We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Cellcast Plc | LSE:CLTV | London | Ordinary Share | GB00B0GWFM68 | ORD 1P |
Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.00 | 0.00% | 1.25 | 1.00 | 1.50 | - | 0.00 | 00:00:00 |
Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 0 | N/A | 0 |
Date | Subject | Author | Discuss |
---|---|---|---|
30/1/2017 11:44 | Naz By highlighting stupid childish mistakes in accounts I'm trying to - pressure the bod .... - & also pressurise the NOMAD - & big shareholders to pressure these 2 as well ;-) ---- & by sharing some info. Ifind...well, maybe another poster might share some info they know that might be interesting to me to see... | smithie6 | |
30/1/2017 11:38 | ...I get the feeling that due to Atlas + the dirs being a concert party and having ctrl of the co. ...then they dont really give much of a damn about PIs or mkt or complying with regulations.... Otherwise the FD or a dir. would have gone imo when they did a rescue cash raise less than 12 months after listing !!...bod stayed. & I get the feeling that the big >3% holders dont try to keep the bod under any pressure or vigilance.. On 1 hand its good that dirs. have a sizeable % stake...but has -ve side as well due to risk of them having too much power/control & then giving insufficient weighting to trying to make money for shareholders versus make money each year for themselves. ( previous post of about 4-5M to dirs via benefits. 0 to shareholders). But arguably it happens at many listed cos. | smithie6 | |
30/1/2017 11:27 | RB1206 "Tele-cine" in the 90s... Tell me/us more ?? | smithie6 | |
30/1/2017 11:24 | Contd Apple founder made Apple successful due to great interest & care/attention to details of the things that produced turnover. Imho I dont see that at CLTV. (client phone calls going to wrong place..BBC article ..& thats after being listed for 10 yrs. Stupid childish mistakes in the accounts. Poor communication of co. & NOMAD...refusing to answer some questions about discrepency in accounts, & co. doesnt reply, NOMAD replies for co. (very unusual) etc etc... | smithie6 | |
30/1/2017 11:22 | Smithie: Great work, looks like everything is geared towards Directors benefits not the shareholders. This goes back some time when Previous Chairman Julian Paul (Past away now) days and another company called Tele-cine in mid 90's, these guys are expert in fleecing the company/shareholders | rb1206 | |
30/1/2017 07:54 | Smithie, I think most companies especially on Aim have murky accounts and have related parties connected which can be near impossible to prove. I did some research of the whole media/gaming sector a while back which i posted here and the general lack of clarity in accounts was most evident and a constant use of EBITA to cover up the lack of any underlying profits. It's true that Cellcast have quite messy accounts, in part due to all the new start ups and partnerships over the years and a lot of related party stuff but as far as i am aware all above board. I guess the directors are legally feathering their own nests along the way. And a question, are you long Cellcast or on the short side ? As there is no short trade available to my knowledge, but you are doing some good digging and the share price is reacting very nicely, i think you are adding extra fuel to the launched rocket. | nazrat | |
29/1/2017 11:52 | Management charges interesting imo that CLTV pays to SMS Media Ltd Hong Kong ....for services provided by SMS Media Ltd it is then up to SMS Media Ltd to pay relevant taxes etc... so, imo it is wrong for CLTV to pay UK Social Security costs to a company in Hong Kong....partly since UK social security costs are not a valid cost imo for a an invoice from a Ltd company and 2) especially UK soc. security costs are not relevant for a Hong Kong company. SO imo the payment is being split.... for the main payment A.Wilson doesnt exist...only SMS MEdia Ltd....in Hong Kong... yet for social security then suddenly A.Wilson does exist, is resident in the UK and CLTV pays his social security cost. Where I have seen people use companies rather than their own name in order to get paid they get a payment.....without a separate payment for social security. (and imho there is no social security cost to pay when one uses a company... (is there Hong Kong or UK VAT % to pay ??)) | smithie6 | |
29/1/2017 11:28 | Tax & expenses Note 7 of annual accounts 2015 non-deductable 38,718 pnds ..this is wrt tax....ie. after tax at 20% So 191k What is the money being spent on & is it justified expense if the tax man wont allow it as an expense ? Tax man says it is not a valid expense...so its NOT for electricity, hotels, flights...so what type of thing are costs that tax man views as invalid as an expense ? | smithie6 | |
29/1/2017 11:09 | A key factor for weighing up CLTV imho appears to be the cost of transmitting throughout the UK on a Freeview channel....I assume this is normally via radio signal I assume it is a large or noticeable part of the fixed costs that the co. has to pay before leaving anything over for profit. The accounts dont report this cost. Anyone have any idea how much it is ? | smithie6 | |
29/1/2017 10:42 | Phil, Naz Are you clued up on accounts ? There are cash flow breakdown tables for profit and also for investment. The numbers for H1 dont get included in the totals for the year which I cant understand ... eg. 2015 annual report...I think it says that some intangible assets sold for about 130k in H1 but that for the year the total was 0 ! ie. The 130k in H1 is forgotten for the annual number. Im sure there is a simple explanation....accou Can anyone explain it to me ? | smithie6 | |
29/1/2017 10:37 | Phil ..you agree with my point/logic..or you think I got it wrong ? | smithie6 | |
29/1/2017 08:02 | Good spot Smithie - keep digging! | philjeans | |
28/1/2017 13:34 | Apologies to post again... but a comment to give....perhaps useful --- The chairman has a poor record, as visible via official records ...resigned at numerous companies...and now appears to be at only 2 listed cos...whereas previously was at many more... since such a high % one has to assume that resigned to avoid being pushed... and the Good Governance guidance proposes to change non-execs to avoid too cosy a situation on any bod, improve the interest in vigiliance of non-execs for shareholders' assets, and to bring fresh ideas and a fresh push so, I think that big shareholders should consider new faces on the bod ...and reducing the power of the MD which imo is excessive, as explained before. And imo any new face(s) (added and/or changed) should be of a younger generation with more current IT and tech. knowledge. I would assume that a respected chairman like Michael Jackson (at ACC and Elderstreet fin. boutique) wouldnt be interested (and he is not so young now so phps reducing workload rather than adding); and I assume that the execs wouldnt want anyone from MXC (Ian Smith I think) since they seem to shake stuff up very hard & like to be in power themselves !! and so might remove the rest of the bod !...but perhaps there are other options out there that might be interested.... and a new person for non-exec role would be much easier to obtain imo (and imho 1 of the core 3 (AW, BF, EG) needs to be removed from the group bod (BF or EG) since it gives too much power to the MD A.Wilson and is not healthy for a bod and imo breaks some part of the Good Governance recommendations, (1st 2 are a team and 3 is under ctrol of AW) | smithie6 | |
27/1/2017 19:38 | "nazrat26 Jan '17 - 07:59 - 3997 of 4000 0 0 After a quick scan of the admission document again i say we can safely assume that Atlas are still considered in concert with board of directors other companies." ...I think I would agree that Atlas can be considered a concert party with the 2 co-founders (A.Wilson and B.Folliot) ...a concert party with 49-50% of the CLTV shares....so imo they have intentonally stopped just below the 50% limit, going above it would imo require an offer to be made to buy all of CLTV (I assume that Atlas (Bermuda) has holdings in different companies and phps access to deb using its holdings, so can phps come up with the money but imo investing cos. prefer to make money by seeing their investment go up and then selling ...rather than making takeover offers (and could have done when the share price was 2p and the co. was almost bust a few years ago and an offer at 100% higher at 2p might have succeeded....but they didnt do it; so I dont see them doing it now at a much higher price....unless !....unless they had a trade buyer to then instantly sell on to at a higher price !) but you say "other companies" Which companies do you mean ? YOu dont mean A.Wilson and B.Folliot ?? (I noticed that there is a third shareholder(s) in SMS Media Ltd....the holder imo of most of the shares of the 2 co-founders....I wonder who that is , perhaps a wife ?? ...registered in Hong Kong...so not so easy to get access to the data (or perhaps impossible since private co.) | smithie6 | |
27/1/2017 19:27 | Lyonst5 In accounts to Dec 30 2015 for part of the group it refers to shares being held in "TV You! Ltd " but according to official UK records that co. has not existed since 2008 !! As a large investors - did you know this ? - does it concern you if official signed accounts signed as being true and complying with the Company Act 2006 give data that is FALSE ? imo other similar errors can be found. ...one could argue that these types of mistakes are not material or important....I disagree, imo the accounts are either correct or they are not. The text in the accounts needs to be correct, and imo the directors and auditors get very well paid to make sure that it is. | smithie6 | |
26/1/2017 07:59 | After a quick scan of the admission document again i say we can safely assume that Atlas are still considered in concert with board of directors other companies. | nazrat | |
25/1/2017 17:29 | Intrigued by Atlas still accumulating; are they interested in the business of CLTV per se? OR more interested in getting an AIM quote on the cheap? Reverse T/O coming if so. Holding on tightly to my shares. | philjeans | |
25/1/2017 16:17 | Just wondering how long it took Atlas to purchase those 1,400,000 shares ? It must have been a slow painful process. Maybe the market makers threw in the towel today and said lets declare now as we are getting nowhere. | nazrat | |
25/1/2017 15:41 | 10k available at 5.5p online there is simply no stock in this one. | tradermick1 | |
25/1/2017 15:34 | Smithie, I think things are moving in the background with all these holding RNS's and constant buying up of stock when it becomes available. I will chance a view that very few small shareholders are actually left in here and it looks like a carve up between big holders and unknown substantial holders in the background. P.S. And with the company directors shareholdings at 30% they are unable to increase without making a takeover bid, so as you surmise in your posts that Atlas have tenuous links to the company directors this may be a backdoor way to increase their collective holding. | nazrat |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions