In other words “I’m going to take out a shitload of debt, buy your company with it, and then make YOU pay it off or go bankrupt. EIther way I win”
“We already ruined ThinkGeek, what could go wrong?”
With V-bucks?
Is the whole GameStop pump and dump thing still going?
6 years would be a pretty long time for that.
🚀
Diamond Hands!
Better i buy the thing i have for months in a tab opened now.
If this does go through, I hope they change nothing about ebay. It just works.
eBay has a darker history than GameStop fwiw (Behind the Bastards did a couple episodes on that). I do think it could be a beneficial merger, pivoting to online sales should be a winner, especially with reused hardware becoming more attractive thanks to fkn LLMs.
But wait, if they take over eBay wouldn’t they control a majority of the used game market?
From article:
The proposal does not sound like a “terribly good offer” as it would saddle eBay with GameStop’s debt, said retail industry analyst Sucharita Kodali from market research firm Forrester.
Uh… Gamestop has , depending on who one asks, no debt, or some sort of convertible thing to do with their warrant issuing last year. This article seems mis-informed. It’s an ambitious gambit, but would certainly not saddle E-Bay with any significant new debt.
Not misinformed brother. The quote is likely talking about the $20b GameStop is going to borrow for the purchase itself. It’s a pretty common trick in leveraged buyouts to saddle the company you bought with the debt that you racked up to buy it in the first place.
Capitalism is truly the grift that keeps on grifting.
How do you end up in a system where essentially:
acquiring an organizers to profit from it, requires its workers to produce more additional wealth to afford gifting themselves to you in the past.
Ah, that was my first question: Where the hell does Gamestop take that kind of money from? I am actually surprised they “only” need to borrow 20bn.
They issued some shares when their share price was high and didn’t have huge amounts of debt compared to other companies of a similar value.
That was almost exactly what happened with the Saudis buying EA
Ah, OK. I get that angle.
Gamestop has, depending on who one asks, no debt
GameStop has 4.36 billion in debt who tf are you asking and can I borrow their confidence?
Edit: Anyway, see edit below. This whole thing got kind of sidetracked.
But that same link says they have $9B in Working Capital and Invested Capital. What’s the true net value then?
Ah, yes, I forgot that if I rack up $3000 in CC debt but have $10,000 in the bank, I actually have zero debt, “depending on who you ask”.
Really tried to “um ackshually” the article with the financial acumen of a stoned teenager?
Edit: Anyway, to answer your question because “does GameStop currently have debt” is kind of beside the question: leveraged buyouts often put debt toward the company being bought out. Thus, the debt being discussed is likely the debt from the buyout, not the $4.36 billion GameStop has right now. I got sidetracked because of your completely bullshit, confidently incorrect claim.
Big corps always wave away debt if they can pay it off via revenue, or future promises of revenue, or … reasons. Why is it different here? Honest question. They have more cash on hand, it seems, than their current debt, so could pay that at any time. Why is it a true liability?
Nice ad hominim BTW. I’m neither stoned nor a teenager, and make no pretense to be some financial guru.
It’s not different here, debt is debt, you might say “despite the debt it’s a good stock” or something like that but you don’t pretend $4B in debt just doesn’t exist.
I’m neither stoned nor a teenager
“financial acumen of a stoned teenager”. Can you just not read either, or do you not understand this is that thing you learn about in 3rd grade called a “comparison” and not literally calling you a stoned teenager? I’m getting concerned here.
You also clearly have no idea what an “ad hominim [sic]” is either.
make no pretense to be some financial guru.
You certainly considered yourself well-informed enough to say the person BBC News quoted had no fucking idea what they were talking about without doing the most basic research first.
Very hinged response.
It’s 2026; my patience for the intellectually lazy has been running on fumes for a decade and is on its deathbed. If you want to police your tone around these braindead slobs, that’s your business.
For my part, I’m fine with treating these Dunning–Kruger “oh yeah, all those experts are wrong” morons who know fuck-all about even the basics of what they’re saying like they deserve to be treated: as an object of ridicule.
Don’t Gamestop have around 30bill + in bitcoin? Why not use that?
Maybe this is how they launder it.
deleted by creator
