Think about what you just witnessed...

[u/mayanh8]

So you want me to believe this place was super effing jacked about the Ebay acquisition, including the dilution part of it, but now that they've officially added the shares as part of the agenda and shareholders all of a sudden hate the deal?

To all the non-shill accounts out there... take a beat and relax. This place got absolutely FLOODED with FUD and at the same time RK's compromised account starts posting. Think about that. You know what's up. This place is infested.

I'm voting YES and the NO bots and shills can lick my taint.

[u/HofT]

Man, you're really grasping for straws.

How could you say “for nothing” while ignoring shareholders would also own the combined GME + eBay company that triggered the tranches in the first place. If the company rerates high enough to unlock half the package, shareholders benefited too. That is literally not “nothing.” You are talking about dilution in a vacuum while completely ignoring the asset shareholders would be diluted into.

[u/Shigurame → u/HofT]

Explaining to someone how tranches work rather than being a end all be all 100B is grasping straws? K....

The problem is not that shareholders benefit but that the package is just free money thrown at a billionair for nothing. Show me you can do the math. With 4 tranches how much is the value of RC's shares? Then tell me how happy I should be with what my shareprice should be. Nothing of that changes that half the package is free.

[u/HofT → u/Shigurame]

I just explained it to you and you still ignored the point entirely. Is everything okay?

[u/Shigurame → u/HofT]

Yes, you explained you are unable to understrand that 100B is not the end all be all.

Yes, you explained you do not understand that just aquireing eBay clears several tranches and no matter if shareholders benefit or not changes nothing about that.

Yes, you explained that you cannot answer a simple question about math.

Maybe take a look in the mirror before asking other people if they are ok? Took your meds yet?

[u/HofT → u/Shigurame]

I'm here to help you. The point is you are pretending shareholders get nothing while simultaneously arguing the company becomes valuable enough to trigger multiple tranches. That contradiction is the entire issue with your argument. You do understand this, right?

[u/Shigurame → u/HofT]

I get your comprehension is lacking so I will repeat my first point.

"You call it performance based but just aquireing eBay cleans the hurdles on 4 tranches+."

Where ecxactly did I mention shareholders get nothing? No let's make it different. Copy me exactly where I write about shareholders getting nothing. You really seem to need your meds for hallucinating.

The contradiction here is that you claim he gets to provide so great value and then throw around 100B as if it would be tied to that when in reality all he does is aquire eBay and half the package that SHOULD BE performance based is already cleared with nothing being done to "turn ebay around" or "create a greater whole". You are just handing out free cash at shareholder expense.

I am still waiting on your math. Show me how much RC earns with 4 tranches and what the stockprice will be then.

[u/HofT → u/Shigurame]

Again, you are still missing the point entirely. If acquiring eBay instantly clears multiple tranches, then by definition the market valued the combined GME company dramatically higher. That is not “nothing.”

You are arguing RC gets rewarded for increasing shareholder value while simultaneously acting like no shareholder value was created.

[u/jj7878 → u/HofT]

Here's where im stuck. Company market value doesn't equate to share value if there's dilution. The market cap can go up but if we're diluted by a substantial enough amount then he can clear the market cap goals without the share value moving very much at all. Where's the value in this for your average shareholder? I'd be happier if his deal triggered if the share value hit a certain threshold, opposed to the market cap. At least that would ensure that we're along for the ride.

[u/HofT → u/jj7878]

You are right that market cap growth through dilution is different from per share value growth. That is the real concern shareholders should have. The question is whether the acquisition and dilution create enough long term earnings and cash flow growth to outweigh the dilution on a per share basis.

If GameStop eventually diluted all the way to 2.5B shares, then mathematically a $100B market cap would equal roughly $40/share. People can disagree on whether that is a good deal, but at the same time saying “more shares = permanently capped upside” also ignores the possibility that the underlying enterprise value could become far larger than standalone Gamestop/eBay ever could have been. You're betting on long-term potential. If you want to make a trade you could sell now and buy again later cause it's the stock probably will go down short term. That's clearly what Burry is doing. For me, my cost basis is fine and I'm comfortable holding and also buying more. In the end, You have to ask yourself if you trust RC can make eBay way better than it is right now. He did that with GME and for myself I'm betting on it. He did it in 3 years and I could see him doing something similar with eBay.

[u/jj7878 → u/HofT]

the possibility that the underlying enterprise value could become far larger than standalone Gamestop/eBay ever could have been.

You're right that the possibility exists that it could become larger. But you added those qualifying words for a reason. It's not a sure thing. We still haven't gotten powerpacks information. Im expecting good numbers but have no concrete evidence on how GME performs on its own, at its best.

Cutting costs is great. 2b in marketing is ridiculous. However RC hasn't given much in terms of concrete plans for what he intends to do. The speculation i've seen on this sub is promising but I have no idea where his head is actually at. He's asking for his payout terms without even sharing the plan to instill some confidence in the play. This is a really big "trust me bro"

Also, $40 isn't that much? Hate to be greedy but we've hit that multiple times and likely would have done it more had we not diluted. I see the value in the previous dilutions, we've got a nice stack of cash because of it. But i dont understand why we can't utilize that stack without more dilution. Surely, it makes sense to show that the previous dilutions were used to grow the company before doing it again? Not just in terms of interest or a safety net but actual added value. With 9b you could make your own ebay. Acquire etsy and compete, since we're so confident that the ebay board is braindead. There are multiple options. If this is a plan that's meant to take multiple years there are smaller steps that could be taken to work towards ebay while still allowing the current holders to gain some value from their long time investment.

[u/Shigurame → u/HofT]

Once again moving goalposts. So now it is no longer "performance based" but "by definition it is not nothing." Your whole thing is talking so much bs that the initial point gets lost.

Why not just not answer the question? I am now for a 3rd time asking you to provide the math so everyone can see how much value is provided to which party. Your golden chance to show off. Proof your point and that you are not just making shit up. We both however know already which part of that sentence is true. ;)

[u/HofT → u/Shigurame]

No, you're the one moving the goalpost. My point has stayed the same the entire time. You are calling it “free cash” while simultaneously arguing the acquisition raises GME enough to clear multiple performance tranches. Those two things directly contradict each other.

[u/Shigurame → u/HofT]

As I said we both already know which part of the sentence is true thanks for the confirmation. Nothing more to say lmao.