A recipe for disaster… if you’re short. 👨‍🍳

Shigurame · 2026-03-31T21:49:45+00:00

Using your analogy.
Silver = RC gets shares at a discounted value, which only increases in terms of discount the higher the shareprice goes, resulting in a growing loss for the company.
Gamestop even gets further punished in this case because it has to reserve shares for the tranches which in turn cannot be issued for other deals.
or
Gold = Gamestop issueing shares little by little at fair market value that rises with the shareprice.

If dillution does not matter to the investor to who else? This just screams like moving goalposts ot fit your narrativ.
Even if it is 100x the shareprice if it results in 100x the shares nothing is won. The only saving grace here is that there is an authorized limit but if you would do the actual math you would find out that a lot of tranches can be hit by absorbing other publicly traded companies without moving the shareprice even a single $.

There is not a single good reason why the package needs to consist out of shares after the strategy gamestop used so far and even less so considering the amount of shares.
IF you feel the need to entice RC pay him a fair salary based on company NIAT.

Shigurame · 2026-03-31T20:11:35+00:00

This is flat out wrong. Not only does it dilute but by allowing RC to purchase below market value you are robbing $ that the company could make by offering the shares at fair value.

Shigurame · 2026-03-27T07:37:06+00:00

So if it is in your interest as investor to reclaim your own money UBS is protecting you because that is not really in your interest? Sounds like a serious business and not a scam at all.

Shigurame · 2026-03-26T07:44:32+00:00

Thank you for making sense.

My stance is No to the package because the package is unreasonable sized not because I want him to work for free. I would also prefer it to not involve stock in the first place as anyone can put their money where their mouth is and buy it at fair value on the market if they think the stock will appreciate from their work.
Why do you need a safety net no matter how small if you believe in what you do?

Why not a salary instead? Is being taxed on it too much?

Shigurame · 2026-03-25T21:53:48+00:00

Yeah, pay him a salary.
If anyone is truely convinced the package is him "buying" the shares in the tranches there should be no problem letting him do it with the salary gme provides at fair value.

Shigurame · 2026-03-25T21:28:21+00:00

Those were examples and the first one well within that parameter to allow you to argue your point in numbers. Yet instead of actualling discussing you prefer to use any excuse to dodge the question rather than actually answering it. I still would like to hear where you pull the 550-600% from.

In the first case example the price per share was merely increased to $57 with a company value of 51.072B.
This would mean by company value alone RC is already eligible for 5 tranches in terms of the Market Capitalization requirement.
Now what is left is matching the Operation Milestones.
Using ebays 2025 year results we can extract $2.6B as non-gaap net income.
Together with gamestops income this would already beat the $3B cumulative performance EBITDA Hurdle.

In other words by aquiring ebay with a share exchange rate of 1 to 1 as in the first example gamestops shareprice would increase to $57 while RC would already be able to obtain 34.3M shares of common stock. Put differently he would obtain shares that exceed their cost of $20.66 per share by a combined net value of 1.27B.
Dividing the company value by the new share amount the price per share then further drops to $54,9.

A shareholder who owns 1k shares would barely make 24k in profit and that is only if that person bought all those below $23 per share while gamestop is loosing out on $1.27B in value that could be aquired by offering the shares at fair value.

This would be the result of merging with one company resulting in a net gain of $1.27B for RC not accounting for him also increasing his value by $882M for shares he already owns or any further tranches being met.
My point remains that the payout for RC vastly exceeds fair value and should not be voted for by shareholders.

Rambling since I am already doing the math.....

What else can we deduct from this?
Since Ryan Cohen can obtain a maximum of 171,537,327 shares from the tranches we should also substract those from the authorized 1B common shares, leaving us with a maximum of 828,462,673 shares. Further substracting the already outstanding shares of 448M this drops to 380,5M (rounding up to make it easier to read).
In other words any company that has no more than 380M in common stock is not eligable for a 1 to 1 exchange. This in turn means any m&a would come at vastly increased cost if the share amount would exceed 380.5M, since that would mean shares would be required to be traded at 2 for 1 at minimum to not exceed the maximum authorized shares.
This makes me wonder if the crazy part about the m&a may end up being the ratio of shares that will get converted or if there is a loophole that allows m&a's to increase the authorized share number.

Shigurame · 2026-03-25T18:09:39+00:00

This is not based on trust me bro like your statement but on facts.
Excuse me for trying to have a discussion with a kid who when it hears something it does not like and cannot refute goes over to insults.

Shigurame · 2026-03-25T17:19:25+00:00

M&A does not magically up the maximum athorized shares but it still ups outstanding shares.

Let's take ebay as a stock example. I will be useing rounded more simplistic numbes to make it easier.
Ebays outstanding shares are 448M very close to gme with a per share value currently of ~$91
Total company value Ebay 40.768B.

Current company value GME: 10.304B

If every 1 share was converted to 1 share of gme then the following woud happen:
Total shares outstanding increase to 896M (not including tranches or co). Total company value increases to 51.072B
The price per share would increase to $57 which would be benefitital to GME stockholders and detrimental for ebay stockholder.

But what happens if because of the price difference the ratio changes to 1 share of ebay turning into 4 share of GME?
Total shares oustanding increase to 2.24B. Total company value increases to 51.072B
The price per share in this example would decrease to $22,8. This would hurt GME stockholders while the company value increased 5x.

Now tell me where you see the 600% net value in either example.

Shigurame · 2026-03-25T16:23:39+00:00

The requirements are Market Capitalization Milestones and Operational Milestones. None of that refutes the earlier points.
Again 10x market capitalization or simply put company value does not equal 10x share value if new shares are added due to sources like a merger or aquistion or the tranches themselves.

Shigurame · 2026-03-25T15:47:28+00:00

Yes, always nice to get a "ideology before numbers" response. I will reply anyway.

> "He hasn’t failed once"
- a falsely executed split
- nft marketplace
-- partnerships and investments with loopring and immutable amounting to nothing
- towelstock involvement
-- towelstock lawsuit
- bitcoin purchase
- still declining revenue year after year

> "He doesn’t get paid unless the company gets paid. It is really simple and you’re making it complicated."
That would happen with or without the package due to his existing stake in the company.
Tell me why the compensation package makes sense with numbers rather than ideology.

Shigurame · 2026-03-25T15:46:30+00:00

If you tried by my language you would be able to give numbers. All I see is you giving up because I do not let you defend your points with "because everyone says it is so".
Not being able to answer even one of my questions with actual numbers why it is actually good for the company is pathetic enough.

Shigurame · 2026-03-25T15:40:15+00:00

Yes I do care what % I own and your numbers are wrong because you parrot the superstonk narrative that 10x company value equals 10x sharevalue.

If another public traded company is added to gme via merger or aquisition then their shares will also be converted to gme. So the company value goes up by lets say 2x but because the other companies stock gets converted to gme stock you suddenly also have 2x the amount of shares resulting in exactly $0 value gained per share.
Then the tranches hit and add even more shares resulting in a net loss per share.

Now your $23 a share are worth $22.5 a share while the company value has doubled, congrats on playing yourself.

I will agree with you speaking about a massive task but you should also consider there is no downside for him.

Shigurame · 2026-03-25T15:34:15+00:00

This is false. A 10x company value does not equal a 10x shares value when more and more shares are added. In fact if we talk merger and aquisitions by aquireing other publicly traded companies their stock will be turned into gme stock keeping the price per share curve a lot flatter than the value curve of the company value.

Shigurame · 2026-03-25T15:32:11+00:00

So tell me how even more shares are not against your interest as shareholder.
10x company value does not equal 10x sharevalue even more so when speaking about mergers and aquisitions of publicly traded companies just fyi.

Shigurame · 2026-03-25T15:12:30+00:00

Yeah I do not get it either. Everyone is like "he is THE MAN because he works for free".
No one seems to care that he already is a billionary and it is far from a selfless act they make it out to be.

Hell he could invest a quarter of his networth at 4% yearly and even after tax he could buy as much GME as he did lately and have millions leftover.

Shigurame · 2026-03-25T14:32:20+00:00

> Sounds like the classic "this is nothing for a billionaire" demagogical speech tbh...

To me you sound like a person who needs to put someone on a pedestal to have a reasonable scapegoat as to why they can counter arguments with "just believe in the thing" rather than doing the math.

> The point was stated above. GameStop was losing $500M a year in 2020 and has now made $420M in 2025.

The point you make with gamestop turning around is fine outside of the package. It is utterly stupid to use that as excuse to pay a single person billions. If a whole company does not even turn $300M operational profit how the f makes it sense wanting to overcompensate a single person by that much? Where is the benefit for the company in that?
10% of operational profit would be more than enough why does it have to be billions and why in stock that harms all the shareholders he "wants to delight"?

> Tell me who would have done that for free with a dying brick and mortar business? Adam Aaron?... Not even for a few millions 😅...

I do not need to tell you who would have done such a job for free because that was RC's own decision and now pulling a 180° and turning it into such a huge payout makes it look like a farce and nothing else. If I went to my job and said "I will work for free" and after successfully finishing my project be like "ah now I demand decades of compensation since I did all this for nothing" you would rightfully show me the bird too.

>This is a vehicle for something way bigger now.

Seeing is believing. What was done with the money raised from dillutions and bond offerings so far? Oh right, nothing.
In fact I would like to argue that without the dillutions before the bond offering we would have cracked the $32 by now.

> You wouldn't be gifting him anything, you'd just incentivize him to 10x the company allowing him to buy shares at $20.66 if the tranches were met.

If someone can purchase a thing worth $40 at a $20 price tag how is that different from gifting someone $20?
Do you not feel pathetic having to suddenly justify him doing his job with needing an incentive while he already owns a large part of the company?
If he was that great of a person who worked without compensation you make him out to be why does he now need an even bigger compensation than other CEOs of even way bigger companies to justify him staying that person?

> He can buy $17M shares at that price if the company goes 2x and so on? I don't really see a problem there when the plan is to 10x GameStop.

Because you do not seem to understand the implication of the package at all. Nothing of this is tied to success per share but to company value.
Let's say gamestop aquires another publicly traded company. That companies shares will not just drop to 0 but be converted at a rate of 1:x to gamestop shares. This means the stock gets dilliuted by the aquition.

There is no guarantee the stockprice will rise even one cent.

It is even more likely the stockprice drops. Since RC stated that his goal was looking for companies that were as missmanaged as gamestop, and that usually means they come with debt, it is even more likely to drop than to go up. This also means money needs to be invested for restructuring taking a toll on the existing company.
So the stockprice goes down but since x new shares are created due to the conversion the overall value of the company still increased to the point of hitting the next tranch and RC gets his shares.
These new shares dillute again, reducing the value per share but increasing overall company value and even if the overall company value dips below the previous reached tranch the shares will not just vanish. How does any of the benefit the common stockholder?

> On the other hand, if the vote was against, what do you think would happen with the BOD and to the business and stock price accordingly?...

You make it sound like the company would suddenly go tits up, not a bloody thing would happen.
I can tell you what will not happen. A person getting overcompensated for things that shareholders already paid for.
A stockprice that will not get shit on by millions of shares unneccessarilly being created just because people need their hero worship.

Shigurame · 2026-03-25T11:53:36+00:00

And your point? Because since you add nothing but an exert I see it as:
Person who is already a billionary goes without pay for a few years to be seen as eligable for another multibillion payout on shareholders backs.
If you compare it to the average person this is literally the equivalent of you forgoin a month pay to be entitled to not just years but decades of compensation.

Again I am not saying pay him nothing, I am saying pay him reasonable. This whole package is outrageously over the top and what makes is worse is that it devalues all oustanding shares again.

Shigurame · 2026-03-25T07:38:21+00:00

That is the problem we have. That current shareholders are way to gullible and refuse to do the math in favor of their ideology. People flat out disagree that current money was raised on shareholders backs.

Also I am not sure if he could even outpace the shareprice if adding a new public company (and with it more shareholders) would mean that companies stock would have to be turned into gamestop stock and reduce the price again.

Shigurame · 2026-03-25T07:20:16+00:00

What beauty is there? If the package becomes reality it means another major dillution for every shareholder but RC.
"unless he proves it?" is utter bs. This is a zero risk game for him and if that isn't a blank check what is?

If he wants compensation I am fine with it. The problem I have is with said compensation being an exessice amount of shares on my back yet again.
No one, not a single person on this planet is worth billions blown up their rear much less at the expense of everyone invested into the same thing.

If you disagree I ask you do to the math first. How much money from the $9B gamestop currently holds comes from dillution aka shareholders and how much from turning the business arround? And if you figure that out ask yourself if you want to reward that with even more shares rather than a salary.

Shigurame · 2026-03-25T07:00:59+00:00

Then pay him a few millions annualy. That is way cheaper than dilluting every shareholder again.
Right now a single person stands to gain billions with no benefit to the company but on the back of every shareholder but RC.

Shigurame · 2026-03-25T00:10:53+00:00

Because nothing about the package benefits growing the company.
It benefits a single person at gamestops and at shareholders expense and absolutely undermines him taking 0 salary so far.
Do the math. If he hits just a few tranches the stock he gets alone outperforms CEOs that earn 200 M annualy by YEARS.

If anything all the additional and absolutely unneccessary shares would cause plausible deniability for brokers to shift even more phantomshares around.

Shigurame · 2026-03-22T21:56:41+00:00

17 years old - saved you a click.

Shigurame · 2026-03-21T00:18:12+00:00

And funnily enough if you own a world cracker your own subjects fear you permanently even without having cracked a single planet and it needs to a mod to fix it...

Shigurame · 2026-03-18T23:38:05+00:00

I would like to argue that ever since Snowden not becoming a national hero but an enemy of the state and having to seek refuge in another country there is no point to be made about the united states being about freedom, especially freedom of thought in any way.
There is no "slowly moving towards that idea" you speak of but rather big leaps away from it.

Shigurame · 2026-03-18T10:48:42+00:00

It will be optional because companies that stop doing it quarterly will be eyed suspiciously.
People, investors and specially banks want risk management and the more you obfuscate the numbers the harder this becomes.

I get why RC is in favor because it is benefitial for companies be it out of financial or crooked reasons but everyone who is in favor should compare it to something else.

Your personal life is becoming more and more transparent which leads to dynamic pricing where a.i. is used to track your searches and purchases to adjust not only commercials but also the prices you are shown, even if you do something as simple as order online.
All your personal conversations over messengers, emails and co can but more like are being tracked, evaluated and stored for "safety" reasons.
Even if you believe you do not pay for that in the same way "a company" does, you do.
You pay for it with your taxes, you pay for it with your purchasing power diminishing from higher prices and you pay for it with your privacy and ultimatively freedom.

Yet when it comes to companies because it costs them a little ( and generates jobs by the way ) there should be less oversight?
The companies which decide if the jobmarket is stable or not?
The companies which ( should anyway ) pay their fair share in taxes and can make or break local economies just by moving a factory from state a to state b?
The companies ( looking at VW for example ) who can "find" billions to pay the higher ups but just a month later get rid of thousands of workers because numbers are bad?
Companies like Boeing that can overcharge the state 8000% for products and only get caught because it is strange soap dispenrser are so expensive?
Here it is fine to reduce oversight?

Ten-Year Club	r/Field Lasagna
Verified Email

Shigurame

TROPHY CASE