Cellcast Share Discussion Threads

[ldmachin] 31/1/2009 23:50

the analyst,

Watching with interest pal ;-) This company could do well if managed correctly. There are signs that things are going well... let's hope we don't have to wait too long for confirmation... hopefully when the Ofcom ruling comes through management will get an RNS reply out asap saying how it affects or doesn't affect the business... with a trading update for 2008 attached too.

[the analyst] 31/1/2009 21:11

Is it enough to persuade you to buy shares, though, LDM?

[ldmachin] 31/1/2009 17:12

Cellcast's psychic tv programme (Morning Psychic) is now being shown on Virgin Media, in a few slots here and there on 'Zone Horror' (Channel 149)...

... It seems from the way that Cellcast are pushing their programming content onto more and more stations and platforms, they don't seem to be that concerned about the pending Ofcom 'advertising/partipation ruling'.

There is real promise here for a nice yearly £1m+ net profit, if Ofcom plays ball and management deliver.

[the analyst] 27/1/2009 22:28

About a year too late I'm afraid, clocktower - look at the price and the liquidity. Nobody could sell in any volume, even if they wished to...

Better now (imo), for investors to just wait for the ofcom ruling and see how the directors go forward with the company...

[clocktower] 27/1/2009 09:03

I uderstand Mr Mike Neville sits on the board here - I suggest all investors look at his history.

IMO investors should be given a warning of his history as a director of numerous AIM listed companies or those that were formerly listed like WTV - MNT etc etc.

[ldmachin] 25/1/2009 22:28

21st Century Media Company,

What a load of drivel you post... no wonder you have to pay people to be with you. I really do feel sorry for you if that helps.

If you actually did any research you will see that cellcast management aren't preferred creditors. That's just you blindly copying and pasting other peoples ill-informed postings. If you actually asked the directors about the inter-company deals you would have got the following response from CEO Andrew Wilson:

"...the bulk of these interco charges are related to the fact that when we established Cellcast we had insufficient history to secure leases on our studio and office premises. So all of these were originally signed with Sky Telemedia (as was our corporate account with Vodafone and our corporate credit card account with Barclays).These costs (which amounted to some £950,000 in 2007) are a simple charge through and Sky Telemedia does not retain one penny for facilitating these.We have not gotten around to changing these arrangements but when we do they will only represent more rather than less obligations for Cellcast.

The payments to SMS Media totalling £240,000 in 2007 represents the salaries and support costs (travel etc) of those members of the management team and support staff who are based and work outside the UK and are involved in our international operations."

"... I do take on board the fact that perhaps whilst we quantified the interco transactions in our audited accounts we did not describe the reasons for them as fully as we will be doing going forward."

- As stated, the payments to SMS Media in 2007 were for those staff outside of the UK and involved in international operations. Cellcast are now 95%+ UK based. Neil Craven, 20% shareholder, is also fully aware and informed in detail of the inter-company payments.

What a sad and bitter individual you are... WLW has just made you even more bitter than you were before... oh well.

[21st century media company] 25/1/2009 22:16

FYI

CLTV certainly can issue new shares if they do a massive share consolodation. It removes any concerns about the 3p nominal value. There are ways around it. Yoomedia did it. It's called an EGM. No reason why CLTV won't............that is of course if OFCOM don't bust the company in the meantime.

If CLTV want shareholder consent for a share consolodation, then they WILL get it. Just like Yoomedia did. The management of AIM small caps can & frequently do please themselves & you won't be able to do a damm thing about it.

All the overwhelming evidence points to suspension, a failed business model or a massive share consoldation, taking out existing shareholders in the process.

So CLTV are hiring are they? Oh yes, the receptionist who might be needed to deal with administrators in any future liquidation.........lol...........even a failed business needs a receptionist. Perhaps the old one is on maternity leave?

My bedtime now.........a busy day tomorrow in Bangkok meeting some business associates (thinking about taking a stake in an upmarket guesthouse) but I'll leave you to ponder this thought..............why bother arranging yourself as a 'preferred creditor' if the following does not apply?

1. You intend placing the company into liquidation in the future.

2. You think a serious danger exists of liquidation at a future date.

Read between the lines.

All the signs are there.

Open your eyes pal.

I can see it and the market sees it.

[21st century media company] 25/1/2009 22:15

LDMachin - 25 Jan'09 - 21:39 - 1550 of 1551

The way cellcast are acting with all this new content, new channels (i.e. the move to Freeview in the latter half of last year)... it doesn't seem they are worried about any new Ofcom 'viewer participation' rules... they seem to be producing more interactive paid content if anything




Of course Cellcast are worried.

However, they have no choice but to plod on regardless. What you refer to is the heart of business model. CLTV are not in position to simply 'wait & see'.

If the OFCOM decison goes against CLTV then the shares will almost certainly be suspended with immediate effect. Game over......no if's, but's or maybe's about it.

Using your logic then............so any investor 'researching' World Gaming shortly before the suspension should have been heartened on finding evidence of a new website/product, even though all the evidence pointed to the new law in the states destroying shareholders investments in the very near future. Did you own World Gaming as well?

I think you should wake up & reflect on the huge risks involved here.

1. Mike Neville employed by the company.

2. Management have made themselves first at the trough in any liquidation, so in that sense their 280k investment will be very safe.

3. A negative OFCOM decision instantly destroying the business model, rendering the shares worthless & instigating an immediate suspension from AIM.

[21st century media company] 25/1/2009 21:39

LDM

I did & still do predict either permanent suspension/delisting or huge dilution via a massive share consolodation. This represents the likely end game here.

But I never stated by end of 2008 & you've failed to produce the required evidence requested.

We can therefore see you as a liar & an investor with appauling judgement in purchasing CLTV.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

Futile attempts to discredit me will not prevent the above events from happening, although it might make you feel better personally concerning your losses.

Grow up & apologise for misleading our loyal readers.

[ldmachin] 25/1/2009 21:39

The way cellcast are acting with all this new content, new channels (i.e. the move to Freeview in the latter half of last year)... it doesn't seem they are worried about any new Ofcom 'viewer participation' rules... they seem to be producing more interactive paid content if anything.

[ldmachin] 25/1/2009 21:21

21st century,

You are a fool and haven't got a friend in the world... here's your references to dillution and fund-raising. (post 1413 you just deleted - how pathetic).

21st Century Media Company - 8 Dec'08 - 12:11 - 1413 of 1546

.


21st Century Media Company - 6 Dec'08 - 22:28 - 1409 of 1546


LDMachin - 6 Dec'08 - 22:15 - 1408 of 1408

"... and don't forget Cellcast Asia should be delivering the profits in the near future (not sure when though)"


Quote of the year for me - well done!

Err......300K loss for 6 months, so maybe 600k FY.

Well Cellcast's 35% for that is not far off the entire market cap of Cellcast itself.

If it don't turn profitable very soon, the whole thing will implode on shareholders - the only way forward will be a huge share consolodation, followed by a placement, Yoomedia style.

Management can protect themselves with options.



21st Century Media Company - 8 Dec'08 - 20:16 - 1426 of 1547


LDMachin

Earlier today you were pumping Sumo, now you're admitting it's loss making & has been put on the back burner. Sumo IS part of the UK business - so you have contradicted yourself already.

12m in revenues and still loss making, says it all really - same with all these types of companies - tiny margins, high costs ect: Yoomedia had revenues of 25m in 2005, market leader etc: means didly squat without a profit - no profit means DILUTION, the amount of dilution depends on the level of losses.

[21st century media company] 25/1/2009 21:15

LDMachin - 25 Jan'09 - 21:02 - 1544 of 1546

Especially with management putting 280k of their own money in at the 4p fund raising


But the worry is that the management have made themselves first at the trough in any liquidation, so in that sense their 280k investment will be very safe.

Yours however will not.

Don't give yourself false hope in this regard.

[21st century media company] 25/1/2009 21:10

LDMachin - 25 Jan'09 - 20:59 - 1543 of 1544

I can't recall saying CLTV would need to raise funds by the end of 2008. I might of done but I can't recall it & I'd be surprised if I did. Can you please retrieve the post? If you can't then lets assume you're making it up.

So you are watching the managements every move are you? This makes me laugh. I think this is half the problem that guys like The Analyst are complaning about. There is absoulutely NO transparency, no shareholder communiction. There is nothing to watch pal.

Don't delude yourself you're 'watching the managements every move' here - the next move could be suspension & then it will be too bloody late for your 50k investment.

[ldmachin] 25/1/2009 21:02

rascalhardin,

Thank you for the information. All i know is that Mike Neville helped me get some answers from CLTV CEO, Andrew Wilson, about some questions i had regarding the business. So in that instance, he did his job. I also know that as a non-exec Mike Neville will have no hand in the business... i guess he was an Exec for the businesses you mention?

Having said that, i always watch managements every move... i know that they rarely have shareholders interests forefront in their minds. But, for now, i've seen nothing to suggest that. Especially with management putting £280k of their own money in at the 4p fund raising.

[ldmachin] 25/1/2009 20:59

21st Century Media Company,

You also said that CLTV would need to raise funds by the end of last year... 'mark your words' you said. Just like you said LNG would receive an MBO by the end of June 08.

Your track record is appauling.

[the analyst] 25/1/2009 12:31

"What should be recorded on RNS's is the share price when that person joined the company and the share price when they left that company. If that was done, there would be certain people who would be unemployable"

What a fantastic idea!

[rascalhardin] 25/1/2009 10:17

ta,21 CMC,

Sorry, I do not have an up to date list of the companies where Mike Neville is acting in a non exec role. He left WTV years ago, so our research is based upon the period that concerns us.

No doubt he has added to what was then already a long list of companies. Forgot to mention in my earlier post that, when he was at Minmet, Mike Neville left the Board about 18 months ago, when he received a very large sum, then about a year later, he rejoined the Board and got another large amount of money. At the time of writing, it looks like MNT investors have lost everything. This was a company that had money but it was alleged that the money had been diverted to places/people it should not have been diverted to. The Minmet thread has all of the details.

I would definately recommend doing some research on where MN has been working recently. No doubt you will discover much of interest. There may be investors at other companies that need to be warned. The problem is, as things stand, Directors can draw a veil over distinctly poor performance in the past by using phrases such as "extensive experience".

Events such as suspension from AIM do not need to be mentioned. Only liquidation. But from an investor's point of view, long term suspension from AIM or delisting results in the same 100% loss as liquidation.What should be recorded on RNS's is the share price when that person joined the company and the share price when they left that company. If that was done, there would be certain people who would be unemployable.