Cellcast Share Discussion Threads

[davidruk] 30/3/2009 14:19

Thanks LD pleased to see you have confidence (as I do). Difficult times and not made any better by the disaster that are shares in so called "good" investments. Lets hope we do see a rally I am in for the longhaul regardless.

[ldmachin] 30/3/2009 13:54

Davidruk,

Regarding your statement:

"I'm very aware the directors can bid for all the shares and take us small fry out at a big loss."

- Just to point out, the least an MBO would have to offer is 3p per share, as this is the nominal value of the shares.

Also, the shining light against any possible 'dodgyness' is that we have Neil Craven (a private independent investor) with a 20% stake (paid for at a much higher shareprice than todays price). As far as i am aware, Neil Craven is satisfied with all inter-company dealings and has faith in the company.

For the past few months, there have been signs that things are turning the corner for the better with this company. It looks like a good recovery play to me. I see no reason to sell just as things are getting 'interesting'.

[davidruk] 30/3/2009 13:47

I'm very aware the directors can bid for all the shares and take us small fry out at a big loss. However, it would be detrimental for them to do this in the near future and ultimately even more damaging to them in the longer term. There is probably a rally in small cap stocks taking place and they could really lose out if they went private too soon. The other relevant point is that I'm sure CLTV directors don't want their careers tainted with a bad reputation – the kind "clocktower" is referring to. Why would they, when they are already being successful and this company can lead them on to so much? Perhaps I am completely naive but having held these shares for so long, being ripped off now is not an option I want to consider.

[ldmachin] 30/3/2009 13:31

clocktower,

For the record, Mike N has is a non-exec director of Cellcast and has no direct control over the companies dealings. The one occasion i corrosponded with him he was very helpful. If there was anything 'underhand' going on you can bet 20% shareholder Neil Craven would have done something about it by now.

Clicking on your name i can see that you've invested in nothing but high risk shares by the looks of things, is it any wonder you've taken some beatings on some shares? I'm not condoning anything that happened at Minmet, it looks like shareholders had to put up with a lot of hurt. But your tenuous link between CLTV and MNT is very flimsy.

Just looks like you've got a personal annoyance to Mike N to me, have you emailed him personally?

[clocktower] 30/3/2009 13:18

Just look at what occured at MNT - Another one that Mike Nevilles wonder has worked on.

BEWARE of what they might come out with!!!

[ldmachin] 30/3/2009 12:04

2%+ of the company has been bought in the last 3 trading days at 0.9p+. The MMs don't have the stock at present to fill these orders. Don't sell and this will force the MMs to raise the bid price higher and higher as they need the stock to fill the recent buys orders. Don't let them profit from their dodgy wide spread, make them feel the pain.

Remember 65% approx of the company shares are not publically held, so the MMs are gonna stuggle to get stock...

[ldmachin] 29/3/2009 10:06

21st Century,

tut, tut, 100% human lying filth and 0% credibility, has WLW been removed from your portfolio yet or is it just too painful ;-). Your only wrong about CLTV by a 100% bid price up movement so far... dear, oh dear, you are terrible at this investing game aren't you. The only beef you've had in Thailand is the one your cell mate used to give you when you spent two years in the Bangkok hilton for spending too much time with your pal Gary.

I know i know, i just can't help it.

[ldmachin] 28/3/2009 20:46

TopgunNS,

When you post some information worth reading (about this company preferably) then i may adhere to your 'demands'.

But until then, use the filter option, that's what it's there for... to filter posts of posters you care not to read.

[topgunns] 28/3/2009 20:15

I have no intention of making this a three way feud.

Just drop it. Can you understand the point?

[ldmachin] 28/3/2009 19:53

TopgunNS,

Use the filter option, that's what it's there for.

If someone is posting lies about me, you can bet i'm gonna expose that human filth for doing so. And 21st Century is pure human filth and a terrible investor to boot.

I'll also post information about the company, which i have done for the past few months (i proved the link between cellcast and partyland and channel 5 recently for example) that's why i'm here first and foremost.

Should i send off the above to the Cambridge University faculty of English for checking... or can you understand the point?

[ldmachin] 28/3/2009 19:28

TopgunNS,

Idiot? I think in the past couple of months i've done better research, communicated with management and posted more information on this company that you've ever done. That is the kind of real input needed on these BBs as it's invaluable to investors... which i'm sure some investors here appreciate.

... whereas you're just come on here saying that you own 1% of the company and couldn't care less about this company... not posting any information whatsoever.

You're the idiot, that is a definate.

[topgunns] 28/3/2009 19:15

WHO CARES IDIOT

[ldmachin] 28/3/2009 19:01

Recto Verso,

Chit-chat is one thing and having differing opinions on a stock is another... and all acceptable on these BBs, that's what they are there for.

21st Century, however, told lies on here about an alleged holding i have in Cellcast. These were complete lies that he decided to tell because is very bitter that i have been successful on stocks and he has not...

... not to mention that i have exposed his lies about him living in Thailand, yet he posts 8am-12midnight GMT time.

... lies are unacceptable in my book, he is therefore human filth.... and others should be made aware of this as there are many naive investors out there.

[21st century media company] 28/3/2009 17:21

LDM

Don't be so naive pal.

Cellcast don't have a cat in hells chance of any more money from Headstart. Have you read the papers lately? Listen mate, Headstart say no, then what? Cellcast spend what little money available on legal court costs. Ain't goona happen sunshine. Headstart know they can do whatever they like.

How do you know that Cellcast have not had that extra money since say Sept? Refering to H1 info is not helpful. You don't know to what extent trading deterioated in H2 2008 & Q1 2009. You don't & won't until the results are released. The silence from the company on trading since July 2008 says it all really. I repeat for your information that such a drawdown does NOT require an RNS. I know this for a fact.

IF Cellcast do not have available (highly likely in my view)/have used the Headstart funds already, then the only alternative is a share consolodation, then a huge discounted placement. The level at which shareholders are diluted, depends on the funding requirements going forward. With the share price at 1p, any amount of dilution is possible. Infact you may end up with practically nothing. Look at Yoomedia to see how htis works in practise.

This is extremely risky. I do not believe we are anywhere near cashflow positive on a month by month basis. I don't believe in the business model. A small niche market with low levels of customer retention. Even the saddest of guys who spend £1.50 on a text will soon realise they can get off online for free.

This is how I see it. An 80% rise on a micro cap, with a 40% spread don't make me wrong. Such rallies are dangerous as they suck in new PI money. Even more dangerous is that these 'sucker dog rallies' can take a while to deflate, sucking in more unfortunates.

I'm 99% certain there is a fund raising to be announced in the manner I've described.

LDM...........if Cellcast were Cashflow positive they would have shouted it from the rooftops by now..........what with all the shares the directors purchsaed at higher levels, don't you think.?

You can rant away all you like but it changes nothing. I'd be inclined to take the 0.8p on offer, but what you do is up to you.

Get real son.



I.M.H.O.

D.Y.O.R

[21st century media company] 28/3/2009 15:50

Recto Verso - 28 Mar'09 - 09:13 - 1810 of 1815

Channel 5 wouldn't have set up the agreement in the first place if they thought Cellcast were a liability. Their interest does however suggest that the freeview channels are profitable...would they take on a failing concept ?!? (answer : no bloody way !)


I can only refer you back to my original point - Five have not yet 'committed' to anything. Nothing is signed yet. Everything depends on these 'certain conditions'...........as I mentioned, it may well be the financial health of CTLV which needs to be secured........this can be done via a share consolodation & discounted placement.

The interest of Five does not indicate that the Freeview channels are profitable. It depends on the terms of the current agreement. For example, if CLTV are meeting all the bandwidth, broadcasting, development costs, then splitting the revenue 50/50, then Five are hardly taking a risk, are they? Small caps can & do take on contracts at such disadvatageous terms. Seen it at first hand before. Do not underestimate the incompetance potential of AIM directors. In this instance the idea would be to build 'critical mass' & hope for an upturn in revenue streams to meet costs & turn a profit.

All smoke & mirros. Spin & bull.

I don't believe in the business model until they RNS a profit. Until then, I'm out. Show me the profits.