Member Info for bloodninja

Mags is back to render the board a mess of nonstop ramping, excellent

17.5m buy, nice

Buy high sell low

Looks like he's been posting since the 30p+ days so unless averaged down is probably feeling a fair amount of pain here, understandable but not helpful, ruins the board as much as clueless rampers

"Ignore the noise" from you mag, genuinely made me laugh, thank you

Thanks for the responses.

HH I'm not young (but thanks), I've a multiple decade career in financial services so not new to this at all. There are no motives here, just trying to identify potential risks and understand them.

RD I appreciate what you're saying but I'm talking about new shares being issued, which happens all the time in companies (more so failing ones unlike this one). I.e. say there are 2 shares in a company, they can issue 2 more shares and whoever owned previous 2 would subsequently have a 50% s/h rather than 100% once new shares are in issue.

404x thanks for the most rationale and polite response!

Bickering had the whole days posts removed by the looks of it my side! Apologies just wanted an answer to a question, seems that s.994 of the Companies Act 2006 would apply if they try to dilute minority stake to nothing once taken private, so there's some comfort there. Back to the regularly scheduled talk of 100p+ now please

HH I'm pretty sure it's not illegal here though, especially when the company is private? Appreciate the genuine discussion on this point, still unsure if the scenario I've suggested is a possibility, but if it was I figure it would likely trash the main shareholder's reputation and make future ventures of his uninvestable by outsiders.

Above does not include you Mag, obviously. You typically just ruin discussion boards with his ramping nonsense, are you EarlOfAim's brother?? Entertaining though so no hard feelings.

RachelsDad, if you issue new shares to yourself at a tiny price it doesn't matter though right? 82% shareholder dilutes himself as he's issued 10 trillion new shares, but he owns the 10 trillion new shares, so what difference does it make?

Mag U f87945ing moron, google my scenario and you'll see that it's entirely legal, entirely unfair but entirely plausible, so please answer me this - why won't the majority shareholder just dilute the 18% to oblivion?

Mag just shown (sadly) that he's a BS'er, I hold here and have followed with interest, I've asked a simple question multiple times but can't get an answer. oh well, back to ramping, here's a few for you morons that we haven't had yet:

the MMs have to let this go soon
there's no stopping this now
NT to buy

STFU, I hold here, haven't sold. Trying to ask a question and getting attacked. F you you f98787ing *****

Could I trouble folks to stop the ramping for a minute and consider how things could play out? Not deramping just genuinely trying to understand potential scenarios. Back to my earlier post - can the major shareholder not just take this private and dilute the remaining 18% to oblivion by issuing tons of shares to himself at a notional price? Example posted earlier:

Take company private. Issue 10 trillion new shares for a total cost of £1 to the major shareholder. Major shareholder could agree this given their majority stake. Remaining free float then diluted to almost nothing. Then sell majority stake.

Is the following scenario a possibility? And if so why wouldn't majority shareholder do this?

Take company private. Issue 10 trillion new shares for a total cost of £1 to the major shareholder. Major shareholder could agree this given their majority stake. Remaining free float then diluted to almost nothing. Then sell majority stake.

Could he sell to one of his affiliated companies for £0.00000000001 per share once it goes private?

HH this was my point earlier, assuming a price of c310p he could've sold his 82% down to 75.01% (i.e. still majority rule) and made c£40m, however (as some moron pointed out in a combative nature) he is a billionaire so probably doesn't care about a few million quid

"better stick to your english teaching carrier haha
share market need skill to trade and not english grammar knowledge lol"

Clearly

masqood I'm not sure if you're having a pop at me with your post or what but in response:

The word is 'advising' not 'advicing', reminds me of an infuriating continuous autocorrect you used to get on Word because it came out by default having been designed by some moron with a feeble command of the English language.

Secondly, the major shareholder could have done EXACTLY what they are currently doing but sold their share on the listed market down to 75.01%, netting themselves c£40m at Thursday's price, and still then owning the majority and diluting all shareholders once they delisted. Seems odd to just miss out on free money!

404x agree on the dilution to infinity route, and that would destroy the remaining shareholders, however, to my earlier post, in going this route you've lost £430m of liquid value...how will you generate this back? they must back themselves big time to just chuck away nearly half a billion! Will take years to recoup so really unsure what's happening here. would've made more sense to sell the holding down to 75%, cash out £40m, and still follow this route! But they haven't done that, can't be that clever...

The 82% shareholder is down £430m from Thursday, must be a hell of a plan if they think they can make more than that taking it private. To someone's earlier post, it seems odd that you would strip your invest value by £430m unless it's to achieve a better outcome, not sure where they're swiftly going to generate £430m of value as quickly as it's been lost though! (Maths based on 310p share price and 82% of 190m shares in issue)