Business

Barely two months after the spectacular implosion of the craft brewer he built into a £2bn icon of British entrepreneurship, James Watt is climbing back into the fermentation tank.

The BrewDog co-founder has unveiled Second Best, a new community-funded beer business that will hand up to 19.3 per cent of its equity, free of charge, to the small investors and bar staff whose holdings were obliterated when BrewDog was sold to Canadian-American cannabis and drinks group Tilray Brands for £33m in March.

Announcing the venture on LinkedIn, Mr Watt struck an unusually contrite tone. “Thousands of people trusted me to build a brilliant beer business and create value for them. It was an obligation I took very seriously. And I, for one, am not done with that obligation,” he wrote.

Under the proposal, former BrewDog “Equity Punks” will be invited to become “Second Founders”, claiming a stake in the new company identical in size to the one they held in the old one. “No catches, no cash required, and your equity in Second Best will always rank alongside my own,” Mr Watt said. “You’ll own it. I’ll fund it. And I’ll dedicate myself to building it.”

Almost all former BrewDog bar staff, who held shares at the point of collapse, are also expected to qualify. By Friday evening, Mr Watt told The Telegraph, more than 2,000 former Punks had registered interest – 500 of them within the first ten minutes of his announcement.

A leaner, canned-first model

In a marked departure from the sprawling bricks-and-mortar empire that became BrewDog’s defining feature, Second Best will be built around canned beer rather than pubs. According to the Financial Times, the venture will launch with two pale ales and a lager, brewed in Germany and across Europe. Mr Watt has indicated that a handful of specialist beer-focused pubs may follow once the brand is bedded in.

In a nod to changing British drinking habits, the company will also tease the market with what Mr Watt describes as an “alcohol-adjacent” concept before its first brews land. “I am going to make a non-alcoholic beer for my non-drinking wife,” he said – a reference to his spouse, the former Made in Chelsea star and I’m A Celebrity winner Georgia Toffolo.

The pivot reflects the wider commercial reality facing UK brewers. The low and no-alcohol category has surged past 200 million pints a year, while a punishing combination of input costs, business rates and shrinking discretionary spend has triggered a wave of insolvencies across the craft sector – a backdrop Business Matters has explored in its analysis of whether it is last orders for the UK craft beer sector.

Second Best has yet to secure all the licences and approvals required to begin trading, and no launch date has been confirmed.

From £2bn darling to £33m fire sale

The new venture marks a striking second act for one of Britain’s most polarising entrepreneurs. Founded by Mr Watt and Martin Dickie in a unit in Fraserburgh, Aberdeenshire, in 2007, BrewDog rode the craft beer wave to operate more than 120 bars across 57 countries and was valued at around £2bn at the height of its 2021 fundraising.

That high water mark proved fleeting. Five consecutive years of losses from 2019 onwards combined with mounting debts to its private equity backer, TSG Consumer Partners, to leave liabilities of more than £800m by the time of the brewer’s collapse. The eventual sale to Tilray, which Business Matters covered in detail at the time of the £33m rescue deal that closed 38 bars and cut 484 jobs, wiped out TSG, both founders and the entire Equity for Punks community – an army of more than 200,000 small investors who had collectively put in around £75m over seven crowdfunding rounds.

For Mr Watt, the fallout came on top of a difficult few years personally and professionally. He stepped down as chief executive in 2024, a move chronicled in Business Matters’ coverage of his departure amid controversies over workplace culture allegations first raised by more than 60 former employees in 2021. He has consistently said management needed to “listen, learn and act”.

Following March’s sale he publicly described himself as “heartbroken” for the Equity Punks who “did not get the return on their investment they wanted” and for having “dedicated the best 20 years of my life to something that ultimately did not have the ending we all wished for”.

Will the Punks bite a second time?

The central commercial question is whether trust, once forfeited at this scale, can be rebuilt. Equity Punks were as much a marketing engine as a funding mechanism; their evangelism turned BrewDog into a household name. Reproducing that flywheel without the headline-grabbing pub rollouts – and without the eye-catching valuations that powered successive raises – will be the test.

Industry observers note that Mr Watt is, in effect, attempting to invert the BrewDog playbook: lighter on capital expenditure, heavier on community ownership, and explicitly self-funded by the founder rather than underwritten by private equity. Coverage by trade title The Grocer suggests the canned-first, Europe-brewed approach is designed to keep fixed costs low and routes-to-market flexible while the brand finds its footing.

Whether it works will depend less on the beer and more on the maths. As City AM noted in its analysis of the “equity punk” comeback, Mr Watt’s pledge that Second Founders will always rank alongside him is a direct response to the preferential share structure that left ordinary BrewDog investors at the back of the queue when the music stopped.

“I feel an obligation to the Equity Punk investors. I want to try to create the future of beer,” Mr Watt told the Financial Times. “Hopefully, the second beer business I build with the community will be the best one.”

The name, at least, sets the expectations accordingly.

Read more:
James Watt plots brewing comeback with community-owned Second Best venture

Bradford-based grocer pitches its Myton manufacturing arm to Sainsbury’s and other supermarket rivals as it tries to grind down a £3.1bn debt pile inherited from its 2021 private equity takeover.

Morrisons is in advanced conversations with rival British supermarkets to start supplying them with own-brand pies, meat and eggs produced by its Myton manufacturing division, as chief executive Rami Baitiéh hunts for fresh sources of revenue to ease the grocer’s heavy debt burden.

The Bradford-based chain, one of the so-called Big Four, is understood to have ushered buyers from competing retailers into a Myton factory in recent weeks, with Sainsbury’s among the grocers to have toured production sites previously. The push marks a notable shift in posture: Morrisons has historically guarded the output of its 17 UK manufacturing sites as a competitive moat, but is now willing to feed rivals’ shelves if it brings in profitable third-party volume.

Myton is one of the country’s largest food manufacturers and produces Morrisons’ sweet and savoury pie ranges, while also sourcing meat, fish, eggs and even flowers for the supermarket. It already serves a clutch of independent retailers and is now being pitched to large hospitality groups as well, with showcase events held in recent months to highlight its British-made credentials.

£3.1bn debt overhang from the CD&R takeover

The wider strategic context is hard to ignore. In its most recent set of accounts, covering the 52 weeks to 26 October, the grocer posted a pre-tax loss of £381m after absorbing a £281m interest bill on its borrowings. Net debt stood at £3.1bn at the year-end, an overhang from the £10bn leveraged buy-out by US private equity firm Clayton, Dubilier & Rice in 2021.

Morrisons has been steadily chiselling away at that figure, gross debt is down roughly 46 per cent from its 2022 peak, helped by a series of sale-and-leaseback deals, but the interest cost still dwarfs reported profits. Underlying earnings of £835m and twelve consecutive quarters of positive like-for-like sales growth, as detailed in the company’s full-year results, suggest the operating business is in markedly better shape than the bottom line implies.

That is where Myton comes in. While Morrisons does not break out the division’s numbers, it is widely understood inside the business to be profitable, with spare manufacturing capacity that executives believe could be sweated harder by serving a broader customer base, at home and overseas.

Closures, cafés and a streamlined estate

The supply-side push lands alongside an aggressive cost programme. Morrisons has confirmed plans to close 100 convenience stores, shuttered a swathe of in-store cafés, counters and florists, and has been trimming head office headcount as it leans into automation and AI. Earlier this year, Myton itself closed its loss-making Wakefield bakery in a sign that no part of the empire is sacrosanct.

Competitive pressure has not abated either. Discounters Aldi and Lidl continue to nibble at the heels of the traditional Big Four, with Aldi having overtaken Morrisons to become Britain’s fourth-largest supermarket by market share, a shift that has sharpened the urgency behind any plan capable of widening the grocer’s margin pool.

Sale considered, then parked

The latest outreach follows an episode earlier in the year, first reported by The Telegraph, in which Morrisons received an unsolicited approach for Myton and held talks with at least one private equity bidder about an outright sale. The Grocer subsequently reported that the supermarket was no longer in active negotiations to offload the unit.

Mr Baitiéh has been notably bullish on keeping manufacturing in-house. In January, the Frenchman, who joined from Carrefour in 2023, said vertical integration was “part of the DNA of Morrisons, it’s going to stay”, arguing that owning the factories gives the grocer a point of difference against rivals reliant on a patchwork of external suppliers.

For SME food producers watching from the sidelines, the move is double-edged. Morrisons remains a major buyer from British farmers and small food businesses, but a more commercially aggressive Myton, selling pies and meat into Sainsbury’s, hospitality chains and beyond, could either crowd out smaller competitors or open up new co-manufacturing opportunities, depending on how the contracts are structured.

A spokesman for the supermarket said: “Myton is a high-quality food manufacturing business and has always served other customers as well as Morrisons. We have been growing this area of the business over recent years by attracting new customers in retail, food service and food manufacturing, to build a broader base for the business both in the UK and internationally. Myton does not comment on the detail of its customer relationships.”

What it means for the turnaround

Strip out the headline loss and the picture at Morrisons is one of a grocer slowly clawing back relevance: solid Christmas trading, a 17.4 per cent jump in sales of its premium “The Best” range, and a debt pile that is shrinking rather than spiralling. Pushing Myton’s produce onto rival shelves is unlikely, on its own, to crack the debt problem, but it is a low-capital lever that uses existing assets, and one that Mr Baitiéh appears determined to pull.

If the early site visits convert into supply contracts, expect Morrisons’ annual report to start carving out Myton’s contribution more explicitly. Investors, lenders and, eventually, any future bidder would all want to see it.

Read more:
Morrisons courts rival grocers in bid to widen Myton supply deals

A change-of-control clause held by Britain’s wealthiest make-up artist has emerged as the unlikely catalyst behind the collapse of one of the cosmetics industry’s most ambitious tie-ups in a generation.

Charlotte Tilbury has effectively torpedoed a $40bn (£30bn) merger between Spanish luxury group Puig and New York-listed Estée Lauder, after a row over the size of the payout she would have been entitled to demand once the deal completed.

The two beauty conglomerates had been in discussions since March about combining to create what would have been the world’s largest premium skincare and fragrance business, capable of taking on the dominant L’Oréal. By Thursday evening, both sides had walked away.

The Tilbury-branded business is owned by Barcelona-based Puig, which also counts Rabanne and Jean Paul Gaultier among its labels. Estée Lauder, headquartered in Manhattan, owns Jo Malone London, Clinique, Aveda, MAC, Tom Ford Beauty and Bobbi Brown. Sources close to the talks told Business Matters that while several issues had complicated negotiations, the standoff over Ms Tilbury’s stake was the single largest factor in the deal unravelling.

“Estée Lauder was not going to do the deal at any cost,” one person familiar with the discussions said. “They walked away because it didn’t make financial sense any more.”

The clause that cost €900m

When Puig acquired a majority stake in Charlotte Tilbury Beauty in 2020 for a reported $1.2bn, the deal preserved a minority shareholding for the founder and her early backers — and, crucially, embedded a change-of-control clause permitting her to crystallise that stake should ownership of Puig itself change hands.

A merger with Estée Lauder would have triggered precisely that mechanism. Analysts at Jefferies have estimated that buying out Ms Tilbury under the clause could have cost Puig in the region of €900m, a sum the Americans were unwilling to absorb into the transaction economics. The Spanish newspaper Expansión was first to report the dispute.

That figure, set against an already complicated balance-of-power negotiation between the Puig and Lauder families, proved one variable too many. Markets responded accordingly: shares in Estée Lauder jumped as much as 16 per cent after the news broke, while Puig’s stock fell roughly 15 per cent in Madrid, the steepest single-day decline since its 2024 flotation, according to Bloomberg.

From Selfridges concession to global empire

The collapse caps a remarkable decade for Ms Tilbury, who launched her eponymous brand from a concession in Selfridges’ Oxford Street store in 2013 after more than two decades behind the make-up chair for Hollywood stars including Penélope Cruz, Nicole Kidman and Halle Berry.

Trained under Mary Greenwell, the make-up artist for Diana, Princess of Wales, she rose to prominence during the supermodel boom of the 1990s before becoming make-up director for Prada and Alexander McQueen. Her celebrity friendships have remained central to the brand’s marketing playbook; both Kim Kardashian and Salma Hayek have launched lipstick collections with the company.

A first standalone flagship opened in Covent Garden in 2015, and the brand was quickly stocked internationally. Her early YouTube following, built on skincare advice and tutorials, gave Charlotte Tilbury Beauty a direct-to-consumer engine well before the category was fashionable. By 2018 she had been made an MBE for services to the beauty and cosmetics industry, and as of March 2025 she topped the Sunday Times ranking of Britain’s wealthiest beauty entrepreneurs with an estimated net worth of £350m.

Now 53, she is married to film producer George Waud and divides her time between Notting Hill and Ibiza, where she grew up. The £1bn sale of her majority stake to Puig in 2020 cemented her position as one of the most commercially successful founders Britain’s beauty sector has produced, and, as this week’s events demonstrate, gave her uncommon leverage over her acquirer’s strategic options.

A turnaround, not a transformation

For Stéphane de La Faverie, Estée Lauder’s chief executive, the collapse means refocusing on a standalone turnaround plan that Wall Street had quietly been pushing him to prioritise. Analysts had been sceptical that the group could integrate Puig’s brand portfolio while simultaneously cutting thousands of jobs and rebuilding its presence in China, duty-free travel retail and the prestige skincare market.

The New York group has spent the past 18 months pushing into lower price tiers to recruit younger shoppers, while accelerating sales through Amazon and TikTok Shop — channels where it has historically been under-indexed. The Tilbury impasse arguably gives Mr de La Faverie permission to keep his head down and execute.

“We are grateful for the conversations we have had with Puig,” he said in a statement. “Today, we are reiterating our confidence in the power of our incredible brands, our talented teams and our strength as a standalone company.”

What it means for the founder economy

For the wider SME and founder community, the episode is a reminder of how much value a well-drafted minority-stake agreement can preserve, and how much disruption it can cause when interests diverge from those of the controlling shareholder. Reports last year suggested Ms Tilbury had been eyeing a payout north of £500m from any future transaction; the fact that her clause has now flattened a $40bn deal will not be lost on the next generation of UK consumer-brand founders sitting across the table from private equity and strategic acquirers.

Puig and Charlotte Tilbury Beauty declined to comment. Estée Lauder has been approached for further comment.

Read more:
Charlotte Tilbury’s payout demand scuppers £30bn Estée Lauder–Puig beauty mega-merger

Morrisons is preparing to pull down the shutters on 100 loss-making convenience stores in a move that places hundreds of shop-floor jobs in jeopardy, with the Bradford-based grocer pointing the finger squarely at Labour’s tax and wage agenda for tipping the sites into terminal decline.

Britain’s fifth-largest supermarket said the shops, all of them legacy outlets from its 2022 rescue of collapsed convenience chain McColl’s, had been “challenged for a number of years” despite remedial action. The closures will be phased in over the coming months, with affected staff entering consultation.

In an unusually pointed statement, a spokesman for the group said the situation had been “exacerbated in more recent years by significant cost increases resulting from Government policy choices, which have made returning these stores to profitability even more difficult”. While bosses stopped short of naming specific measures, the timing leaves little room for ambiguity.

From 1 April, the National Living Wage rose by 50p to £12.71 an hour for those aged 21 and over, with the 18-to-20 rate climbing 85p to £10.85 and the apprentice rate up 45p to £8. Layered on top is last year’s increase in employer National Insurance contributions, which lifted the headline rate from 13.8 per cent to 15 per cent and dragged the secondary threshold down from £9,100 to £5,000 — a double whammy that has fallen most heavily on retailers reliant on part-time labour.

The British Retail Consortium has warned that the combined hit added some £5bn to industry wage bills last year alone, and that as many as 160,000 retail roles could be lost over the next three years as employers re-engineer their cost base. Morrisons’ announcement is the latest data point in that grim arithmetic.

The McColl’s portfolio has proved a persistent thorn in chief executive Rami Baitiéh’s side. Morrisons paid roughly £190m to take the chain out of administration in May 2022, and almost immediately moved to shutter 132 of the worst-performing sites while converting the remainder to its Morrisons Daily fascia. The latest round of closures suggests that conversion alone has not been enough to fix the unit economics on a stubborn rump of stores.

It is also the third significant restructuring announcement from the grocer in recent months. Earlier this year, Morrisons confirmed it was closing 103 cafés, florists, pharmacies and Market Kitchens in a sweeping shake-up of in-store services, and last month staff were told the company was consulting on up to 200 head office redundancies at its Bradford headquarters as part of an artificial intelligence-driven productivity drive.

Despite the closures, Morrisons was at pains to stress that its convenience strategy is far from in retreat. The group still operates around 1,700 convenience stores alongside 497 supermarkets and employs roughly 95,000 people. It said it remained on the front foot when it came to opening “hundreds more” franchise convenience stores in the coming years, arguing that pruning the underperforming tail and bolting on capital-light franchise sites would leave its convenience estate “stronger overall”.

For SME owners watching from the sidelines, the message is sobering. When a £20bn turnover supermarket cannot make the numbers stack up on stores carrying its own brand, smaller independents operating on slimmer margins will be feeling the squeeze even more acutely. The Treasury’s own minimum wage uplift, unveiled in last autumn’s Budget, was billed as a pay rise for the lowest earners; for many small employers, it has become a stress test of their viability.

The Department for Business and Trade has been approached for comment.

Read more:
Morrisons to shut 100 convenience stores as supermarket blames Labour’s ‘policy choices’ for rising costs

Higher gilt yields and a £10.3bn debt servicing bill have wiped further fiscal headroom from Rachel Reeves’s plans, leaving the Chancellor with little wriggle room before the autumn Budget, and SMEs once again braced for the consequences.

Britain’s public finances opened the 2026/27 financial year on the back foot, with public sector net borrowing climbing to £24.3 billion in April, the highest April reading since the pandemic shutdown of 2020 and £3.4 billion above the £20.9 billion pencilled in by the Office for Budget Responsibility.

Figures published on Friday by the Office for National Statistics showed the bill was £4.9 billion, or roughly a quarter, larger than the same month a year earlier, when borrowing came in at £20.2 billion and already prompted warnings about the fragility of the Treasury’s fiscal arithmetic.

The standout figure, however, was not the headline overshoot but the cost of servicing the national debt. Interest payments alone reached £10.3 billion in April, the highest on record for the opening month of any financial year. Britain is now spending more than £100 billion a year keeping its debt pile rolling, broadly equivalent to the annual schools budget for England.

Gilt yields tighten the noose

The figures land at a delicate moment for the gilt market. Yields on 10-year UK government bonds, the standard proxy for the cost of fresh state borrowing, touched a fresh post-2008 peak last week before retreating modestly after Andy Burnham, the Greater Manchester mayor widely viewed as a potential prime ministerial challenger, publicly committed to respecting the fiscal rules should he take the top job.

That intervention steadied nerves in the City but did not undo the damage. Bond market analysts pointed out that the recent yield spike — chronicled in earlier reporting on 10-year gilts breaching the 5 per cent threshold for the first time in 18 years, will work its way into May’s borrowing figures and beyond, since each rise in yields lifts the coupon Treasury must offer on new issuance.

Higher yields will also eat into the £22 billion of headroom the Chancellor restored at the November Budget. As Business Matters has previously reported, that buffer was already exposed to political U-turns, weaker migration assumptions and softer growth, a combination that has historically been enough to push a chancellor towards either tax rises or spending cuts.

IMF endorsement, but with a warning

The International Monetary Fund, wrapping up its 2026 Article IV mission to the UK earlier this week, applauded the deficit reduction targets baked into the government’s fiscal rules and the recent decision to make the autumn Budget the sole fiscal event. But the Fund also warned that any attempt to dilute the path of consolidation would risk a sharp reaction in the gilt market, precisely the dynamic that has rattled investors over the past fortnight.

For all the pressure on the Treasury, there was a sliver of good news in the data. The ONS revised down its full-year borrowing estimate for 2025/26 by £3 billion, taking it to the lowest level since the pandemic six years ago. Tax receipts were also higher than a year earlier, though the gain was more than offset by additional spending on benefits and other day-to-day running costs.

Grant Fitzner, the ONS’s chief economist, struck a sober note: “Borrowing this month was substantially higher than in April last year and although receipts increased compared with April 2025, this was more than offset by higher spending on benefits and other costs.”

SME implications: cooler tills, costlier money

For small and medium-sized businesses, the read-across is twofold. First, the cost of credit. Gilt yields underpin the swap rates that determine fixed-rate business loans and commercial mortgages, meaning that the higher cost of government borrowing is already feeding through to the lending desks of the high street and challenger banks. Owner-managers refinancing this summer should expect quotes to come in stickier than they would have done in the spring.

Second, demand. Separate ONS data published on Friday showed retail sales volumes contracting by 0.4 per cent in April after a feeble 0.1 per cent gain in March, a reminder that the consumer engine is sputtering even before any further fiscal tightening lands in the autumn. Hospitality, fashion and homewares operators in particular will be watching May’s figures closely.

The political calculus is sharpening too. With the fiscal buffer thinning, the Treasury’s scope to extend business rates relief, freeze fuel duty again or shelter SMEs from further employer National Insurance rises looks more constrained by the week. Whether the Chancellor opts to plug the gap through fresh revenue measures, departmental squeezes or by quietly loosening the fiscal rules will define the autumn for Britain’s 5.5 million small businesses.

For now, the message from April’s numbers is blunt: the debt interest bill is no longer a line item to be glossed over in the Budget Red Book, it is the story.

Read more:
April borrowing surges to £24.3bn as debt interest bill breaks month record

Britain’s biggest car manufacturer has, for the first time in its history, cracked open the door to assembling Range Rovers and Land Rover Defenders on American soil, a move that would have been unthinkable a generation ago, and one that has been forced squarely onto the agenda by Donald Trump’s tariff regime.

Jaguar Land Rover (JLR), the Solihull-based jewel of the West Midlands automotive cluster, has confirmed it has signed a memorandum of understanding with Stellantis, the Franco-Italian-American group behind Vauxhall, Peugeot, Fiat, Jeep and Chrysler, “to explore opportunities to collaborate on product development in the United States”. Both companies were tight-lipped on the detail, but the framing in their joint statement — references to “potential transactions” and “complementary capabilities”, left City analysts in little doubt that something rather more significant than a polite engineering chat is on the table.

For an industry that has spent the past 18 months trying to second-guess the White House, the timing is hardly accidental. Under the UK-US Economic Prosperity Deal struck in May 2025, British carmakers can export a maximum of 100,000 vehicles a year to America at a preferential 10 per cent tariff rate; anything above the quota is hit with a punitive 27.5 per cent levy, according to the House of Commons Library briefing on US trade tariffs. For JLR, which produces well in excess of 300,000 cars a year and has traditionally sent roughly a third of them across the Atlantic, the maths are brutal. The cap is, in effect, a glass ceiling on its single most lucrative export market.

PB Balaji, JLR’s chief executive, framed the move as strategic evolution rather than retreat. “As we continue to evolve JLR for the future, collaboration will play an important role in unlocking new opportunities,” he said. “Working with Stellantis allows us to explore complementary capabilities in product and technology development that support our long-term growth plans for the US market.”

His opposite number at Stellantis, Antonio Filosa, was similarly measured: “By working with partners to explore synergies in areas such as product and technology development, we can create meaningful benefits for both sides while remaining focused on delivering the products and experiences our customers love.”

From solihull to Ohio?

The industrial logic is compelling. JLR has already paused shipments to the US once this year as the tariffs bit, exposing the fragility of a model that depends on shipping high-margin luxury SUVs across the Atlantic. Stellantis, by contrast, runs an enviable network of assembly plants across Michigan, Ohio, Illinois and Indiana, much of it underutilised since the wider slowdown in mid-market American demand and a strategic retreat from its all-electric ambitions, as chronicled in the group’s recent €22bn write-down.

Plugging JLR’s premium product into spare Stellantis capacity would, in theory, give both sides something they badly need. JLR would get a tariff-free route to the world’s most profitable luxury car market. Stellantis, whose Jeep, Ram and Chrysler brands sit firmly in the mass-market middle, would gain access to a slice of the premium pie that has long eluded it. The Wrangler-style Defender pairing in particular looks an obvious fit; the Range Rover, retailing at well over $100,000 in the US, less obviously so.

What both companies will be acutely aware of is that the perceived “Britishness” of the marques is itself part of the product. When Ford bought Jaguar for $2.4 billion in 1989 and added Land Rover from BMW for $2.7 billion in 2000, eventually merging them into JLR in 2002, the American giant pointedly refused to build either brand on its home turf. To do so, Ford executives privately argued, would dilute the very quintessence customers were paying for. Tata of India, which scooped up the business in 2008 when Ford was on its knees in the global financial crisis, has stuck broadly to the same line, investing heavily in UK production, including the Defender it now also builds in Nitra, Slovakia, which is itself caught by the Trump tariffs.

Takeover by stealth?

The City will inevitably read the small print of any MoU through the lens of consolidation. JLR is, by global standards, a minnow, the largest automotive employer in Britain, certainly, but a fraction of the size of Volkswagen, Toyota or indeed Stellantis. The argument that its long-term independence is unsustainable in an industry being reshaped by electrification, Chinese competition and tariff walls has been doing the rounds in Mayfair for the best part of a decade.

The language of the memorandum, “potential transactions”, “synergies”, “complementary capabilities”, is precisely the vocabulary of deals that begin as joint ventures and end, several years later, in full-blown mergers. It would be a brave SME supplier in the West Midlands who bet against further integration in the medium term.

For Tata, the calculation is delicate. JLR remains a strategically important asset and a significant contributor to group profits. But the family-controlled Indian conglomerate has shown before, most notably with Corus, the former British Steel, that it is unsentimental about underperforming foreign acquisitions when the global economics turn. A US production deal that quietly evolves into a deeper relationship with Stellantis would, in that light, be neither a surrender nor a surprise.

The wider british picture

JLR is not alone in its predicament. Mini, Bentley, Rolls-Royce and Aston Martin all export a disproportionate share of their UK output to the United States, and all are now operating inside the same 100,000-vehicle British quota. None of them has the volume to justify its own American assembly line. If JLR, by far the largest of the group, succeeds in finding a tariff workaround through a partner, expect others to consider whether contract assembly inside the US, perhaps via the same Stellantis route, might be the only way to defend their American sales.

For the West Midlands, the political optics are uncomfortable. The Solihull plant remains the spiritual home of Land Rover and one of the largest manufacturing employers in the region. Any meaningful shift of premium production to the United States, even at the margins, will inevitably raise questions in Westminster about whether the UK has done enough to anchor high-value manufacturing onshore, particularly given the size of the public guarantees that have already flowed JLR’s way in the wake of last autumn’s cyberattack.

The official line from Coventry, of course, is that this is about growth in the US, not retrenchment in the UK. As ever in the car industry, the truth will be in the binding contracts that follow this opening, deliberately non-committal MoU, and in how aggressively Mr Trump’s trade negotiators decide to police the rules of origin around any vehicles that emerge with Range Rover or Defender badges on the bonnet.

For now, though, a Rubicon has been crossed. After more than 75 years of insisting that Range Rovers and Defenders could only be properly built within sight of a damp British hillside, Britain’s flagship luxury carmaker has formally acknowledged that the road to its biggest market may, in future, run through an American factory gate.

Read more:
Jaguar Land Rover eyes American tie-up with Stellantis to sidestep Trump tariffs

Britain’s largest online retailer has waded into one of the most uncomfortable debates in Westminster and the boardroom: who, exactly, is to blame for almost a million young people sitting outside the labour market?

The answer, according to Amazon’s UK country manager John Boumphrey, is not the young people themselves.

In a candid interview with the BBC’s Big Boss series, Boumphrey said the prevailing narrative that Generation Z lacks motivation, resilience or grit simply does not square with what his managers see on the warehouse floor. “We have to stop blaming young people,” he said, arguing that the education system is no longer “producing young people who are ready for work”.

Coming from the man who runs an operation employing 75,000 people across roughly 100 UK sites — half of them recruited straight out of school, college or unemployment — the intervention will sting employers who have spent the past 18 months grumbling about a “soft” younger workforce.

A million reasons to pay attention

The numbers behind Boumphrey’s comments are sobering. Almost a million 16- to 24-year-olds in the UK are now classified as NEET — not in education, employment or training — a figure that has hovered uncomfortably close to seven-figure territory for more than a year, according to the Office for National Statistics. At the same time, the headline unemployment rate ticked up to 5 per cent in the three months to March, from 4.9 per cent a month earlier.

For SME owners, who account for the lion’s share of first jobs in Britain, the picture is grimmer still. Hospitality has retrenched, graduate schemes have thinned and entry-level vacancies in retail have collapsed, leaving fewer of the rungs school leavers traditionally use to climb into work. Business Matters has tracked the trend through the year, including in our recent report on how the NEET rate is closing in on the one-million mark.

Boumphrey’s argument is that the diagnosis matters. “I think too often you read about young people that somehow they lack motivation, they lack resilience, they lack the will to develop skills,” he said. “That is not our experience. We work with some individuals who are probably furthest from work and that’s where we actually see the biggest transformation.”

The case for compulsory work experience

His proposed remedy is unfashionably practical: make a stint of work experience mandatory for every over-16 in the country.

He argues that even a single week on a real shop floor, in a logistics hub or in an office teaches the soft skills schools struggle to deliver. “If you get a T-level student, they come in for a week, they understand the value of teamwork, of communication and problem solving,” he said. “It’s not a motivation problem, it’s a system problem, and that requires a system response.”

The T-level itself, introduced in 2020 and structured around a mandatory industry placement of at least 315 hours, has been quietly absorbed by larger employers but remains a foreign concept to many smaller firms. As Business Matters has set out before, T-levels carry real upside for SME employers willing to host a placement, not least because they create a low-risk pipeline of pre-trained recruits.

The Amazon paradox

The irony, Boumphrey concedes, is that his own business cannot find enough of the workers it needs. Amazon has just over 100 premises in the UK, including 30 fulfilment centres, and is on course to add several more on the back of its £40bn UK expansion programme. Yet roles built around its newer robotic infrastructure — mechatronics engineers, robotics technicians, maintenance specialists — sit stubbornly unfilled.

“When Amazon introduced robots into its warehouses there was some concern they would replace people,” he said. “Actually, the reverse happened. We ended up employing more people. Mechatronics engineers, people who can actually maintain the robots, people who are technicians, they’re not roles that exist. We can’t find enough people to fill those roles.”

His proposed fix is regional and collaborative: business, local authorities and further education colleges sitting around the same table to map skills gaps in each travel-to-work area, rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all national curriculum.

Tax, scale and the political subtext

The Amazon UK boss could hardly avoid the perennial question of tax, given the group’s scale and its political profile. He claimed the company contributed “more than £5.8bn” in the UK last year and insisted Amazon pays “all the tax we’re meant to pay”. The wider contribution, he argued, must also be measured in the 75,000 jobs the company underwrites.

Amazon now accounts for roughly 30 per cent of all online sales in the UK and, earlier this year, overtook Walmart as the world’s largest company by annual revenue. That scale gives Boumphrey a louder microphone than most when he tells policymakers and fellow employers that the country’s youth jobs problem is structural, not generational.

For SME owners watching from the sidelines, the takeaway is uncomfortable but useful. The labour market is not short of young people who want to work. It is short of pathways that prepare them to do so — and, increasingly, short of employers prepared to build those pathways themselves.

Read more:
Blame the system, not the school leavers for youth unemployment, says Amazon’s UK boss

British families planning a getaway this summer could find the cost of flying creeping up again, after it emerged that Treasury officials are quietly drawing up plans for a £1bn VAT raid on the fees airports charge airlines, a move the industry has branded a stealth tax on holidaymakers and exporters alike.

The proposals, being worked up inside HMRC, would impose the standard 20 per cent rate of VAT on top of the per-passenger charges levied by airports such as Heathrow, Gatwick and Manchester for the use of runways, terminals and ground services. Those fees are almost always passed straight through to passengers in the ticket price, meaning the burden would land squarely on travellers and the small and medium-sized businesses that depend on affordable air travel to reach overseas customers.

At Heathrow, where the regulated charge currently sits at around £24 a head, the change would add close to £5 to the cost of every passenger — before a single penny of Air Passenger Duty, fuel surcharge or booking fee has been added. The official APD rates published by HMRC already range from £15 to £106 for an economy seat depending on distance, and rose again from April under increases pencilled in at the Autumn Budget.

A retrospective sting

What is alarming airlines and airports most is not just the prospect of a new levy, but the possibility that Whitehall might backdate it. Industry sources tell Business Matters that ministers are exploring whether to apply the charge as far back as four years, the maximum permitted under current legislation, generating an immediate windfall for the Exchequer running to around £1bn from Heathrow alone.

Heathrow generated £1.13bn in revenue from passenger charges last year, while Gatwick reported £607m and Manchester Airports Group, owner of Manchester and Stansted, recorded £470m. Factoring in smaller hubs, the total VAT take could comfortably top £1.5bn, although officials have yet to clarify whether the tax would bite on both outbound and inbound legs.

One airline industry insider described the plan as “a stealth tax on families at a time when the cost-of-living crisis means many people are already struggling to afford a holiday”. The warning lands alongside fresh evidence that Britons are already tightening their belts on travel, Barclays data recently showed holiday spending falling for the first time since the pandemic as cost-of-living and Iran conflict fears bite.

Reeves giveth, HMRC taketh away

The disclosure could hardly come at a more awkward moment for the Chancellor. Even as her officials sharpen the pencil on aviation VAT, Rachel Reeves was on her feet in the Commons unveiling a £1bn cost-of-living package designed to take the sting out of the school summer holidays.

From 25 June to 1 September, theme parks, zoos, museums, cinemas, soft play centres and theatres will charge a reduced 5 per cent rate of VAT in place of the usual 20 per cent. Children’s meals are included in the cut, which the Treasury values at £300m. The Government claims the measure will shave £20 off a theme-park day out for a family of four, £1.50 off cinema tickets and £2 off a family meal.

Fuel duty will be frozen for the rest of the year, free bus travel will be offered to children throughout August, and import taxes have been trimmed on a basket of staple foods. The energy-intensive chemicals and ceramics sectors, meanwhile, will share a £470m lifeline aimed at protecting jobs in some of the country’s most exposed manufacturing hubs.

Ms Reeves told MPs the package would be paid for by raising “hundreds of millions of pounds a year” from oil and gas majors such as BP and Shell, with the Office for Budget Responsibility due to assess the impact at the autumn fiscal event. Broader support on household energy bills was held in reserve, with the Chancellor signalling that targeted help would follow in the autumn “if bills continue to rise”.

The hospitality and visitor economy were quick to welcome the move. Fiona Eastwood, chief executive of Merlin Entertainments, which operates Alton Towers and Legoland, confirmed the discounted rate would apply to both admission tickets and children’s meals. Kate Nicholls, chair of UKHospitality, said it was “the quickest and simplest way to lower prices and boost consumer confidence”.

Aviation cries foul

The aviation sector, however, is in no mood to applaud. An Airlines UK spokesman said: “The UK is already one of the most overtaxed aviation markets in the world and, as the cost burden increases, we risk becoming even more uncompetitive. The only people cheering a move like this would be those running rival airports overseas.”

Industry analysis backs the point. The Office for Budget Responsibility already forecasts APD will raise close to £5bn a year by the end of the decade, while Airlines UK research suggests mandatory taxes can account for as much as half the price of an off-peak short-haul ticket. Bolting VAT on to airport charges would compound a tax burden that low-cost carriers say is already pushing routes, and the SME-friendly connectivity that comes with them, into mainland Europe.

Andrew Griffith, the shadow business secretary, was blunter still: “Any additional tax on aviation is a tax on doing business, a brake on exports or an attack on hard-working families. No government on the side of growth would indulge this idea.”

The proposals may also collide with international aviation rules, which broadly exempt airfares from VAT. Heathrow is understood to be taking specialist tax advice, while one industry source characterised the work inside HMRC as a “fishing trip” by officials looking for new revenue. “It’s a very technical conversation, with HMRC trying to work out if they can capture additional tax revenue,” the source said. “The question is whether it’s going to move forward and, if it does, whether it is going to hit passengers.”

What it means for SMEs

For Britain’s small and mid-sized businesses, the stakes are real. Air freight, sales travel and trade-show attendance all sit downstream of airport economics, and any uplift in landing charges feeds quickly into per-trip costs. It is also the second time in twelve months that the regulator has tangled with the Heathrow pricing model, earlier this year Heathrow was forced into a bigger cut of passenger landing fees by the Civil Aviation Authority, capping charges below the level the airport had sought.

Airports are unlikely to absorb a new VAT charge in-house. Heathrow has been lobbying loudly for measures to restore competitiveness, including the reinstatement of VAT-free shopping for international visitors, warning that the UK is losing ground to European rivals on tax. Adding a fresh 20 per cent layer to its core regulated charge would, the airport believes, run directly counter to the Government’s own growth narrative.

A government spokesman insisted there was no formal policy change in train, telling reporters: “The Government is not considering any changes to tax rules in this area. HMRC routinely engage businesses on how existing tax rules are being applied.”

That is unlikely to settle nerves in boardrooms in West London or aboard the airlines. For now, families booking summer flights can enjoy a temporary VAT cut at the theme-park turnstile, but the smart money in the aviation lobby is on a rather chillier autumn at the airport check-in desk.

Read more:
Labour eyes £1bn VAT raid on airport charges in stealth blow to family holidays

After years of quiet desperation in Stoke-on-Trent, the kilns finally have something to celebrate. The government has unveiled a £120 million support package for the UK ceramics industry, ending a prolonged lobbying campaign by manufacturers and trade bodies who had warned that one of Britain’s oldest industrial sectors was being allowed to slip away.

The funding, announced by business secretary Peter Kyle alongside chancellor Rachel Reeves, is split evenly: £60 million in capital grants to help manufacturers invest in new equipment, energy efficiency and decarbonisation, and a further £60 million to ease the punishing operational costs that have brought several household names to their knees. Eligible firms across refractory products, clay building materials, household ceramics and technical ceramics will be able to apply when the scheme opens later this summer, according to the official announcement from the Department for Business and Trade.

For Rob Flello, chief executive of trade body Ceramics UK, the package is vindication of a campaign that has at times felt like shouting into a void. He said he was “delighted” with the decision, calling it “a fantastic recognition of the importance of the UK ceramics industry,” and confirmed that Ceramics UK had been asked to work directly with civil servants on the scheme’s design and delivery.

“We’ve got manufacturers that have been around for many hundreds of years,” Flello added. “We want to have manufacturers that are around for the next few hundred years. It’s really about making sure this money is spent wisely and well, and achieves the maximum potential it can.”

He conceded the funding had come too late for some firms, but said it had been “long fought for” and represented a hard-won breakthrough after sustained lobbying.

A sector hit by every conceivable headwind

The relief, while substantial, lands on an industry that has been battered by an unusually brutal cocktail of pressures. Gas accounts for roughly 90 per cent of the energy consumed in ceramics production, a structural reliance that has left the sector painfully exposed to the price shocks triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Previous government support targeted largely at electricity bills, manufacturers complain, has offered only marginal relief.

That frustration has been simmering for some time. Earlier this year, the trade union GMB publicly criticised the design of the British Industrial Competitiveness Scheme, arguing that ceramics and brickmaking had been overlooked in favour of electricity-intensive industries — a perceived snub that galvanised the lobbying effort behind the new package.

The damage of the past few years is visible across north Staffordshire. The number of ceramics firms in the area has fallen from 137 in 2018 to 123 in 2024, according to research commissioned by Stoke-on-Trent City Council and compiled by Kada and Ortus Economic Research. Denby Pottery in Derbyshire entered administration earlier this year, citing rising energy and labour costs; manufacturing at the site ceased in April with the loss of more than 100 jobs. Royal Stafford has also collapsed. Moorcroft, the storied Stoke-on-Trent maker, only survived after being rescued by its founder’s grandson last year.

Iain Martin, chief executive of Emma Bridgewater, whose own business has absorbed a £1.4 million loss against the backdrop of soaring input costs, described the announcement as “positive” after a long run of bad news.

“We’re very grateful for any support we can get,” he said. The industry, he added, had faced “quite severe headwinds in the past few years” around energy costs, labour costs and competition from overseas. “This represents a very welcome support from the government, which I think the whole industry will be very pleased with.”

He noted that “significant British brands” had “fallen over” in recent times. “There are 120 brands left and we have a future,” he said. “The money can’t come soon enough really.”

Why Whitehall blinked

The political calculation behind the funding is not difficult to read. Rachel Reeves and Peter Kyle have framed the package as part of a wider commitment to economic resilience and to safeguarding the industrial base that supplies sectors regarded as strategically critical.

“At a time of global uncertainty it’s never been more important to ensure Britain’s resilience and back the industries our country depends on,” Kyle said. “This funding will support thousands of jobs and put businesses on a secure footing for the long term.”

Reeves echoed the point, noting that “the chemicals and ceramics industries underpin our economic resilience and support skilled jobs across the UK.” The wider announcement also included £350 million for the chemicals sector, reflecting concern in the Treasury that energy-intensive manufacturing in Britain has been quietly losing ground to European rivals.

The research commissioned by Stoke-on-Trent City Council made the case bluntly: ceramics is a “vital component” of supply chains across aerospace, defence, clean energy and electronics. Advanced and technical ceramics, sanitaryware and refractory products have seen net company worth rise since 2018, with supply chain turnover up 35 per cent between 2018 and 2024 — a reminder that, properly supported, this is far from a sunset industry.

The campaign to secure the support extended well beyond Westminster. The GMB had previously pushed ministers to showcase UK pottery in British embassies worldwide, a piece of soft-power advocacy that helped keep the sector’s plight on the political agenda.

What happens next

Attention now turns to the detail. Flello and Ceramics UK will spend the coming weeks working with officials on the application process, the eligibility thresholds, and how the £60 million capital pot will be apportioned between firms still investing for the long term and those simply trying to keep the lights on.

The mood among manufacturers remains cautious. Few in Stoke-on-Trent believe £120 million alone solves a problem that has been a generation in the making, and structural questions about UK industrial gas pricing remain unresolved. But for the first time in several years, the country’s ceramics industry has reason to believe it has been heard.

“I’m really delighted for the industry,” said Flello. “I can’t wait to get sleeves rolled up and work out how we’re going to spend it.”

Read more:
Potters win £120m rescue as government finally backs Britain’s ceramics heartland

The founder of 4Networking lost a £2 million business in an afternoon, then spent four years being smeared online by a woman he had met for 30 seconds.

In an unflinching conversation with Richard Alvin, he describes the four seconds that nearly ended it all, and the platform failures he now wants the next Secretary of State to put right.

There is a moment, about twenty minutes into our conversation, when Brad Burton goes very still. We are talking about the period in 2022 when his business had collapsed, his stalker was posting fifteen lies a day across LinkedIn, Facebook, Instagram and X, and the platforms were responding to his complaints with cut-and-paste boilerplate. He is sitting at his desk in Somerset, the same desk he sat at then.

“Four seconds,” he says. “For four seconds, I thought I can’t do this anymore.” He pauses. “Luckily those four seconds happened when I was sat at my desk, as in another setting the outcome might have been different, either way it motivated me to go to the doctors and get some antidepressants. Hadn’t done them for 25 years. That just shows you how severe this was.”

It is a remark, delivered in the matter-of-fact Salford cadence familiar to anyone who has ever booked Burton for a keynote, that reframes the whole interview. Britain’s self-styled “number one motivational speaker”, the man who built 4Networking from a £25,000 debt and a pile of pizza delivery sheets in 2006 into the country’s largest face-to-face business network — was, on his own admission, four seconds from a very different ending.

We had sat down for the latest edition of the ‘In Conversation Podcast’ to talk about three things, all of them, in his view, urgent for anyone running a small business in 2026: how you rebuild when turnover goes to zero with no playbook; what happens when the professional platform you have anchored your reputation to stops protecting you; and what resilience, mental, financial, reputational, actually looks like on the other side. They proved to be the same story.

From £2.3 million to nought in a single afternoon

The first collapse was televised. On 20 March 2020, with 4Networking turning over £2.3 million a year at its peak and running 5,000 face-to-face breakfast meetings in Premier Inns and Brewers Fayre up and down the country, Boris Johnson told the country to stay at home.

“When you’re running 5,000 networking meetings in Brewers Fayres and Holiday Inn Expresses up and down the land, that’s a problem,” Burton says, with characteristic understatement. The original assumption that “this will be a short pause, we’ll be back”, turned into a “dance of the seven veils”, a fortnightly extension that he believes did more damage than honesty would have.

Burton’s response was to invoke what he calls his 24/24/24 framework. “If I can’t make a decision in 24 seconds, revisit in 24 minutes. If after 24 minutes I can’t make a decision, I revisit in 24 hours. If after 24 hours I can’t make a decision, I’ve just made a decision, it’s not important. Next.” Within days, 4Networking had become the first network in the country to move wholesale onto Zoom, under the banner 4N Online. He calls it “drawing a picture of a sandwich when you’re hungry”, a holding measure rather than a substitute. He exited the company in 2022.

That should have been the story: a textbook British SME pivot, a clean founder exit, a man in his early fifties moving on to keynotes and books. It was not.

Thirty seconds at Aston Villa

In January 2019, at one of Burton’s personal development events at Aston Villa Football Club, a woman in an audience of around 200 was introduced to him by a mutual contact and asked for a selfie. The exchange lasted less than a minute. Her name was Sam Wall.

A year later, with Britain locked down and Burton’s identity as the country’s networking-in-chief evaporating in real time, Wall began posting on social media. The first post was vague; the second referenced “a high-profile speaker”; the third named him. Within days she had 30,000 LinkedIn followers, more than Burton’s own, and was alleging he had given her death threats, poisoned her cat, slashed her tyres and put a tracker on her car. Burton was 200 miles away in Somerset throughout lockdown.

“I was 200 miles away in lockdown and being accused of poisoning her cat — and Linkedin did nothing”

“People don’t do checks and measures on social media,” he says. “It was a modern-day witch hunt. I was guilty until proven innocent.” A cease-and-desist letter, served at a cost of £3,000, was promptly photographed and posted to her feed beneath the caption: “I’m not allowing this guy to bully me into submission.” Supporters cheered her on. Speaking engagements began to be quietly cancelled. Family members were drawn in.

The legal road, when he finally took it, was as slow as it was bruising. A statement given at Taunton police station vanished from the system. Wall was arrested, bailed for 30 days, “30 days of peace”, and resumed her campaign, in Burton’s recollection, “30 days and 10 minutes later”. She forged what purported to be a stalker protection order against him and posted it online. She wrote a 22,000-word article about him on LinkedIn. By his own count, she made roughly 500 posts about him across the major platforms over four years.

In March 2025, the case finally reached a national audience. BBC Panorama broadcast My Online Stalker, presented by Darragh MacIntyre, with Burton and the Manchester tech entrepreneur Naomi Timperley as its central voices. Channel 4’s Social Media Monsters followed with a second-episode treatment of the same case. ITV covered the sentencing. In October 2025, at Minshull Street Crown Court, Sam Wall was jailed for 28 months for what Judge Neil Usher described as a “prolonged, deliberate and calculated” campaign and an “unrelenting barrage” that was “breathtaking” in its scope.

Burton’s case is one of the fewer than two per cent of stalking complaints in this country that result in a conviction.

“There is no leadership at LinkedIn”

It is the response of the platforms, and one platform in particular, that animates him now. Wall’s LinkedIn account, as of publication, remains live, and so does much of the content she posted about him. Business Matters has previously reported on the mounting pressure on LinkedIn to act.

“We contacted LinkedIn legals. We contacted support. We tagged in everybody,” Burton says. “Not a single piece of content came down. We had people from America come on Zoom calls, they wouldn’t even turn the cameras on, saying, ‘She’s not doing anything illegal.’ I said, ‘What happens if she gets convicted?’ They said, ‘If she gets convicted, do let us know and we’ll see what we can do.’ So guess what? We let them know. They did nothing about it.”

Top-tier legal advice, he says, surfaced a structural problem: LinkedIn hides behind European law jurisdictionally rooted in Ireland and corporate decision-making rooted in California. “They’ve got this double moat. Nobody wanted to champion it.” Reporting Wall’s account, by design, blocked the reporter from her output rather than removing it. “That’s not a solution.”

If he had ten minutes with the Secretary of State and LinkedIn’s UK MD, what would he ask for? “Imagine if on your platform, I called you this, and I said this about your family. Would you ignore it and block me? Or would you make some changes and get me off the platform? That is exactly what should have happened here. Your business is people, and that’s the bit that’s been lost.” He goes further: there is, he says, “no leadership” at the UK level. “Nobody stepped forward and said, ‘I’m the UK managing director. I’m going to sort this crap.’”

It is a critique that lands at a moment when the regulatory tide is turning. The Online Safety Act is reshaping platform obligations in the UK, and stalking prosecutions, although still woefully low against a high base of reported offences, are at a record high. Burton’s case is the gap between the law and its enforcement made flesh.

Building the antidote

What Burton always does, and is doing again, is build. His new venture, Motivational Business Network, has opened for paid membership at £75 a month, vetted, deliberately slow, and capped at the kind of room size where, as he puts it, “you go and put yourself in a room with 50 people who are on side and positive, and tell me that’s a waste of time.”

The product cue is something called Shine: every member receives 100 daily “Shine points” they can award to others for genuine help, the awards visible on a member’s profile as social proof. “When everyone’s shouting, no one’s listening,” he says. “We’ve got to start getting quieter. We’ve got to start talking again. Less AI, more human.”

He pauses, the Salford grin back in place. “When I built 4Networking, it was a wobbly Jenga tower. This time we’re building it slow, methodical. No rush. Let’s get it right, not right now, which goes 100 per cent against everything I’ve ever done.”

For a man who came within four seconds of a different outcome, “right, not right now” sounds less like a strapline and more like a hard-won operating principle. British business, and the platforms that profess to serve it, would do well to take the note.

Read more:
Brad Burton interview: how the UK’s no.1 motivational speaker rebuilt after lockdown wiped out 4Networking, and survived a four-year online stalking campaign