Choicesuk Share Discussion Threads

[jtcod] 09/4/2007 09:58

Looking at Lovefilm and Tesco's, it seems that Tesco's DVD rental 'is' Lovefilm. They seem to have had the Internet market pretty much to themselves so far. Their backers (all VC firms) will probably push for an IPO at some point after this market has consolidated and the bad news dries up. Not yet then.;-)

[jtcod] 08/4/2007 15:27

Apollo dies today and CHUK takings go up tomorrow. The more this continues to happen the firmer margins become also. From Choices point of view, this is great news imo.

I hope we are in there looking to pick up bankrupt stock as we did with Andromeda. The management may find that 'same town' shops that are on the 'get rid of' list may also improve.

I've seen this happen before in the sportswear market in the late 90's Mas. At one point you could buy JD Sports shares for less than the value of stock on the shelves (at cost.)

He who is standing at the end gets to slice the cake.

EDIT: Thanks for bringing this to our attention Mas.

[masurenguy] 08/4/2007 11:21

You're welcome. Obviously Gyllenhammar sees future value potetial here too. However the share price could remain under pressure and continue to move lower as a result of further negative market sentiment emanating from the news that Stegrego highlighted in post #398 above. From The Telegraph:

Video rental chain in liquidation
By Harry Wallop
Last Updated: 08/04/2007

The meltdown in the video rental market has claimed its biggest victim yet, with the country's third-largest chain of stores crashing into liquidation. Apollo Video Film Hire, which ran a chain of over 100 shops, has been wound up by its administrators David Rubin & Partners after they were unable to sell the stores. David Rubin said: "The only way video shops can survive is if they are in specialised locations. These were mostly tertiary sites."

The collapse of Apollo has emerged in the same week as its larger rival Choices UK unveiled plummeting rates of video and DVD rentals. Over the past two years, piracy, internet downloading and rampant price deflation of DVDs has all but destroyed the market for hiring films from high street shops.

Earlier this year Virgin Megastores said that its DVD sales outstripped CD sales for the first time. Supermarkets have added to the woes by importing DVDs from Jersey and selling them for as little as £3.93. Consumers who do want to hire films now have a range of internet providers from Tesco.com to Lovefilm.com.



This won't make it easier for CHUK to dispose of unprofitable retail shops either !

[goonertone] 07/4/2007 17:54

Masurenguy

Cheers for the reply.

PG seems to have a love/hate relationship with small investors depending on what company they meet him in. By the very nature of the type of companys he invests in there are going to be big losers but also the chances for big winners. I've got no grouch with him and he has been buying stales in CHUK since early 2006. It's a positive currently for me as there's no reason that I can see currently to have changed his view so it is a large lump of stock out of the marketplace.

I haven't seen the GCI article but I think the story of supermarkets, online and more importantly downloading has been written into the current share price (Though thats only my view obviously) This certainly isn't for the fainthearted but if you've got more than a 6 - 12 month timeframe in mind for your investment then the upside if the turn round is acheived is much greater than the downside if it isn't fully succesful. All obviously my opinion and my opinion alone.

GT

[stegrego] 07/4/2007 17:54

'Video rental chain Apollo Video Film Hire has been wound up by its administrators' - Citywire

[masurenguy] 07/4/2007 16:30

Gyllenhammar is an active investor who likes to take significant stakes in small quoted companies that either trade at a discount to NAV or on very low PE ratios.
Some of his current positions include 28% Coral Products, 22% Hartest Health, 20% VI Group, 15% Swallowfield and 10% Chapelthorpe. He doesn't always get it right but
he is a shrewd operator who has had considerable success since becoming active in the UK market. If he builds a stake in a company then it is worth keeping an eye on them.

On the other side of the coin there was a negative view on CHUK from GCI recently who came up with an Avoid rating partially based upon the fierce competition from supermarkets and other online companies.

[goonertone] 07/4/2007 15:21

Masurenguy

re post 395 and your point is?

GT

[masurenguy] 07/4/2007 12:15

"rajauk - 5 Apr'07 - 21:12 - 385 of 395: I don't hold these JTCod ....... I just thought it may be of interest as the it concerned CHUK"

Interesting to note that Peter Gyllenhammar has been building a stake in CHUK too and now holds around 20% of the shares.

[michaelmouse] 06/4/2007 13:19

Masurenguy - "It seems michaelmouse doesn't understand the difference between a voluntary winding up, with a surplus distribution to members, compared with an involuntary winding up with unpaid creditors, which is usually as a result of some form of insolvency."

Chapelthorpe made an interim loss of about £7.5m followed by an equally horrendous trading statement. Indeed the company's results and prospects are so poor it makes it look as if business is booming at CHUK by comparison.

That said CPL have net current assets equivalent to 6.8p and net assets of 12.8p (although £4m is goodwill and I'm not sure of the mix with the £30m of fixed assets in property, plant and equipment).

As far as I can see the share price dipped to about 2.5p recently and has since spiked up. Although of course you will have missed the low since you were just watching, apparently, despite starting the thread.

Now if you had done your research properly you may have snapped a few up at 2.5p given the balance sheet. Worth a quick punt of anybody's money. Your Chairman may find himself as a voluntary wind up merchant (in the true sense of the word) again whether he likes it or not. Indeed, perhaps that's why they brought him in in the first place. I was hoping you could have worked that one out for yourself.

Some advice. If you start a thread at least keep up to date with the news items.

Finally, name calling and banning me from your thread is an act of desperation when you have been exposed for what you are. You remind me of the Knight in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail". However, I've already chopped your arms and legs off and now I must move on in my quest. No doubt you will still be shouting after me.

Bye Bye.
Michael.

[masurenguy] 06/4/2007 09:39

michaelmouse - 5 Apr'07 - 22:11 - 388 of 390: If anybody would like a CHUKle (get it?) go to the CPL thread where Masurenguy has removed my post. His reply was "Michaelmouse-irrelevant". This was the same post as 386 on this thread. Strange response from somebody who doesn't hold any shares in the company. LOL. Michael
...............................................................................

This is not the forum for posts about CPL. Your posts are also irrelevant to credibility issues relating to company chairmen since even according to you,
the new chairman of CPL has not previously been chairman of an insolvent company.

I have addressed your posts on the CPL thread - this is the CHUK thread !

[stegrego] 06/4/2007 09:00

Choices shuts shops as focus turns to net
Nick Goodway, Evening Standard
3 April 2007

ChoicesUK, second to Blockbuster for film rentals on the High Street, has taken drastic action to get itself back into profit as the battle for consumer spending on DVDs and video games becomes fiercer.


It has shut more than 30 loss-making stores and pushed hard at its internet business offering DVDs such as The Queen, starring Dame Helen Mirren, from the Channel Islands.
Another 30-odd under-performing stores will be sold, leaving around 160.

But with hit films like Casino Royale on sale for as little as £5 at supermarkets, the economics of video rentals and sales are changing.

Blockbuster now pushes its rental-by-post service as much as its stores, which also sell wine and sweets for the 'takeaway evening in'.

At the same time, the real price of DVDs has tumbled, making life tough for everyone from Choices to Woolworths.

Supermarkets buy huge volumes of the hits and offer them as loss leaders to attract shoppers into their stores.

Online retailers such as Amazon and Play.com similarly have massive purchasing power, leaving specialist retailers like HMV struggling and Choices offering three-for-a-tenner rentals with free popcorn. And that is before broadband downloading of films has become the mass market.

Choices store sales fell 19% to £50.2m in the half-year to 10 February while web sales, boosted by high profit-margin video games, rose 129% to £37.4m. Pre-tax losses fell from £2.3m to £265,000.

[michaelmouse] 05/4/2007 22:24

Game, set and match.

Thank you and goodnight.

Michael.

[michaelmouse] 05/4/2007 22:11

If anybody would like a CHUKle (get it?) go to the CPL thread where Masurenguy has removed my post.

His reply was "Michaelmouse-irrelevant". This was the same post as 386 on this thread.

Strange response from somebody who doesn't hold any shares in the company.

LOL.

Michael.

[masurenguy] 05/4/2007 21:56

"Would you like to comment on the current Chairman at Chapelthorpe perhaps?"

Not particularly since I know absolutely nothing about him and I'm not invested in Chapelthorpe. What relevance does this have to the subject matter here ?

[michaelmouse] 05/4/2007 21:45

Mguy - "The issue here is to do with the credibility of 'financially qualified Chairmen'".

Would you like to comment on the current Chairman at Chapelthorpe perhaps?

Would it be Leslie Goodman by any chance?

Good record?

Let's have a look shall we.

"Leslie Goodman was a director of:

(i) Berwick Timpo plc in the 12 months which preceded that company being placed
in receivership in 1983. He acted as a non-executive director; and

(ii) Christand and Other Underwriting Agencies Limited which was placed into
creditors voluntary liquidation in 1994 but such liquidation was completed with
a surplus being paid to members."

I like the bit about "but such liquidation was completed with a surplus being paid to members".

That's o.k. then. LOL.

Michael.

[rajauk] 05/4/2007 21:12

I don't hold these JTCod neither I had any motives. I just thought it may be of interest as the it concerned CHUK and neither I had any input in the above post by Alice on TMF. I apologise if I did upset some people? and next time I will only try to post on company boards that I hold but I feel it should be of concern as a chairman holds an important post in any company. Peter Levine is one example how a good chairman can lead company to success.
Raja

[masurenguy] 05/4/2007 21:06

"Mguy - Stop trying to blame somebody else for your investment mistakes".

michaelmouse - I'm not blaming anybody for "investment mistakes" since I didn't lose a cent on HBG - I had previously been invested in this company but had sold out at around 170p in the autumn of 2005.

I'm not in the least bit interested in Coffee Republic - in fact I did pretty well out of Caffe Nero a few years back and from what I can remember Coffee Republic were a basket case then !

The issue here is to do with the credibility of 'financially qualified Chairmen' who perhaps one might have expected to have had some doubts and concerns while presiding over, to quote you, a "Company with zero assets and a founding Director who has sold nearly £10m worth of shares. Wow that sounds like a sure fire winner".

[michaelmouse] 05/4/2007 19:51

Mguy - "HBG had zero assets and the founding Director disposed of £9.7m worth of shares."

I think that just might have put me off purchasing any. LOL.

"For better or worse, many shareholders regard the Chairmans review as a barometer of the period just completed and as a guide to prospects going forward."

More fool them. I think it will be a nice sunny day tomorrow but I've got a brolly just in case.

Are you saying that he also only "saw what he wanted to and ignored the balance sheet" and that he also "surely would have realised it was a gamble".

Perhaps you ought to post this on the CFE thread. I don't think they like accounts very much.

"If he couldn't recognise this, what chance did a less financially qualified shareholder have."

Let me think. Company with zero assets and a founding Director who has sold nearly £10m worth of shares. Wow that sounds like a sure fire winner.

Mguy - Stop trying to blame somebody else for your investment mistakes. Go and have a look at CFE's balance sheet and relate your experience with HBG to the posters there. Although I think you may meet with some hostility. LOL.

(N.B. CFE has a deficit of nearly £3/4m on the balance sheet and a staggering net current deficit of over £1.6m. The company has NEVER yes that's right NEVER made a profit. Company is valued around £16m-£17m. Currently trying to raise about £1.5m for reducing debt, investing in infrastructure etc. Anyway who cares about the reality with CFE after all "its all about the brand". LOL)

Cheers.
Michael.

[masurenguy] 05/4/2007 17:35

I think that rajauks post raises a perfectly legitimate issue. It wasn't just 'the director in question' it was the Chairman of the company, who issued three consecutive bullish reviews with the final/interim accounts that were issued in Aug 05, Nov 05 and July 06 respectively. During this time it appears that the founding CEO disposed of 5.6m shares for circa £9.7m whilst the Chairman purchased 100,000 shares, the last 25K tranche being acquired less than 4 weeks before the shares were suspended in Aug 06.

Are you suggesting that the Chairmans review in the published accounts of any quoted company is absolutely worthless and should be completely disregarded by shareholders? For better or worse, many shareholders regard the Chairmans review as a barometer of the period just completed and as a guide to prospects going forward. They also assume that a Chairman fulfils a moderators role in relation to applicable audit standards and adherence by executive management to commonly accepted reporting standards.

Are you saying that he only "saw what he wanted to and ignored the balance sheet" and that he also "surely would have realised it was a gamble". You rightly stated that "Mega growth does not secure debt. Assets do. HBG had less than zero assets". So are you also saying that a man with his extensive financial background and experience either didn't know, or could not have been expected to have recognised this in his capacity as Chairman, even with access to all of the pertinent data ? If he couldn't recognise this, what chance did a less financially qualified shareholder have !

Nobody has suggested that anything fraudulent or improper was involved. I think that the real issue is one of credibility. In my view you dismiss this far too lightly as being utterly irrelevant or completely unimportant. It might interest you to know that AliceinWonders post, as highlighted by rajaut in #379 above, has already received 160 recommendations in just under 24 hours since it was first posted on the TMF board. If nothing else, this should clearly indicate to you that many people actually do regard this as a matter of legitimate concern.

[rajauk] 04/4/2007 23:42

The future does not look bright with someone like this in charge. How could CHUK employ someone with such history, glad I have become aware of this as I was considering buying some:-

I always feel good management is an important factor in any companies success.
Alice Wonderland on fool has done a wonderful writeup on this man.

[goonertone] 04/4/2007 15:54

Masurenguy

You obviously have different views on phraseology than I do. The phrase in question was used as I thought the postings during the day had been petty and lacking any real argument about the content of the report not just by yourself but by CR as well and my view was that nobody was really bothered about the actual content of the report. It was more late night sarcasm than anything else, from my point of view anyway.

If you were provoked by this then I a hate to think what you think about some of the postings on some of the other boards. Dismissive and arrogant it certainly was never meant to be but if you found it that way then I apologise.

I wont bother with replying to your personal comments about me as we will never be able to get off this subject.

I wish you luck in your current and future investing.

Gt

[masurenguy] 04/4/2007 15:31

I had no further intention in continuing this rather pointless dialogue but I'm not prepared to have my previous comments twisted in this way.

You or anyone else are free to contribute their views on any thread or subject matter. There are no private debates - this is a public BB. My initial response was provoked by your concluding remark that, having made your points, you were 'not caring what others think'. Frankly I regard that as both dismissive and arrogant.

Your posts indicate that you're an intelligent person and that you have some good business insight. You would become an even more rounded individual if you grew up!

[goonertone] 04/4/2007 15:01

Masurenguy

I consider the majority of your post 370 to be in a condescending and lecturing tone. You obviously don't, so their we differ end of story.

As for your point in 376 that I "interjected" and commented on other peoples posts. I do apologise but I was unaware that you were having a private debate amongst yourselves. I will make sure that i dont intrude on peoples postings again and make sure that I only comment on points that haven't already been discussed.

GT