Member Info for Bfdinvestor

Just can't help yourself can you southcoast

As I posted before, there is a note under the table that states Mahmud Kamani has agreed to waive his salary until November 2025

So, once he starts taking a salary again, it will be the same monthly figure as Kane. But at the moment he isn't being paid per the previous RNS communication.

Rather than admit you are wrong, you would rather double down on a lie.

What kind of person does that make you southcoast

Southcoast please go back and reread the table and particularly the note under it.

Which states that Mahmud Kamani has agreed to waive his salary until November 2025.

Then come back and apologise for misleading this board again

November 2024 agreed to waive salary for 12 months, that was also reiterated in Jan this year.

How long did that last ?

The year end accounts show that Kamani wasn't paid for the last three months of the year.

Where has it been announced that he is taking a salary again CWWX

Where has it been posted that he is being paid southcoast

I would guess that depends on what the original RNS said

Why not go and check if you are that bothered

Topman joins forces with New York Jets with new collection

Well done them

Must explain why Topshop has a higher valuation than all of the Debs brands together

But why not go and discuss it on the ASOS page southcoast

Oh wait.....

Bon Scott your posting history shows that rather than welcome good news you would try to disparage it.

Good to see you are focusing on the Tradey fetish, it really is all you are good for

Why are you and bon Scott expending so much energy trying to drown out any potential piece of good news southcoast.

It's strange two people who post nowhere else would waste so much time on here despite thinking the business is doomed

Strange southcoast, you don't recognise the meaning of the word "if"

It seems your acquaintance with the truth is becoming more and more distant

And more of the hyperbolic nonsense which only embarrasses you more bon Scott.

Rather than posting more of the same rubbish why not go and understand how disclosure regulations work

Although I suppose they only really matter to actual investors...

Not quite true Hexam

Firstly, if its a buyer or two taking a reasonable stake then its a sign of confidence.

Secondly in total, if it's buyers, then that is another 4% out of the free float, which would be good for the sp medium term.

No alleged porkies at all Chaebol

You stated that Tim had filtered your email name.

That's a total porkie

As I asked CWWX southcoast, can you name anybody who could have had that level of holding and why sell at an all time low?

So Bon Scott you still embarrass yourself with your lack of understanding of the rules around disclosure. So lets make it really simple for you

An existing major holder has to notify every time they pass a 1% threshold. Frasers hold about 29.7% so if they sold 0.8% they would have to notify as they would cross a 1% threshold.

The EBT has notified this morning because their buy has taken them above the 4% threshold.

So we know for certain that none of the existing major shareholders were responsible for the large trades.

Therefore, it is most likely that they were new buyers staying below the 3% disclosure threshold

Maybe it's best that you just stick to your Tradey fetish as it seems it's all you are good for

Maybe John Smith shouldn't be going to his junk folder?

Maybe you shouldn't be telling porkies Chaebol

There was no 0-3% RNS

Wow are you genuinely that uneducated Bon Scott.

There is no disclosure requirement until 3% has been breached. The largest individual trade was less than that.

You really need to stop embarrassing yourself and go and read the rules

I guess you don't understand the most basic of rules Bon Scott.

I'll make it really simple for you

A new buyer of equity doesn't have to disclose its position until the position is greater than 3% of the total share capital.

Do you get that now

What are you on about Bon Scott

No initial disclosure is required until either 3% or 5% threshold has been crossed.

The biggest individual trade was less than 3%

So whilst an existing buyer or seller would have had to notify, a new buyer would not.

Just go and read the rules, strange CWWX hasn't corrected you

I'm interested CWWX do you see the below as some sort of fact based and substantiated post. Strange you don't comment on this absolute lie, I suppose thats because it fits the troll agenda?

AdderBlack

Posts: 169

Price: 11.85

No Opinion

RE: RNSToday 08:17

"Employee Benefit Trust". I see more self-enrichments going on

As posted before, maybe you could suggest who the sellers could have been, given there have been no RNS?

Any movement over a 1% threshold requires immediate notification, has any been given?