group’s net assets have also collapsed to £3.9m, down from £280m a year earlier. Analysts at Shore Capital recently described Boohoo as “very constrained” amid the squeeze.
Relations between Boohoo and its suppliers have long been fraught. In 2020, the company faced criticism over poor working conditions at some factories. More recently, suppliers have accused the group of pushing down prices and withholding payments over quality disputes. Boohoo has denied wrongdoing but admitted it has sought price reductions in the past when inflationary pressures eased.
Asked to comment on the latest email, Boohoo said: “A junior colleague, in one of our smaller brands, emailed a small number of suppliers to work on capacity planning.”
Read more:
Boohoo warns suppliers of late payments as cash crisis deepens

The cost of running the UK’s gambling regulator has doubled in the past year as it prepares for a high-stakes legal showdown over the awarding of the National Lottery licence.
Newly filed accounts show that the Gambling Commission’s costs linked to the National Lottery soared to £28.8m in the year to March, up from £14.4m the year before. The surge reflects mounting legal fees as the regulator prepares to defend itself against a £1.3bn damages claim from publishing tycoon Richard Desmond.
Desmond, 73, is suing the Commission after his company failed in its bid to win the lucrative 10-year licence, which was awarded instead to Allwyn, owned by Czech billionaire Karel Komárek. The case is scheduled to begin at the High Court in October.
The Commission’s work is partly funded through the National Lottery Distribution Fund (NLDF), which channels money raised by ticket sales to good causes. However, as the regulator’s litigation costs spiral — up to £13.4m last year from £400,000 previously — critics warn that funds meant for charities and community projects are being drained into the courtroom.
Desmond has also filed a separate £70m claim arguing that funds set aside for good causes under the previous operator, Camelot, constituted a “subsidy” that should now be clawed back from Allwyn. Should either claim succeed, damages are also likely to be drawn from the NLDF.
The Gambling Commission insisted it had run a “fair and robust” competition and said its evaluation process was lawful. Allwyn, meanwhile, has faced difficulties since taking over the lottery early last year. A major IT system upgrade, deemed critical to its promise to more than double charitable donations to £38bn, was beset by delays, prompting enforcement action by the regulator.
Despite the turbulence, National Lottery sales rose last year thanks to record EuroMillions jackpots, including a €250m (£217m) prize in March. That helped offset declines in Lotto and scratchcard sales during the cost of living crisis. Overall, money raised for good causes rose by £100m to £1.8bn.
Read more:
Gambling Commission costs double to £28.8m amid Richard Desmond’s £1.3bn Lottery lawsuit

As social media continues to weave itself into the fabric of daily life, the algorithms that drive engagement have come under fire for their potential to foster addictive behaviours.
With research linking these algorithms to increased anxiety and feelings of inadequacy, the question arises: should we regulate their use? The Liberal Democrats are now calling for cigarette-style warnings on social media apps.
This conversation is not only vital for user well-being but also presents an opportunity for businesses to adopt responsible marketing practices that prioritise mental health. Mariangela Caineri Zenati, Marketing Manager at social media management platform Loomly, offers her expert insight on how championing transparency and promoting positive content will allow brands to engage their audiences ethically while navigating the complexities of the digital landscape.
“The debate surrounding the legality of addictive algorithms in social media has gained significant traction in recent years, particularly in light of their profound implications for mental health and overall well-being. As social media platforms increasingly rely on sophisticated algorithms to maximise user engagement, the potential for addictive behaviours has come under scrutiny.
“Research highlights that these algorithms can create dependency-like behaviours, reminiscent of substance addiction. A recent study revealed that the instant gratification derived from likes, shares and comments can trigger dopamine release, reinforcing compulsive behaviours among users. This is particularly alarming for younger demographics, who are often more susceptible to these influences.
“The Royal Society for Public Health’s #StatusofMind report underscores this concern, identifying platforms such as Instagram and Snapchat as being linked to increased feelings of inadequacy, anxiety, and loneliness among young users. This report indicates that these platforms rank as the most detrimental for mental health, highlighting the urgent need for more responsible practices.
“The pervasive nature of these algorithms can contribute to rising rates of anxiety and depression among users. The #StatusofMind report also calls for social media companies to implement educational warnings and promote healthier online interactions: this raises important questions about the ethical responsibilities of businesses that utilise social media marketing strategies.
“As businesses increasingly turn to social media for marketing, they have a unique opportunity to approach these platforms responsibly. Companies can prioritise user well-being by promoting positive content, fostering supportive online communities and ensuring transparency in their advertising practices; for instance, brands can engage in campaigns that encourage mental health awareness and provide resources for users facing challenges. This way, brands can align themselves with ethical marketing practices while simultaneously building trust and loyalty among their audience.
“Responsible social media marketing involves understanding the impact of algorithms on user behaviour. Businesses should be mindful of how their content may influence users and strive to create a balanced digital experience; this could involve diversifying content types, avoiding sensationalism and steering clear of tactics that exploit users’ vulnerabilities for engagement.
“The potential for addiction necessitates a critical examination of the legal and ethical frameworks surrounding social media algorithms. Businesses must play a proactive role in promoting responsible marketing practices, which can help mitigate the negative effects of these algorithms while enhancing user experience. Addressing these issues is vital for creating a more positive online landscape, ultimately benefitting both users and brands alike.”
Read more:
Beyond Engagement: Why It’s Time to Rethink Social Media’s Addictive Algorithms

Manchester United’s sweeping job cuts have cost more than £36 million in compensation, but helped slash losses and deliver record revenues, casting doubt on Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s claim that the club was on the brink of financial collapse.
The restructuring, which saw around 400 jobs axed and included pay-offs for sacked manager Erik ten Hag and sporting director Dan Ashworth, reduced net losses to £33m in the 12 months to June 30 — down from £113.2m the year before. The headcount has fallen from 1,122 to around 700.
The overhaul came after a disastrous season on the pitch, which brought United’s lowest league finish in 51 years and no Champions League football. Broadcast revenues dropped by almost £50m. Yet commercial income soared 10% to a record high, boosted by the lucrative Snapdragon shirt sponsorship and a new e-commerce partnership with SCAYLE. Matchday takings also jumped nearly 17%, while wages fell £51.5m to £313.2m after players took a 25% cut in the absence of Champions League bonuses.
Despite the turbulence, United posted revenues of £666.5m — the biggest in their history. Analysts say this undercuts Ratcliffe’s dramatic warning earlier this year that the club could go “bust by Christmas 2025”.
Although the balance sheet remains stretched by ongoing transfer spending and another season outside the Champions League, United’s ability to generate cash is formidable. The club’s EBITDA — earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation — reached £182.8m and is forecast to remain between £180m and £200m this season, the highest of any European club since the pandemic.
For investors and lenders, EBITDA is a key gauge of financial strength. By that measure, United’s performance suggests resilience, not impending ruin. While Ratcliffe’s cuts have been painful, the club’s cash-generating power continues to set it apart in European football, even in difficult times.
Read more:
Sir Jim Ratcliffe’s ‘bust by Christmas’ warning questioned after £36m jobs cull at Manchester United

Rachel Reeves is under mounting pressure from senior policymakers and economists to target wealthier pensioners and homeowners with new taxes as she seeks to stabilise the public finances ahead of November’s Budget.
In a letter to the Chancellor, signatories including Lord Gus O’Donnell, the former cabinet secretary, and Lord Jim O’Neill, the former Treasury minister, argued that the government should reform property and wealth taxes to ensure “better-off older people” make a greater contribution to funding health, social care and pensions.
The letter, also signed by high-profile economists Mariana Mazzucato, Mohamed El-Erian, Sir Anton Muscatelli, Simon Wren-Lewis and Jonathan Portes, warned that the UK’s fiscal position is “not sustainable” without structural changes to the tax base.
The Chancellor is facing a deficit of between £20bn and £30bn against her main fiscal rule, which requires day-to-day spending to be funded by tax revenues rather than borrowing. Some estimates suggest the shortfall could reach £40bn once weaker growth and productivity forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility are factored in.
Reeves has already ruled out raising VAT, national insurance or income tax, but the letter warned that “progressive, pro-growth options” remain, particularly around wealth, property and pensions. Treasury officials are already considering reforms to stamp duty and council tax as part of their preparations.
The economists argued that the only route to fiscal sustainability lies in boosting long-term growth, and called on Reeves to significantly increase public investment rather than allow it to remain flat as a share of GDP over this parliament. They also backed reforms to the fiscal framework, including the International Monetary Fund’s recommendation to move to a single Office for Budget Responsibility forecast each year, to avoid policy volatility.
“The fiscal constraints that the UK faces are real, but they are not inescapable,” the letter said. “A credible strategy to boost economic growth and prosperity, strengthen fiscal sustainability, and enhance business and investor confidence is within reach if the government is prepared to act.”
The Letter
Dear Chancellor,
Since coming into office last year, this government has taken a number of welcome steps to address the substantial, longstanding under-investment in the UK economy.
At the Comprehensive Spending Review, the government brought forward changes to the fiscal framework which enabled £113 billion of additional capital investment in the current Parliament, cancelling out the previously planned cuts. This provided a crucial boost across the fundamental infrastructure that forms the bedrock of our economy, from research and development to schools and hospitals.
While this represents a useful first step in addressing the investment gap that has held back growth and prosperity for over a decade, a much bolder approach is required to meet the economic, environmental and geopolitical challenges we face as a country.
As highlighted by the recent Office for Budget Responsibility report on long-term risks, the UK finances are not on a sustainable path. Yet rather than grappling with the fundamental challenges posed by issues such as climate change or our ageing population, the fiscal policy debate is focused on whether or not the government can hit arbitrary, short-term targets determined by highly volatile forecasts.
The only route to fiscal sustainability lies in finding a more sustainable growth model for the economy as a whole. This will not be achieved without a significant further increase in public investment. On the current trajectory, public investment is set to remain flat as a share of GDP over the course of this Parliament, substantially lower than both the OECD and the UK’s own post-war averages.
Having set out clear priorities across the missions, the Industrial Strategy and the Ten Year Infrastructure Plan, the government must now invest in these at the higher level needed to provide the foundations for a credible, serious plan for growth.
To deliver the stability you have rightly emphasised, you must find additional tax revenue at the coming Budget. There are progressive, pro-growth options available if the government is willing to undertake more fundamental reforms to the tax system. Above all, the tax and pension system needs to be rebalanced so that better-off older people, especially those with substantial property and pension wealth, make a much larger contribution to addressing the fiscal pressures that result from increasing spend on the NHS, social care and pensions. These and other pressures on public spending must also be managed in a more sustainable way.
To minimise volatility, the government should also adopt the IMF’s recommended changes to the UK fiscal framework, including moving to one assessment against the fiscal rules per year. Pro-investment reforms to the fiscal framework could also boost fiscal credibility, for example by requiring governments to address long-term risks, like climate change, at fiscal events. Furthermore, with appropriate safeguards in place, the government could make more use of the opportunities created by last year’s move to a debt rule based on public sector net financial liabilities.
The fiscal constraints that the UK faces are real, but they are not inescapable. We have set out the elements of a credible strategy to boost economic growth and prosperity, strengthen fiscal sustainability, and enhance business and investor confidence.
Lord Gus O’Donnell
Former cabinet secretary
Lord Jim O’Neill
Former commercial secretary to the Treasury
Professor Mariana Mazzucato
Founding director of the Institute for Innovation and Public Purpose, University College London
Mohamed El-Erian
President of Queens’ College, Cambridge
Professor Sir Anton Muscatelli
Adam Smith Business School, University of Glasgow
Professor Simon Wren-Lewis
Emeritus professor of economics, University of Oxford
Professor Jonathan Portes
Professor of economics and public policy, King’s College London
Read more:
Policymakers urge Rachel Reeves to tax wealthier pensioners to stabilise public finances

The UK risks a “long, slow death” of its economic engines if businesses continue to trail international rivals in adopting artificial intelligence, according to Matt Clifford, the prime minister’s former AI adviser.
Clifford, who also chairs the Advanced Research and Invention Agency (Aria), said Britain is guilty of “dangerous complacency” despite its reputation as a hub for technology and innovation.
Speaking at the Royal Television Society’s conference in Cambridge, Clifford warned that sectors where Britain has clear strengths, such as life sciences, financial services and media, could lose their edge if firms remain slow to integrate AI. “We kid ourselves that, because we have some good tech firms, Britain is good at tech,” he said. “The truth is we’re probably the worst adopter of new technology in the developed world.”
A government review earlier this year found that AI could add £47 billion annually to the UK economy over the next decade, boosting productivity by 1.5% each year if adopted widely and safely. Yet adoption remains patchy. Only 8% of manufacturers had deployed AI or machine learning, while most creative industry companies were considered too small to commit significant capital. In life sciences, limited access to high-quality health data has slowed innovation. The review concluded that the main barriers are high upfront costs, lack of workforce skills, poor information on use-cases, and regulatory uncertainty.
A spokesman for the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology said the government is working with industry to train a fifth of the UK workforce in AI by 2030. It is also appointing “AI sector champions” and implementing an action plan to break down barriers to adoption.
Separate research highlighted infrastructure as another pressing challenge. A survey of FTSE 250 executives by the Energy Networks Association found that nearly nine in ten believed upgrading the national grid was essential for unlocking growth in high-demand industries such as AI. Eight in ten warned the UK would be unable to compete globally without reliable, high-capacity power for data centres.
Clifford’s warning underlines a growing consensus that Britain’s research strength and entrepreneurial talent risk being undermined by weak execution. Unless adoption accelerates and infrastructure improves, the UK could lose market share in industries already being rapidly reshaped by artificial intelligence.
Read more:
British firms ‘falling behind global rivals’ in adopting AI, warns government adviser

BMW’s UK motor finance division has sharply increased the money set aside to cover potential compensation for drivers mis-sold car loans, allocating nearly £207 million in provisions.
The move underscores the growing cost of the industry-wide scandal as regulators prepare a formal redress scheme.
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) is expected to outline shortly how it will compensate millions of consumers caught up in the mis-selling of discretionary commission arrangements — deals that rewarded car dealers with higher commissions if customers paid higher interest rates on finance. The practice, banned in 2021, has been under investigation since January 2024.
The FCA estimates that lenders could face total liabilities of between £9 billion and £18 billion, drawing comparisons with the £50 billion payment protection insurance (PPI) scandal. Banks including Lloyds and Santander UK, along with the finance arms of major carmakers, are preparing for significant hits to their balance sheets.
BMW’s disclosure, made in accounts filed at Companies House, shows its provision has nearly trebled from the £70 million reported last year. The figures were signed off in April, before the FCA confirmed it would push ahead with forcing lenders to compensate affected consumers.
In its annual report, BMW’s UK finance arm admitted there was “considerable uncertainty” around the final scale of compensation. It warned that even a five per cent increase in claims could add a further £31 million to its provision, which also covers administrative and legal costs.
Although a Supreme Court ruling in July largely sided with the industry over motor finance arrangements, the FCA has signalled that it will still enforce wide-ranging redress. Chief executive Nikhil Rathi has said he wants a “critical mass” of consumer complaints resolved by next year.
A BMW spokesperson declined to comment beyond the accounts.
Read more:
BMW sets aside £200m for UK car finance mis-selling claims

Trading technology has advanced to the point where investors can choose between desktop platforms, browser-based systems, and mobile applications. Each format has strengths and limitations, and the right choice often depends on the trader’s style, level of experience, and personal schedule.
To understand how these platforms compare, we asked experts from Cliquall to share their perspective on what works best for different types of traders.
The depth of desktop platforms
For many professionals, desktop platforms remain the gold standard. The power of a desktop setup lies in its ability to handle large amounts of data quickly while offering advanced charting, technical indicators, and customization. Multiple monitors allow traders to track several markets at once, which can be vital for those dealing with fast-moving instruments such as foreign exchange or commodities.
Experts from Cliquall review and note that desktop platforms suit traders who dedicate long stretches of time to market analysis. These users often want access to the full range of tools without compromise, and the stability of a desktop connection helps avoid interruptions. However, this setup might be excessive for beginners or casual participants who do not need advanced features.
The flexibility of web platforms
Browser-based platforms strike a balance between functionality and accessibility. They allow traders to log in from any computer without installing software, which can be particularly useful for people who travel or switch devices often. Modern web platforms have improved significantly, offering reliable charting and integrated analysis tools that were once limited to desktop applications.
According to Cliquall, web platforms are ideal for traders who value flexibility but still want a relatively robust interface. They are also practical for workplaces where software installations are restricted. The trade-off is that heavy users may still prefer desktop systems for speed and extended customization.
The convenience of mobile platforms
Mobile trading has become increasingly popular, especially in 2025 as more people expect constant access to financial information. Smartphones and tablets allow traders to check positions, execute orders, and receive alerts while on the move. This immediacy is useful for part-time traders, professionals who cannot stay at their desks all day, or anyone who wants to react quickly to breaking news.
The experts emphasized, however, that mobile platforms are best suited for monitoring and light trading rather than complex strategy building. Screen size and limited charting tools can make in-depth analysis challenging. Mobile apps are most effective when paired with desktop or web platforms that handle the heavier research tasks.
Choosing the right mix
Rather than viewing desktop, web, and mobile platforms as competitors, experts at Cliquall recommend seeing them as complementary. Many traders benefit from combining platforms: using desktop systems for deep research, web platforms for flexible access, and mobile apps for real-time monitoring. The best choice depends on how much time you spend trading, the level of detail you require, and how often you need to stay connected while away from your desk.
Read more:
Desktop, Web, or Mobile – What Is the Best Way to Trade? Experts from Cliquall Review Your Options

President Donald Trump has suggested that US television networks critical of his administration should have their broadcast licences revoked.
The comments came as he praised ABC for suspending late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, whose monologue about the death of conservative influencer Charlie Kirk sparked backlash.
Speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One on his return from a state visit to the UK, Trump claimed that about 97% of media coverage of him is negative. He said that network owners currently hold broadcast licences and questioned whether those licences should be “taken away.”
The trigger for these remarks was Kimmel’s recent show monologue, in which he accused Trump supporters of politicising Kirk’s death and criticised the broader political reaction. ABC suspended Jimmy Kimmel Live! “indefinitely” following pressure from both the public and government regulators.
President Donald Trump has suggested that US television networks critical of his administration should have their broadcast licences revoked.
FCC Chair Brendan Carr publicly condemned Kimmel’s remarks as “offensive and insensitive,” hinting at possible regulatory consequences. Local station group Nexstar announced it would stop airing the show, citing similar concerns.
Legal experts and critics point out that revoking licences over editorial content would likely violate the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
FCC Commissioner Anna Gomez, a Democrat, warned that threatening to remove licences in response to criticism is an attack on free speech. She said the FCC lacks authority to penalise broadcasters simply for content it dislikes.
The FCC, under current law, licenses individual local stations rather than national networks like ABC, CNN, NBC or Fox, complicating the legal basis for revoking a network licence as Trump suggested.
Former President Barack Obama and various media industry and free-speech advocates have accused the Trump administration of pushing censorship and using regulatory agencies to punish critics. Some see this episode as part of a broader trend of political pressure on the Fourth Estate.
For broadcasters, this moment underscores concerns about editorial independence, regulatory overreach, and the vulnerability of media institutions in a polarised political climate.
Read more:
Trump suggests networks critical of him could lose licences amid Kimmel fallout