Member Info for WolfofWarks

PeePee - I said Gross Profit, not Operating Profit.

This is the problem with you. You are trying to get involved in financial discussions when you clearly don't have a grasp of the basics.

Most people who don't tend to keep quiet, not turbo spam a board.

PeePee - you're a proper dopey sausage. You cannot compare the net profit of one company to another unless they have exactly the same overhead base. I told you the other day and you didn't take it in then but you need to be looking at the gross profits of both companies to make a more reasonable trading comparison.

Plus just because one company makes a profit in the same industry it doesn't mean the other company is intrinsically bad or that there is something wrong. RevB has had well published problems with the previous management. However it appears to have got over the hill and it could be the better bet going forward.

I don't much about Warpaint - but to make your sweeping statement with so little intelligence is baffling.

This coming from the man who:

- thought that revenue and turnover were different things

- thought distribution costs should be in cost of goods sold

- didn't know the difference between gross and net profit

- didn't know what working capital was

- didn't know what net assets were

So are you saying that RevB is not a growth company and retail hasn't had a terrible 18 months?

If you could actually answer my questions it would be much appreciated.

So why did you say what you said then? It makes no sense.

Stupid is as stupid does eh?

Or maybe they are a growth company turning around after a terrible 18 months for retail.

You dont have talk some rubbish PeePee.

PeePee - they were never trying to oust Jeremy though, even before the AGM.

I like the way they forced the AGM to be held. All the rubbish AGMs I've watched on 'Investor meets company' and this would have been an absolute cracker.

I was trying to find what might happen in this scenario to their holding and couldn't find anything that confirmed either way.

Where directors are found guilty of various offences they can have their assets confiscated but I think Bob was going about a civil settlement rather than anything criminal, not to say stuff isn't ongoing in the background. Either way time wise that would be a long way away.

I would expect the suspension to be lifted because they have a full compliment of directors again and therefore meet the requirements of how many a company needs to list on the AIM.

A temporary reprieve for Bob I feel. I reckon Boohoo will up their stake significantly.

The interesting point is that the former directors appear not to have voted, which for me suggests they realise it would be unwise for them to take part in the governance of the company.

Ah yes the infamous shorting list where he believed shorters were paying fees of nearly 100% daily pmsl.

'FK knows how they are going to get away with it ??? and why would the law protect them and not us ?? '

They are not really getting away with anything. The law prescribes what happens when a company runs our of cash and who gets what after and in what order.

The law has protected you in that your losses are restricted to the value you have paid for your shares and no more.

'Still cannot believe the rationale behind 'Eat out to help out'....giving subsidised meals to middle class people who were awash with cash from lockdown payments. That was a genius idea Rishi....not!'

It was more about bailing out the hospitality industry rather than feeding middle class people.

Unanswered questions PeePee.

There a whole stack of them from your grandiose statements with no substance.

Playing the victim ..... Didn't you post something about internet bullying the other day ....

You must be the most contradictory poster on LSE.

Now if you can answer my question please rather than trying to change the subject - another PeePee trait.

"What do you think this and why is it obvious? "

I've recently renewed by mortgage I've gone variable in the expectation that rates might start coming down in year two and didn't want to fix near to the top. Plus I'm making huge overpayments which a variable facilities.

I think one of the problems is that wages are still going up due to the scarce supply of labour. Interesting results coming from the retail sector of much stronger trading then expected.

I think 40% inflation on milk, etc, only really affects the poorest in society badly.

'AIM aren't obviously happy with REVB so far, so who knows why?

My guess could be the working capital review or as you say the Directors, or maybe even concerns that REVB won't be able to publish the accounts up to 28 February 2023 by 31 August 2023. '

What do you think this and why is it obvious? There's reams of information in both the year end accounts and interim statement about the work that has been done and still to do yet still you come up with conspiracy theories. It's clear from the accounts and the interims and subsequent update that RevB are fine working capital wise, probably fairing better than most AIM companies. What evidence have you got that there is any doubt as to whether or not the accounts will be finalised in time - they've still got over two months by the way.

Just like the other week when you were smearing Bob Holt's good character.

Bearing in mind only a couple of weeks ago you didn't know what working capital was and now you've got it all figured out.

'WolfofWarks - well, you obviously come across as a genius, so you email AIM and let us know the response you get. '

I don't need to email AIM because I know the role of the exchange and it's not financial judge and jury.

You've definitely got imagination all right. Walter Mitty comes to mind.

‘We consider each suspension and any potential lifting of that suspension on a case by case basis.

What do you think this means? ’

It doesn’t mean anything, it’s like an MPs answer.

Maybe they thought the person writing in was a bit simple?

PeePee - you didn’t really ask them the right question.

Which should have been ‘do you have the authority to require a company to carry out a capital review as part of a readmission after suspension’.

This will be largely procedural tying up the lose ends of what will effectively be a shell.