We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for real-time alerts, custom portfolio, and market movers
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Playwize | PLW | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 5.50 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5.50 | 5.50 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 29/4/2010 18:51 by csilondon i received no update at all (besides what Ive heard from the Chairman, he stated that he has no idea what Foo Katan and Mr San are doing), if PLW does go under maybe someone can setup a website so disgruntled investors can post (perhaps this total may be of a significant %) it may look slightly suspicious that the new company was set up the same week that PLW was suspended. surely there would be a lot of PI investors with many questions, SVS, td waterhouse, barclays etc Till anything actually happens we surely must keep faith in the current PLW board and chairman as there own experiences far outweigh mine in regards to this business. |
Posted at 04/3/2010 10:25 by moneyman18 Yep and online Casino could and would have been a goldmine. But I am sure Foo has future plans for that; and I am guessing as you say all us PLW investors will not be included just shafted. All that rent money we paid and all the other little cream skimming tricks and we fell for them all. If you want more of the same then join me in BLZ |
Posted at 02/2/2009 01:47 by jezsan targatarga -just a reminder to all that you are economical with the truth and what you just said was not only completely untrue, but defamatory as well. You said i took control of Argonaut. Thats untrue. I always had control of Argonaut. I was the one who founded the company in 1982, owning 100% of it. Over the years, as other investors invested - including Apax partners - my shareholding diluted down but was always the largest shareholder by a large margin. On the flotation in 2000, my shareholding was diluted slightly below 50% - but when combined with the other executive shareholders, and family holdings, it was always in control. you also seemed to think that the shareholders got screwed. actually, most sharehodlers in argonaut made money. it was only the ones that were there at the end - which i should stress - was mostly me - that suffered the death. a lot of shares were traded during the dying months of argonaut. heck, even after we put out a press release saying we were in financial difficulty, many of the people on this board were buying shares thinking it was not the true position and that we were somehow making it up. i was getting phonecalls from people telling me that they read how we only had a tiny amount of cash left and were in severe cashflow difficulty - and thats what made them decide to invest - because the shares had dropped the most they had ever dropped. i felt awful for them - investing in a dying company hoping it would be saved for them to make money - and alas - it didnt survive and wasnt saved. you seem to imply that i deliberately ran argonaut into the ground so i could use the administrators to bid for the choice bits. what an absurd suggestion, to run my OWN company into the ground - one that i had run successfully for 22 years, just so i could bid for two tiny bits of it (less than 10% of the total). What a complete idiot you are to even think such a thing was deliberate. As it happens, the two bits that i 'saved' of the defunct argonaut were the only bits i could practically save. i wanted to save more, but lacked enough funds to do that. up until the last dying breath of the company, i was going to inject £1m of my own funds into the company (and anyone connected with the company including the board, executives, brokers and lawyers can confirm this) - but was eventually advised against this by the company's accountants - because - with outgoings of £1m a month - that would've only staved disaster by a month, with the same outcome - since the company had fallen off a cliff in terms of its revenue, thus drastic cutbacks were the only chance. Also, the company was shafted on a major project by some ruthless executives working at a publisher that i shall not name. there is small justice and those executives are no longer working at that publisher - having had to resign due to other bad management practices and an investor revolt and had their comeuppance. and how do you think that the result of jez 1, shareholders 0 worked out!? i only got to '1' by starting another company - in a completely different market with a totally different business model, and utilising exactly 0% of the work that argonaut had done. however, i did the best i could for the ex-staff of argonaut and offered as many as possible a job in my new company - which at the time was called crunchy frog, and now is called PKR and is an extremely successful poker company. almost all of the dev team of pkr are ex-argonaut members. more alumni from e-argonaut continue to join us from the old company every month or two. i am very loyal to the staff of argonaut, who lost their jobs. almost all of them got great jobs at other companies - many of them earning much higher salaries than argonaut could afford to pay them - and as gratitude, when i started a new venture - i hired any of them that were interested - to come with me into the new company - some joined immediately, and some joined later, and many, are flying high at other companies and pseudo-spinoffs. targartarga - in my opinion there was one huge thing wrong with argonaut. that was, it got too big, too fast, and couldnt shrink fast enough to balance its staff costs against the available work. if argonaut hadnt been a public company, there wouldnt have been so much pressure to grow the revenue so quickly, and argo couldve scaled up and down more smoothly and done a much better balancing act. as it happens, almost none of argonaut's main competitors in the videogame developer business are alive today in the same form. most either went bust before, during or after the same time as argonaut did... and a few were sold at firesale prices and are no longer with us in the present form. about the only uk video game developer of any scale that is still alive today is Blitz Games, and their achievement and success earns my deepest respect. targatarga - i know without a shadow of a doubt that foo did not intend playwize to fail. i do not think he was instrumental in its failure - and i do not think that he has done anything wrong at all (except that the venture wasnt successful, but i genuinely believed he tried extremely hard). bear in mind that playwize pitched itself against a superior and earlier competitor - PKR - my venture. it was a gamble and it didnt pay off. with hindsight, maybe going into casino wouldve been better with the resources that playwize had rather than poker - but its easy to see what went wrong with hindsight. i also genuinely believe that his strategy - after seeing it fail - of winding down playwize gracefully, and allowing its carcass to be utilised by another company seeking a listing - is the best thing for the shareholders - of which, it should be noted that at 5% (pre dilution) i am still one of the largest !! |
Posted at 28/1/2009 05:28 by csilondon ive had a look at playgolf it has steadily increased over the days with triple digit movements are impressive. i was considering buying into PLW further to increase my holding to >3% but ill stick with about 1-2% for the time being. ive put so much into this so far, i refuse to sell at these lows and dont intend to sell till i get my money back + inflation. but looking at the results document it does actually look like that a lot of ppl havent sold. not sure i should top up as hedgefund owns PLW now, so there will be a dilution at some point, this could be counterbalanced though if new investors flock onto this ship and there is a good story to tell with a clean sheet. infact i feel happier that the hedgefund owns it now, hopefully their managment expertise could be beneficial for us. but unfortunately as being typical english i am pesimistic by nature so look at the worse and hope for the best. naturally we are all aware that shares disregard the past history and move on. lets hope this is the case, as its taken a year for me to get over this and im still on the dole :-) ohhh officially we are part of the 90% club, a lot of shares are like this. you know ppl losing 90% of there net wealth over a quarter. the company will be aware of all these holdings in seperate nomiee acounts etc etc |
Posted at 14/1/2009 21:12 by oneillshaun Dear InvestorRe: Playwize Plc - Annual General Meeting The board has announced that the company is proposing the following resolutions at an AGM to be held on 28th January 2009; Res 1. To receive and consider the financial statements and accounts of the Group and the reports of the directors and auditors for the year ended 31 March 2008 Res 2. To re-elect Foo Katan as a director of the Company Res 3. To re-appoint Auerbach Hope as auditors and to authorise the directors to fix their renumeration If you wish to vote for or against any of the above resolutions please let us have your instructions by return of email no later than 23rd January 2009 (9am). Shareholders who have received this notification by post, please let us have your instructions by completing the bottom of the page and returning to us in the enclosed pre-paid envelope. Yours faithfully, -------------------- Right guys time to remove Foo. |
Posted at 04/1/2009 11:06 by baronstjohn So is the company still interested in us the investor or is time to bail out after fridays large drop. l have kept in maybe foolishly but having so far lost a substantial amount am l mad to continue hoping that a new begining is about to be perfomed.Please advise me what to do l am all of a dither..... |
Posted at 03/1/2009 13:02 by oneillshaun Dear Investor,Re: Playwise Plc Further to previous correspondence regarding the above, please be advised that we have the following updated information. The Company has announced that application has been made for the issued 1,935,180 ordinary shares of 1p each to be admitted to trading on AIM. It is expected that admission will become effective on 31 December 2008. Yours faithfully, |
Posted at 18/8/2008 13:13 by siwel100 LDMachin....The issue of 3D is actually pretty much an irrelevance. Poker companies are all about the application of marketing spend and beating sector metrics. 3D only became an issue as a potential way to leverage that spend ie would curiosity cause more people to try it and more importantly would it provide traction on retention. I would say that 3D has proved to be a total flop, certainly PLW gained nothing on either numbers or retention for their marketing spend. PKR has been held up as an example of 3D success but I would suggest their gains were 99% down to exceptionally smart marketing and a very large launch budget. The major companies have all looked at but ignored 3D yet it would not cost them much to develop/launch their own systems if they had seen any marketing potential. PLW had potential if 3D proved to be hot, but it wasnt and as such the software is pretty much worthless. "If we build it, they will come"....unfortunate Foo has been given a hard time on here but to his credit he took the risk of developing something new and over the years supported the company and investors with huge amounts of his own money. Also to his credit he produced a very decent system, unfortunately there simply wasnt a market with the punters. It was hardly his fault the idea failed. If punters had loved it and 3D had proven to be a huge draw then both Foo and investors would be sitting pretty. I would say that it was a high risk but well executed strategy but then again the potential rewards would have been equally huge. Those that feel aggrieved on this one simply didnt understand the online poker business or the nature of the risk/reward punt they were taking. imo |
Posted at 20/7/2008 22:26 by csilondon Shares in a quoted company can be suspended for two reasons:The company requests suspension If a company is about to announce news of material significance to investors and it fears that a disorderly market may be created by a leak, it can ask the London Stock Exchange to suspend trading in its shares until after the announcement. The most common reason for this is that the company is about to participate in a bid for, or by, another company. But there could be other reasons - for example if the company has unusually bad news (the MD has just fled to Brazil). The Stock Exchange frowns on long, voluntary suspensions. It takes the view that investors should always be able to sell unwanted stock, even at very bad prices. The Stock Exchange suspends trading This usually heralds very bad news, although suspension can also be the Exchange's only effective sanction against a company which persists in breaking its rules. Shares suspended by the Exchange find it hard to return to a full listing. Sometimes the company in question has gone bankrupt. In these circumstances, shareholders just have to grit their teeth and hope something emerges from the gloom. |
Posted at 09/7/2008 10:34 by tiredoldbroker csilondon, you said"csilondon - 8 Jul'08 - 23:36 - 12568 of 12594 too many people have put to much money on the line to allow this company to go under." Sorry, but a company's future is not guaranteed just because people have stumped up money in the past. If you want to look at another of Cancer6's dud stocks, try LNX: all the way down, Cancer6 was saying that the guy building up a big stake in the business had huge plans, it was going to rocket in price, he (the investor) knew exactly what he was doing, etc etc etc. So Cancer6 kept ramping the stock - and making up all sorts of nonsense - and was then suspected of quietly dumping his/her holding, while posting deliberately misleading stuff urging other people to buy, while he/she/it was selling out. End result was, LNX went bust, private investors lost out completely, big stakebuilder clearly knew nothing, the fact he'd put lots of money up meant nowt. Big investors can be wrong; or can change their mind, pull the rug out, then pick up the bits they want from the Receivers, and have a new debt free business they own 100% of, leaving you hanging out to dry. |
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
Hot Features
Premium
