Member Info for Globex

Correct, and when you have £1.8bn+ of accumulated losses risk premium is high

Clever move, he'll know better than anyone from bitter experience with Debenhams mk1 that when things get messy creditors trounce equity in the rankings.

If he manages to position himself as senior lender, then later on it falls into administration, he gets his takeover without having to buy a single additional share and Kamamis left with nothing.

It would be a strange paradox to unlock shareholder value, only to then not return it.

Perhaps once unlocked the plan is to put that shareholder value in a little box and then not tell anyone about it for fear of returning value.

Putting aside however much they get along privately, it would be good if MA did turn a bit nasty along the lines of his shouting match over at Boo. Not that it helped their share price, the opposite if anything, if only for a big shareholder to finally and publicly hold the current THG management to account.

Good post hopeclothing and food for thought. There must be countless other stories like yours. You don't see a share price fall of this magnitude with a company that was once valued so highly without creating a lot of damage that has affected real people in the process. It's a scandal what management have overseen here.

You are asking the right questions BrokeNSmoke. Management clearly problematic but now goes beyond Sorrell's limitations - whole sector taking a hammering, even competently run companies like Interpublic and Omnicom down approaching 20% in year to date. The model is facing some pretty big structural challenges.

Bfdinvestor

No chance Revb goes for anywhere close to 15p. It's on the cusp of falling over, chances of it going for 100%+ premium from here are zero.

It's staying dual listed so nothing changes to the UK shares.

If at a future point they ditch the (what will now become secondary) LSE listing, there would be a corporate action where they'd convert to US shares.

Good points re madman's health, agree he does not look a well man, to the extent his bonce curiously devoid of any grey looks even more at odds with the pained Gordon Ramsey style 'laughter lines'. Pretty clear it's in his (as well as everyone else's) best interests to do the honourable thing. Urgently.

What is certain it won't be a conventional takeover when Boohoo totally lack enough cash to buy remaining shares, let alone pay a premium. Because of that I'm certain what's happening here is them cooking up a scheme to take it out on cheap. Could be an equity deal, Revb paper for Boohoo paper. Thing is Revb's whopping RCF needs sorting asap, hard deadline for that only 4 months away, Boohoo equity pretty useless for that.

Frankly they might as well let it fall into administration but sunk cost fallacy + Kamani pride will no doubt put a stop to that happening.

Not surprised about Minto. Boohoo effectively ousting Bob Holt and reshaping the board in their image needed the founders onside to get the votes through at time. When you look at founders % together with Boo's they really can do whatever they want to Revb.

To stand down together, immediately and at this key stage for company - just before results, offer deadline and Ian Mac being appointed chair - speaks volumes. Equally telling how they are two of the remaining independent board members. Revb have absolutely zero autonomy now. Boohoo have it entirely stitched up .

After giving it all that large about being indexed, to then be booted out at first opportunity a quarter later, let's all take a moment to reflect upon what an absolute wally Moulding is.

Https://www.lseg.com/en/media-centre/press-releases/ftse-russell/2025/ftse-uk-index-series-annual-review-june-2025

What may or may not be interesting is them reporting holdings in aggregate, taking them to 29%, up from Boo's last previously disclosed level which afaik was around 27%. Combined they only a whisker away from 30% threshold.

Also worth noting how it includes Ian Mac who has now been appointed chair of Revb. The conflicts of interest are pretty dire here. Not to mention both using Zeus as broker. Any independent holder of Revb could quite easily get fisted here.

Bit of burying heads in sand here. S4 are far more exposed to tech clients proportionally vs other advisers, so if likes of Meta are utilising AI to this extent already to serve even their downstream customers, you can guarantee the needs of them and likewise peers to use external agencies for own purposes - let for their customers - is in irreversible decline.

At this stage the only appropriate attire for Moulding at the forthcoming AGM is a full head to toe clown suit

I wish you all the best with this Pensioninvestor, sincerely.

Even if I have no time for the rampers who appeared here more recently posting a misleading picture of the company's prospects - those characters definitely still need keeping in check - long term holders like you are a different story, can only sympathise. For anyone holding a little while it is quite scandalous the sheer level of value destruction the company have overseen.

Ad agencies are the canary in the coalmine in age of AI. For them the threat is twofold.

Part one is reduced ad spend because of a re-allocation of budgets towards AI and associated infrastructure. Even Sorrell has acknowledged this part.

Part two is more existential - that AI will be able to do everything an external agency can do, in house, more efficiently and for less cost.

Ad industry looks set to be first major casualty from rise of AI. Dinosaurs like Sorrell have no chance.