Member Info for Bfdinvestor

Billy this fits in with the 36m contract potentially, which we know is largely hardware based. Despite the nonsense Chaebol posts, it's good to see a growth business needing more staff. Small businesses only recruit when they know they can cover the headcount cost

Genuinely kat what is the point of this kind of pointless goading nonsense.

Especially from somebody who has stated multiple times they will no longer post on this board.

The only conclusion is you have some kind of addiction to posting here

Mirabeau, personally I think you should be setting your sp expectations significantly higher, especially if that is your best case

Hexam you have just proved my point.

Knowing he would need to buy one in every two shares to fulfill his goal, you would really sell your shares for a 40% premium to today's price or a 15% premium to where the sp was a week ago

I think you would probably be in a very small club

The last thing I want is for Boo to buy another business. Some of the problems of the last couple of years have been caused by biting off more than they could chew.

They have enough good brands to focus on for now, they need to work them hard, especially Debenhams

It's just one of many southcoast. And ofcourse the need to buy one of every two shares in issue would have very little impact on the sp according to Hexam.

He should maybe take a look at the company he keeps. I see Bon Scott is posting his fantasy abuse again with no challenge from Hexam

Hexam have a look at yourself

The number I posted wasn't highly misleading at all. It served to prove a point and stimulate some more actual debate.

What was misleading was that same poster commenting on revenue rumours.

My objective in pointing out one set of nonsense was that the other was nonsense too.

Once again, it's strange that you didn't comment on that. Or maybe it isn't. The basics Hexam equation seems to be

Anything negative equals good

Anything remotely positive equals bad.

Do you agree with my basic point Hexam, that Frasers aren't going to take on ASOS debt.

Strange you didn't comment on that

Hexam you are so funny

Maybe try taking a critical view of the trolls

Or maybe try to hold true to what you often state, that you don't engage in personal attacks

Hypocritical or what!

I simply took the top line figure from the fundamentals here to illustrate a point. Couldn't be bothered to dig deeper as it wasn't worth my time.

The point being that Frasers aren't going to take on the substantial debt of a company they own a minority stake in.

Somebody needs to point out the garbage that gets posted on here

Frasers hold a minority stake in ASOS. Are you genuinely suggesting they would secure ASOS £1bn debt pile against Frasers balance sheet.

Are you aware how much debt Frasers has.

You must be having a laugh

So are now saying there is no such business in Frasers group as Frasers Capital?

Kat apparently wasn't going to post here again until the sp hit .5

Enough said, more than enough actually

So what you are saying Rio is that there is no substantiation to what you are saying.

Rumoured by who, surely not Spideystreet, Bon Scott and Hexam

History may repeat itself Steve, but not as often as you do

Wow there's a bit of fud being put out on here

Bernie isn't going to sell for fractions of a penny. Long term holders like myself with averages in the 0.2s arent going to vote for a sale in fractions of pennies. And it would have to be put to a vote.

If anyone has been buying massively to try to force a cheap buy out, then a TR1 would have been forthcoming by now. Nor has there been the volume in the last few months to support several large buyers.

The licence will transfer, this is nothing like the Leo situation.

Lorries will start to arrive on site by some point next week.

This is all looking good

Not so sure it says anything about H1 Hexam, especially if they were examining the option last year as the article says. The £75m also shouldn't be an issue unless they have been splurging the cash in a way that seems totally unfeasible.

If it's part of a longer term strategy to pay off debt totally or atleast take it back below £100m then that is probably ok. But if it does happen, then for once they need to explain it properly, especially if they do sell it for a loss.

It's interesting tho that all these stories are appearing at the same time and not from the business

Inst

I would like to understand why they want to sell and lease back, if indeed that is the plan.

I'd far rather they kept it and lent against it if necessary, rather than paying millions for an RCF they have never used and then paying rent.

Great to see the Tradey fantasy still living rent free in your heads

Nothing to add to a grown up debate Bon Scott.

And if Hexam thinks he is being "sniped at" ,which he isn't, I'm sure he can speak for himself.

Although we all know he will never criticise a troll...