Member Info for JeffMills

Well then. Tuna seemed absolutely manic and desperate last night—and it was obvious to everyone. Ranting about CEO pay, dragging up accounts from 2016… who spends their Friday night doing that?

And this is the same guy who said he was in around 50p, while claiming at 25p it wasn’t even worth that.

Truth is, I think the meltdown was because he saw it coming. Back to 76p on a Friday—nearly 2% up—isn’t how a real correction behaves going into a weekend.

Rent free spicy!! I’ll leave it at that for the sake of the chat.

Someone’s rattled—I just replied to your posts. 😳🤣

So just to be clear—you’ve admitted to spamming the chat seven times in a row, talking to no one, then guessed it might be me behind a few green posts… all while claiming you’ve got me filtered? 🙈

Spicy’s back in with a spreadsheet full of salaries, pretending he’s just uncovered state-level corruption. You can almost hear the dramatic music in the background as he reveals… wait for it… a £500K salary for a CEO running a £500M clean energy firm in a strategically critical, subsidy-backed sector in Europe in 2025. Shocking scenes. Call the Serious Fraud Office.

You’ve got Dennis Schulz—brought in to actually clean up and deliver commercial scale—earning less than some mid-tier law firm partners. And you’re acting like this is a heist? These aren’t bonuses for pushing paper; they’re for running a deep-tech, manufacturing-heavy infrastructure business through one of the most ambitious decarbonisation shifts in Europe.

The roach is rattled, clearly. Honestly, is Graham renting space in your head? Because he seems more active in your posts than on ITM’s payroll these days. 🤣

Ah yes, from someone who’s supposedly had me on “filter” for months—yet somehow keeps responding every time he’s cornered. It’s almost like debating someone who actually understands the industry is a bit too much for you, so you just pretend I don’t exist. Must be easier that way.

Now onto this latest “CEO comp = red flag” masterpiece. You’re quoting Graham Cooley’s pay like it’s some kind of exposé, ignoring the fact that most of it was performance-linked equity during a time when ITM’s market cap ballooned and the hydrogen sector was booming globally.

Of course there were losses—this is a capital-intensive, deep-tech infrastructure company scaling into a policy-led market. It’s not a coffee shop. You think early-stage companies shouldn’t pay leadership during growth phases? Show me a CEO who built anything in clean tech without running losses.

You keep copy-pasting generic investment “warning signs” like they’re some universal truth, but they fall apart the moment you actually apply them to the real dynamics of the hydrogen sector. You’re not making a point—you’re just badly rewording Investopedia and hoping no one notices.

If you want to argue, at least bring something original. Otherwise, maybe stick to the filter story. It’s more believable than your takes. 🥱🥱🤣🤣

Like I said, he doesn’t work for an hedge fund outfit—he just likes to pretend he does. More likely just a bin man behind a keyboard. No offence to any actual bin men out there.

So you’ve just discovered that R&D-heavy growth companies run at a loss while compensating their CEOs with equity? Incredible. Keep going spicy!

😳😂😂

Spicy’s latest masterstroke: pulling out CEO pay figures from 2016 like he’s just uncovered fraud at Enron. Quoting Graham Cooley’s total compensation from seven years ago—as if it has any bearing on ITM’s 2025 position—is honestly embarrassing.

Yes, he was well paid. It was the peak of the hydrogen boom, ITM’s share price was flying and investor sentiment was off the charts. That’s exactly when equity-based compensation spikes. It’s not a scandal—it’s how listed growth companies work.

Dragging up historical salary data like it’s some smoking gun just shows how desperate Spicy’s gotten. No mention of balance sheet, pipeline, EU-scale electrolyser targets, or actual 2025 market dynamics. Just reheated outrage from a time when he probably wasn’t even following the stock.

It’s not analysis—it’s clickbait dressed up as commentary. And it’s painfully obvious he has no real grasp of how public companies or clean tech actually operate.

Spicy tuna out done himself here 😳

“ITM Power was founded 25 years ago and still isn’t expected to be profitable for at least three more years.”

→ Yeah, because it spent the first 15+ years as a research outfit when the hydrogen market didn’t even exist commercially. Not every company starts by selling laptops out of a garage. Different tech. Different market. Different timeline.

⸻

“Apple became profitable within four years of its founding, before the IPO.”

→ Selling consumer electronics in the ’80s vs building industrial electrolyser systems in a sector that only started getting government traction in the last five years. That’s like comparing a food truck to building a nuclear reactor.

⸻

“Alibaba became profitable within three years of launch.”

→ In 1999 China, with basically zero e-commerce competition and a population of a billion. You’re comparing a digital marketplace in an emerging economy with zero CapEx… to green hydrogen infrastructure in a policy-led, multi-decade energy transition. Serious mismatch.

⸻

“Uber became profitable within 14 years.”

→ And only after billions in VC burn, endless regulatory battles, and questionable definitions of “profitability.” They didn’t invent a product. They monetized existing infrastructure. ITM’s building it from scratch.

⸻

“Amazon became profitable in seven years.”

→ On digital retail margins and logistics. ITM is building hardware for a fuel that governments only recently committed to scaling. Not exactly apples to apples.

⸻

“Tesla became profitable within 10 years.”

→ After multiple near-bankruptcies, billions in bailouts, and while selling $100K+ EVs to early adopters in a bull market. ITM isn’t riding a meme wave—it’s laying the plumbing for an entirely new energy system.

⸻

“The total years combined of all those companies is still 7 years less than ITM’s expected period of losses.”

→ Amazing stat if you completely ignore what those companies did, what market they were in, and what ITM actually builds.

It’s 2025, and tuna still don’t seem to get the scale of what’s happening. The EU’s targeting 40GW of electrolyser capacity by 2030, Germany’s going for 10GW, and the IEA sees global capacity hitting 230GW. Even if targets get trimmed, that’s still absolutely massive.

To hit 500MW a year, you only need to be a tiny player in this space—like 1–2% of what’s rolling out. That’s nothing.

He acts like it’s some unreachable goal, but it’s not. It’s just where this sector’s heading. We’ve seen this before—solar went from basically nothing to over 200GW in Europe alone once governments backed it properly. Hydrogen’s now entering that exact phase.

So when Spicy Tuna’s out here saying “it’s not happening,” “it’s just handshakes,” or whatever his latest pivot is, it’s clear he has no real grasp of the sector. Just Google searches and a bias.

Take a step back—the numbers speak for themselves.

€700 million in green hydrogen subsidies—and now that apparently means nothing? Thought this sector was “dead” earlier in the week. Now it’s “too far off” or “doesn’t move the needle.” If this is what dead looks like, I’ll take it..

And on the whole “500MW per year” thing—like that’s some impossible mountain? Solar PV capacity in Europe scaled from a few gigawatts to over 200GW in under a decade. Electrolysers will follow the same path—faster, if anything, with government backing and decarbonisation targets baked in. ITM doesn’t need miracles—just a slice of a market that’s about to explode tuna pants.

Ended the day up 1.8% going into weekend. Not bad for something supposedly in a “downward correction,” right Spicy Tuna? Evidence in sp right lol… 😳

Netherlands just announced over €700 million in green hydrogen subsidies today—and honestly, this is exactly why final investment decisions have been dragging. Why commit hundreds of millions when you know major government support is right around the corner? Companies are clearly waiting to see how these incentives fall into place before pulling the trigger. It’s not hesitation—it’s strategy.

It’s only a matter of time before one of the big 500MW or 300MW projects drops for ITM. Once the policy tailwinds land, the floodgates open.

Also, gotta laugh—Spicy Tuna out here acting like he’s some industry authority. I’d bet good money he’s not qualified to run a business, let alone lecture on how to manage a £500m clean tech company. Armchair CEO with a keyboard and a crisis fetish.

If the recovery off the lows triggers you this badly, maybe you’re just mad you missed the move. Either press management with real questions or accept that some of us are here for the upside—not to play forum vigilante every time the share price takes a breath.

Here we go again with the “we need to hold management accountable” speech, like you’re leading some shareholder uprising. Meanwhile, the stock’s tripled from the lows, sentiment’s finally turning….

Yes, it dropped from 700p. So did every overhyped clean tech name during the 2021 unwind. That wasn’t “management betrayal”—that was the entire market re-rating. But ITM’s not dead. It’s moving. Commercial deals are starting to flow, production capacity’s being built out, and the tech actually works. That’s why the stock’s recovering, not because a few “rampers” are clapping on a message board.

And Dennis? People aren’t worshiping him—they’re just not throwing tantrums because the company didn’t become profitable overnight in a capital-intensive, cutting-edge industry. If you think leadership is doing nothing, go look at other hydrogen players that still haven’t moved past the prototype stage.

Ah yes, the weekly tuna “profit vs. cash generative” explainer—rolled out like it’s breaking news.

Let’s unpack a few things though:

Yes, ITM is projecting a £25–26m net loss this year—as per guidance. No one’s pretending otherwise. But conveniently skipping over the H2 cash generative guidance—the bit that signals improving operational efficiency—is where your argument starts to fall apart.

As for the £161m cash usage over 3 years:

ITM scaled from a pilot-stage firm to a functioning production business.

It survived an energy market collapse, geopolitical shocks, and a reset of global hydrogen expectations.

It rebuilt its leadership, slashed costs, and is now pivoting from burn to build.

You quote “7 MW sold” this FY like it’s some static figure, ignoring that the market pipeline is expanding, with 1 GW in "handshake deal" and real commercial traction (not government subsistence like in earlier years). That figure grows quarter-on-quarter—and yes, it takes time to convert, especially in an emerging infrastructure sector.

And as for “the share price tells you everything”—it dropped to 25p earlier this year. If price was perfect truth, then the company must have been worth less than its office furniture, right? Then it rallied to 96p in a few weeks. Where was this airtight logic then?

This obsession with “cash burn” without context is a hallmark of lazy short theses. Yes, ITM has challenges. Yes, execution matters. But trying to frame a turnaround strategy mid-execution as failure is just desperate.

As for your market sentiment prophecy—this is the same market that tanked ITM to 25p before quadrupling in short order. So forgive some of us for not reading daily volatility as divine truth. Idiot.

Yes, the company is guiding for adjusted EBITDA losses in FY25. That’s been stated repeatedly. yes, the business is cash generation in H2—which, for those keeping up, suggests a trajectory toward break-even, not a declaration that it’s already there. You're pointing at a halfway-built bridge and shouting “it doesn’t go anywhere!”

Your dramatic "NET LOSS OF 25 MILLION!!!" point is just the natural outcome of that same guidance. You say it like it’s a surprise revelation rather than, you know, exactly what’s expected as part of a planned turnaround.

As for the chart watching—yes, we might break 70p. We might bounce back to 90p. That’s called volatility. ITM saw 20% daily swings at 700p, but you somehow think it’s a crisis now? You've been calling for a correction since 50p. We hit 96p. You vanished. Then returned when it ticked down again like clockwork.

No one’s saying ITM is risk-free. But if your entire thesis is “they haven’t instantly solved all challenges,” that’s not insight—it’s just a refusal to grasp how growth companies work.