Caplay Share Discussion Threads

[bbd2] 10/10/2005 13:54

ndoody,

For shares like CLY and GON(a great little company with bags of potential by the way. dyor) I prefer to get a true picture of the spread by doing a dummy trade on-line - submitting a buy order but pulling it before the 15 seconds expire. It can help to see what games the MM's are playing.

In the case of the 200K I knew it was a buy because when I did a dummy trade I was offered 200K @1.75.

[m1dge] 10/10/2005 13:14

Yeh, pretty sure that £1.80 is a buy on the current spread being offered (£1.60-£2.00)i.e all buys this morning.

Dell believe you are sort of correct;

Worst outcome of the Murray case was that a liability existed of up to £216,000.00 which was covered by funds set aside of £253,000.00 (-£253,000.00).

The best was the award of costs against Murray and recovery of sums held in escrow account (£650,000.00 plus £253,000 plus £110,000=+£1M plus).

They paid out £65,000, leaving about £200,000.00 (£253,000 plus interest minus £65,000.00?=+£200,000).

So whilst not disasterous, this wasn't a great result apparently.

In previous RNS's related to the case the directors were at pains to emphasise that they had the required sums covered and reading between the lines that this case was a minor issue for Caplay's future.

At the time of the RNS of the revision of share options to Terry Ramsden (17,500,000@2p and 17,500,000@5p)-an improvement on the previous options- most people also considered this to be a bad deal.

So Caplay's directors are either;
- complete idiots and out to rob the shareholders blind.
- or they have, as they should, made decisions that they believe are in the best interests of the share holders even if it appears in the short term that these decisions are not good.

You (TOB and Scumdog etc) believe the former the shareholders the later. You must also believe that the shares in PVTD are worth nothing as the cash in the bank and AIM listing justify a Market Cap of about £3.4M in my oppinion and likely more. As stated before OND was reversed in to by Futaragene for about £28M!

You guys don't seem interested in the PVTD or AIM listing, but what are less? relevant issues perhaps. Apologies for the essay.

[malcolm2cox] 10/10/2005 13:00

They are buys @1.8, I topped up. :-)

[ndoody] 10/10/2005 12:54

bb2, how do you know for sure they are sells or buys out of curiosity?

[bbd2] 10/10/2005 11:56

A few PI taking a nibble or topping up this morning. All buys despite what ADVFN showing.

[tiredoldbroker] 10/10/2005 09:37

bbd2 - no, sorry, I've never looked at RTD, so I don't have a view about the company.

[dell314] 10/10/2005 08:50

Paddyfool - Surely, the bone of contention here is that CLY shareholders were told quite recently that:

"In relation to Mr Murray's claim, the Company's legal advisors have informed the Company that the most Mr Murray can recover excluding interest and costs is £216,000. In the case of the Company's claim, the Company will be seeking to recover in excess of £110,000 excluding costs and interest.


You are now told:

The surplus of the amount provided for in the accounts on this matter of around £200,000 will be written back to the profit and loss account.


£850k was provided for in the accounts, implying that the net cost of the Murray case to CLY has been £650k. I'd imagine this to be considerably higher than shareholders were hoping for and the RNS announcement does a very good job of not stating this sum explicitly.

Clearly, you are correct that the result is positive for the balance sheet(i.e. adding £200k to NAV) but I believe that tiredoldbroker's point was that the £650k will appear as an exceptional loss through the P&L(although, I suppose there is the possibility that CLY will have booked some non-related costs into this figure to improve other figures but that would be rather naughty).

All IMHO, DYOR etc.

Rgds
dell

[malcolm2cox] 10/10/2005 08:19

A few buys coming in this morning ;-)

[paddyfool] 09/10/2005 20:55

you will find that CLY paid cash into court for the Murray affair and...made an additional allowance in their accounts against an outcome which would require more than the amount paid into court. The court made ana award more than the amount already paid but less than the allowance made in the accounts. Hence the fact it is positive news in the context of their accounts.

[m1dge] 09/10/2005 18:36

Seeing all the news recently any chance of getting an update on the header?

[bbd2] 07/10/2005 11:47

Never heard of Scapa but I will take a look. We will never agree on CLY and only time will tell which of us is right. However,I will concede that it is my riskiest play now that I have doubled my money on the PET gamble. I am happy to take the risk though given it's current Market Cap.

Have you been following the RTD saga ? Would be interested to hear your views on the present position.

[bbd2] 07/10/2005 10:58

Your name wouldn't be Murray by any chance ?

Quite happy for you to post if you have nothing better to do. Nobody on here is going to invest on either yours or my views anyway. They will do their own research. Difference between you and I though, is that I have backed my hunch. You, on the other hand, will have us all believe you are here out of the goodness of your heart with no interest in the company. lol

Do you really think that readers of this board are that easily fooled ? No.Enough said.

Out of interest, what companies do you like the look of?

[bond1] 07/10/2005 10:56

TOB:

Is your main issue the directors not disclosing in an RNS the actual amount of the settlement? Would appear to me that those investors who have followed the company, and read the company accounts would know exactly what was in the escrow account. A quick bit of research would have unearthed the amount, so to accuse the company of hiding the true amount is not really accurate.

As for Murray. What does the article tell you about him? A director who set aside shareholders money so he could get his hands on a three year severance package!

Time for the company to move forward and the directors to prove they can create shareholder value now all the obstacles have been removed.

[bbd2] 07/10/2005 10:07

"NURSE" you can take him back to the Home now. He needs his bag changing !! lol

[scumdog] 07/10/2005 09:58

Well said TOB.

[scumdog] 07/10/2005 09:53

bbd2
Why are you trying to stifle discussion on this BB?

[scumdog] 07/10/2005 09:51

Dear Malcolm
I'll excuse your ignornance this once. If you were to look back at this and the previous Leisureplay BB you would see that I have posted on this company on a number of occasions - as, I believe has tiredoldbroker.

SD

[bbd2] 07/10/2005 08:57

It is clear to me that this company has great potential and I am happy with the risk/reward ratio. I will continue to hold until PVTD list and the viability of PETS is determined. The share price is at rock bottom and so I am not fussed about short term share price movements. For all Ramsden's faults he is not stupid. Equally, the new Directors would not have come aboard without doing their own research into the potential of the company.

If you don't like the look of the company and have no interest in investing in it,then why are you still here ? We have heard your views and you have done your "civic duty" so why don't you just move on ?

[malcolm2cox] 07/10/2005 08:49

Like myself, bbd2 has been around here and other threads for quite a while, we are investors in this company, up until a few days ago I had never heard of this tired one and a few others that appeared on the same day, suspiciously the same day the share price started to drop, I have to ask what is your concern here? if its a 'dead dog' then why hang around? put your time into something more lucrative.

[tiredoldbroker] 07/10/2005 08:26

bbd2, should we be asking who you are working for ? Is it Mr Knifton or Mr Ramsden, or for a market maker ? Or what price you've paid for shares and how many thousands of pounds you are losing ?

See how silly that sort of thing gets ?

Money wasn't set aside because of possible litigation, as you'll see if you go back and read the press cutting you posted a link to : the money was set aside by Mr Murray to cover his salary and the account was set up and had cash in it when the new directors arrived. Given that the directors admitted they were paying out "all the money in the account plus £65,000" it seems unbelievable that you now try to present this as "We set aside too much" - a shortfall of £65,000 doesn't smack of too much.

My concern is that once again, we have evidence that the directors obscure the facts from the shareholders, when they could have made the situation clear to them.