Member Info for Bfdinvestor

I'd agree that the remuneration committee got it wrong

His actual salary of £650k is less than the previous CEO was paid and isn't particularly high for a CEO

He wasnt paid anywhere near that as the actual figures I've posted show southcoast.

And the Debenhams figures are mainly long term incentives relating to his entire term at Debenhams where it went from nothing to nearly £700m GMV

Can't help lying to work that CFD can you?

MT go and have a look at p98 of the annual report, it is all there.

It's Adobe so I can't paste it ATM

Lloyd the related party figure you refer to is $260k.

This could purely relate to Semnet as there is no further breakdown given

What we don't know is Finley's salary in the first seven months of the year when he was just heading up Debenhams.com. I'd guess about £300k.

Which would mean his actual cash salary and bonus, excluding legacy benefits, would be £1.35m

Rather than ask dumb questions southcoast, here is the appropriate detail from the annual report. Additionally he was paid a

2025 package

Annual salary £650k

cash bonus of £400k .

Legacy awards

Share awards vesting immediately 1.1m

Partially vested shares 1.7m and 290k

cash award 1.1m

It's also worth noting that Finley's salary is considerably less than John Lyttle was paid and no bonus scheme is yet in place per the annual report

Adderblack there is one other troll I've filtered who uses exactly that saying.

How many log ins do you have kiddo

As for the rest of your verbal diarrhoea I haven't got a clue what you are on about.

As for your previous post, I don't post defamatory and libellous comments unlike southcoast.

Oh dear super mouse demonstrating supreme stupidity again

Go and look up how fraud works half wit

So southcoast npw you are claiming they have deliberately misled the market and the auditors are complicit in the deception

#desperate for money

Again, this is my belief and I don't tey to force it down anyone else's throat...Its my opinion you could say also.

The number of times you have posted this says otherwise

Keep working the CFD though you must be desperate for the money

So Bob Holt asked others to think about something southcoast

You are stating it as a definite opinion

Totally different

There is a reason Revb Couches their statement in legalese.

Maybe you should learn from them and stop posting outright lies.

You must be desperate for the CFD money

Bob Holt said nothing of the sort as far as I'm aware.

You are stating that Kamani's haven't disclosed their total holdings or a concert party position which is basically illegal.

It's one of a long string of outright lies you have told southcoast.

You clearly hold no shares here so why continue to do it.

I don't respond to all your posts, just the most outrageously stupid ones.

If you stop making lying statements I will have no reason to respond

Danners Bernard is correct

AISC normally doesn't include tax as it's an operational cost measure

I don't believe the ownership of this company is truly reflected by the rns history

So once again southcoast you are claiming illegal behaviour.

The moderators really need to ban you

So you managed to miss a £1m buy a whole two months ago unhooked.

That's some top research

Not like you don't have form lol

The idiot is just trying to pick an argument, an AGM is never going to be an announcement scenario.

They know the upgrade is there

Southcoast strange that you don't understand the role of market makers at all.

Maybe it's not so strange given you hold no shares lol

Simon

You are wrong

Not often Hexam and I agree but on this one we do

Market makers are there to provide liquidity not match a buyer to a seller.

End of

Mt every trade does not have a buyer and a seller. That is a fallacy. Market makers are supposed to create liquidity, which they don't do here.

Market makers haven't tried to make a market in months

Volume is a fraction of historic levels

Market makers know traders won't buy into a down trend. They also know that shorts, who are doing most of the selling, have to buy back so they could call their bluff. They choose not to.

Market makers could also look at their data and see that the only time their is an uptick in volume is when they increase the sp.

Taking all of the above into account, either they are totally incompetent or have no interest in creating a market.

Low volumes should encourage volatility, the fact they don't here is a sign in itself

Twice the volume of buys as sells yesterday yet the sp went down. Market makers know the sort messaging they are creating