Centurion Ele Share Discussion Threads

[25cent] 23/5/2007 19:09

Why don't you tell everyone what Rhodes did to Mr. Powell clueless?

"More like why your "Dear Mr. Powell" paid 4.Million over book value for it, actually."
You are talking absolutely 100% rubbish, that stock was sold by your star man for peanuts to Ebuyer and alike in a panic rush imo.
The bank had arranged for a company to sell the stock in a orderly fashion, you clearly just don't know what the hell your talking about!
You clearly just have no idea about the financials of this company, how the hell you can blame a product designer for sales shortfalls is staggering to say the least?

So who's job was stock control then I wonder? I will give you a clue as you by your own admission don't have one .
A Greek island?

It maybe time for you to use some more personal attacks to get out of jail clueless.

[2clueless] 23/5/2007 19:05

"maybe Rhodes should be made to retake his CSE math's exam to avoid the selling of CUC stock at 4.5 million less than the book value?"

More like why your "Dear Mr Powell" paid 4.5Million over book value for it, actually.

[2clueless] 23/5/2007 19:03

Childish idiot.

"Audi China. LOL"
You still haven't answered why you started this exchange with that moronic comment.

[2clueless] 23/5/2007 18:22

25Cent,
Can you actually read? (It's clear that you can't spell)
I haven't ever made any comment about bank debts, investment house's withdrawals or anything. (Actually, Fidelity still hold 8.39%). If you want overnight share value increases, this isn't the stock for you (but being such a guru on the automotive sector you'd know that, wouldn't you?)
All I have done (I say again) is point out what the RNS means and try to shed some light on it and interpret it for those not familiar with the sector.

I have always answered your ridiculous comments directly, and your response has always been to ignore the facts I've stated and that you've been proved wrong, and try to introduce another comment from left-field - I don't think you've ever come back and answered any question or comment of mine (because you can't without admitting you're wrong).
Well, this is probably my last response to you as you clearly know all there is to know about it so I can be no more help.
To answer your question, it was Chris Rhodes who said that - BUT because the bank offered support, and then had an about turn and withdrew the facility. He did well to secure the financing he did.
As I said before - Chris Rhodes has rescued the company he "inherited" (with the huge 3-4.5Million stock-loss that was legacy from "Dear Mr Powell" & Co) and secured finance to allow it to continue trading. Without that it would have gone bust, people would have been out of work and holders would have lost all (OK, I accept they lost a lot, but they still have some long term hope). The main question is, "Can the finance last long enough for long-lead-time OEM contracts to come on-line, and pay for all the NPD, testing etc. that is required?" If yes, the company will be profitable and show decent returns. If No,then they either try for another round of financing, or go bust. Which would you prefer (if you actually held these). Shares worth 13.5, or nothing?

I'm not a "fan", I was not in total agreement when Mr Rhodes took control as I didn't see him as the best man for the job, and his agressive statements during investor roadshows were "surprising". But I'm prepared to give credit where it's due and think he's done a good job with the poor tools he was left with when he started.
You can disagree, that's your prerogative, but please don't keep making stupid comments just for the sake of it.

[25cent] 23/5/2007 16:09

Well clueless like I say have it your way we will see.
My word of advice for anyone wanting a CUC product and lets face there's not many, but just wait till the suits at canary wharf calls in the debt again and CUC dump all their stock at about 20% of retail value at a huge loss to Ebuyer and alike.

The last time this happened the bank arranged for a specialist company to buy the stock off CUC, but no they went ahead and dumped it all themselves for imo peanuts!
Oh I forgot they don't have a banker anymore do they?

Who was the Chief Executive back then I ask selling all the stockpile of DVD players at a massive loss?
Who was it that took a 4.5 million hit on the write-down of that stock , who is this man I talk about clueless?

Who was it that said in September three months before suspension "The Board is confident that the underlying issues that have impacted the
business in the current year have been addressed and will not carry over into
the forthcoming financial year and that prospects for 2006 are significantly
improved." and also said "Centurion's bankers, HSBC, continue to extend their support to the Company". weeks before the bank called in the debt?
Who the hell was that man?

Also what happened to dear Mr. Powell I wonder? and why?
Clueless I wonder why Fidelity has written off its investment in CUC and why they did not subscribe to the placing?

[2clueless] 23/5/2007 12:42

"With all respect your the one that's green around the ears on CUC" - ROFLMAO

"What then for dear old CUC and Mr Rhodes with his unbranded Chinese mp3 players." - They never did unbranded MP3 players - that was DVS. They did branded DVD/TFT stuff for retail (Centurion, Necvox, Plug&Play) but have pulled out of that now, as has been widely reported.

If you knew this sub-sector (CE - TFT), you would know that the CUC screens must come out of the same factories as Sony, Panasonic etc. but will have "Audi" written on them. As rpaco says, it is all "unbranded" (or branded with VMs logo) nowadays, except a couple of exceptions - Bose and Infinity (in the US) which are often offered as "premium" systems and offered as an increased cost upgrade in place of the "unbranded" Audi one.

"in the not to distant future cars will be fitted with interactive devices like xbox360 playstaion 3 blu-ray" do you really think that these will be fitted to cars? Would you pay an optional cost of £1500 for something that you can buy from a retailer for £300? I forecast that screens will be fitted and the consumer will be free to bring along his own PS3, Xbox or whatever and plug it into an auxiliary port. (Oh, hang on, that's what CUC have just announced).

[cgod] 23/5/2007 10:13

3D screens for the kids next. Just look at DDD starting to move off the bottom.
This will be next in cars.

[25cent] 23/5/2007 09:30

Hi rpaco,this sector is evolving to new client needs, in the not to distant future cars will be fitted with interactive devices like xbox360 playstaion 3 blu-ray ect ect.
What then for dear old CUC and Mr Rhodes with his unbranded Chinese mp3 players.

[rpaco] 23/5/2007 09:06

Well 25 I think you are wrong there regarding ICE, I agree about tyres I even buy BF Goodrich myself because I know they are Michelins. (but cheaper)

However I worked for a large part of my life for two major names in ICE and can tell you there is very little left of the original "Brand" image when the oem customer design and specs have been applied, the thing (head unit) in the dashboard is more usually tailored to look like it was part of the car interior designer's concept and does not introduce a well known brand. Moreover even if supplied by a well known brand, the logo and or wordmark are often replaced by the car maker's name.

[25cent] 22/5/2007 17:30

Well clueless have it your own way,concentrate your argument on one individual RNS (Audi china) and not the whole companies operation if it makes you feel better.
Talk about a customer interactive device that is easily differentiated with from others and try and make out is like a part of a exhaust,or a door panel? have it your way.
Any part where customer knowledge on competition and quality and choice are available the good brand always win in the end.
That's why car manufacturers fit BRANDED Tires on the production line and not cheap tacky far east imported unbranded ones, same with oil spark plugs windscreens ect,becuase the public know a brand and trust it.
Your mad as hatter if you think that a consumer electrical device is the same as door panel.
With all respect your the one that's green around the ears on CUC if you think that the whole operation is like the cuc china contract.

Moreover Clueless judging by the share price and volume the worlds not listening to you or spin king Mr. Rhodes, indeed your name could well be what i would call him if he was posting on ADVFN.

[howard eastman] 22/5/2007 14:59

Oh sorry wrong thread, this is as dull as ditchwater.

[howard eastman] 22/5/2007 14:58

Great thread guys, keep up the good work.

[2clueless] 22/5/2007 14:44

1. Standard Fit isn't optional.
2. "No brands are us"? OK, show me all the branded components inside a vehicle, speakers, mirrors, door panels, seats? All branded for OEM are they?
I suppose you'll tell me that "Airbag" make the seats and steering wheels.

If you do know "more about this sector than I think", why do you keep making stupid comments that no-one who knew the sector would make?

[2clueless] 22/5/2007 14:40

That's because in those days they sold cheap and tacky imported stuff to the retail sector, which seemed profitable until a small matter of £3M worth of old, out of date stock that was unsellable was discovered.
Everyone (including yourself) can see that they needed to move into OEM as that's where the market was/is heading. Unfortunately they had to do this from a starting point of a £3M stock write-off.

[25cent] 22/5/2007 14:31

No its because in those days they use to actually made a profit and not just issue pointless rns about contract wins?
You can dress this up as much as you want but its a loss making heavily in debt accident prone bad managed shareholder value destroying virtually worthless company!

LOL I know more about this sector than you think , they are cheap and tacky as far as I am concerned, "no brands are us" should be the new brand name of the parts that are fitted into the few people who actually opt for the optional extra Cuc offering on their new cars.

[2clueless] 22/5/2007 14:19

"...if and when these parts become standard fit on all the vehicle they will be bought and assembled on the production line by the car manufactures.They will buy the parts direct from China."

Er.. that's exactly what this RNS says - Audi China will build the cars and fit the CUC system to it as standard. They won't buy direct from China 'cos the Chinese suppliers make the "bits" and don't do all the bespoke design, engineering, integration etc.- that's where CUC add the value.
If you "understand how this sector works perfectly" then you'll know all about value-add supply chains, and realise this.
Why don't you buy a cow from the farmer - or is it because you don't want all the hassle of killing it and chopping it up and recognise the value-add that the abattoir and butcher provide?
My "blind faith" can't overcome debt, but decent contract wins from Toyota, Honda, Audi etc. can.
Yes, the shares have devalued heavily over 3 years or whatever it is, but wasn't that just because they were vastly overvalued before?
I'm not claiming that these shares are going to increase rapidly; I haven't put lots of "buy" comments up, I've just tried to help the board interpret the RNSs because I DO understand this sector, and recognise that this Audi China contract is good because it's with a Vehicle Manufacturer, not a UK marketing company like DVSs contracts with Citroen, BMW GB were.
If you don't like them - fine, don't buy them. But don't start spouting off about being a sector expert and stating stuff is cheap and tacky when you clearly know very little about it. As I said, Volkswagen AG (who control Audi China) don't do cheap and tacky and won't let components go onto their vehicles as OEM parts if they don't meet the specs.

[25cent] 22/5/2007 13:05

CUC is doomed and really always has been, maybe you know more than the companies bankers and auditors clueless but I understand how this sector works perfectly.
I understand that fitting low cost parts into vehicle has no future,
How can CUC succeed? if and when these parts become standard fit on all the vehicle they will be bought and assembled on the production line by the car manufactures.They will buy the parts direct from China.
Its simply a no win scenario!
We will see in the fullness of time who the full dollar is but at this time its got no bankers its auditors issue a disclaimer its share price is 97% down over three years its making a loss, so I admire your optimism on Cuc.
Its somewhat misplaced but then again what do we all know ? I suppose your blind faith can overcome debt can it?

[2clueless] 21/5/2007 16:03

Looks like we'll have to agree to disagree.
The point of my post was to highlight that this is good news as the components aren't "cheap tacky far east components" but decent stuff made to reach the demanding specs Audi throw at them.
As far as coals to Newcastle, well the engineering / integration / design / test work etc. done in the UK by CUC adds value, and proves that they are capable of this on a global scale.
Any other company gaining a contract in China would have had a positive effect on share value - agreed, some financial data would be good, but they probably don't know the true value of the contract, that's simply the way it is with OEM. If they stated on record that it was worth "x" and then fell short (because Audi drew down less stock, for example) then people like you would be commenting about complaining to AIM / FSA etc. as they put out misleading information.
So Tom Tom is a quality, premium brand, is it? Where's it made? Where were they 5 years ago, and were you commenting at that time that TomTom was "cheap and tacky" because they weren't a household name to you at the time?
I actually wrote, "MAYBE, you're one ..." purely because your glass is always half empty, and all Mr Rhodes has done is to make sure the company can continue operating - would you rather it had gone bust?
As far as call in the badger - don't make me laugh (and don't call me "son" either).
Have you ever made a positive comment about a stock on here?
I don't think you're playing with a full dollar!

[25cent] 21/5/2007 09:03

Clueless again you are on the attack? just relax son.
Audi china, is that not like sending coal to Newcastle considering that's where all the cheap tacky far east components originate from that will be fitted?
Audi Europe now that would be a contract
Moreover like I have said before in this sector Rns announcements of new contracts normally mean one thing, zilch!

No financial details yet again and no interest whatsoever from the market kind of puts the Audi china contract into a real perspective.
With regards the hard work by CUC that you talk about well surly a listed company is judged on by way of its share price?
This is down 97% in three years and the company auditors place a disclaimer in their statement on the accounts?
The only hard work I can see is in destroying shareholder value?

Clueless this area of fitting low cost cheap parts into 25Kplus cars is on its last legs,I think I mentioned before the winners will be the ones that fit the quality brands like playstaion3 , xbox360, tom-tom,iPod ect and not unbranded cheap far east mp3 players and so on.
You wrote "you're one of the previous directors who was no good and got ousted when Mr. Rhodes arrived,"
I think you need to call in the badger, Mr. Rhodes as the CUC rescuer? well I ask you, lol.

[2clueless] 16/5/2007 10:35

25c - Why LOL? Do you not think Audi China is a real customer? I don't understand why you always have to try and rubbish anything that comes in an RNS and is obviously good news. I can only think that you have a grudge to bear against CUC (and DVS) - maybe you're one of the previous directors who was no good and got ousted when Mr Rhodes arrived, and you now work for another competitor like Armour (Bell, Powell,) or Sevic (competitor in the loosest sense of the word) (Saville, Reay?).
Audi China is a very real company - JV between FAW and Volkswagen group, I believe. Audi have a high build quality reputation to uphold (arguably now better than Mercedes) and don't let just anyone build cars under their name. It also means that CUC will have to pass VWgroup specific tests like VW801-01 and whatever TL spec they give to RSE (poss TLVW926?). Once they have a product or series of components that satisfy these, they can offer it to any Audi/VW/Seat/Skoda/Bentley/(and Bugatti) company worldwide without any more testing (apart from statutory installation/crash tests).
I've said before, I don't hold these (anymore), but don't see why the hard work put in by the CUC people to win such a contract shouldn't be given the credit its due.
DYOR etc.