Cng Travel Share Discussion Threads

[katylied] 01/3/2007 10:16

I wonder if they will again delay their results for the full 6 months?
Not a practise that inspires confidence... but do they care?...

[robsy2] 22/2/2007 09:10

OK, if it makes you feel any better this isn't my worst ever investment, though it's certainly in the bottom 3!
Drewster,the past is the past and nothing can change that. I am staying put because while in my mind I've written off this investment,I do think it will rise again so I don't want to compound my error by selling out at this stage. So here is the glimmer of hope.
My feeling is the Tzell pèople are relatively untainted(?)and that they know what they are doing.
Now look at the (admitedly unaudited) interim figures for the 6 months to 30.9.06
operating profit from continuing activities US$2.5m
net cash inflow from operating activities US$3.25(I've stripped out the prepaid revenues of 1.5m)
Proforma EPS stripping out depn of intangibles US$5.5cents a share.
Market cap £5.3m.
Tzell could generate US$ 5-7m a year or more, on that basis the shares look cheap as chips.
I won't be buying any more though because I don't trust the management.

[the drewster] 22/2/2007 08:48

I hope you are right, but am so cynical that I think any recovery will go to lining thepockets of those who have "turned things around", that way they won't give a damn about the share price as they will have got their money back elsewhere.

Before you say that's just nonsense, please explain why a revenue generating part of the business was "spun off" (without ANY financial details being given) to management?

Absolutely my worst ever investment, and wished I had operated more stop losses on the way down. Totally my own fault for believing the EVO reports and following the director buys, but still think there's an awful lot more could have been done to avoid the troubles we're now in.

[robsy2] 22/2/2007 08:45

I wonder what the next set of results are due?THis must have turned the corner by now.Tzell seems to be a steady earner.The interim figures show that the company has been refinanced and operational cash flow is positive.

[the drewster] 21/2/2007 08:52

Thanks. So "never trust EVO for AIM stocks" seems to be the message, though of course they don't say that quite so succinctly.

[katylied] 21/2/2007 08:34

The article (link fixed) comments on Evo's AIM record...

[the drewster] 21/2/2007 08:27

Is an EVO woof-woof one where EVO have "put the punters away" so to speak?
EVO were the most bullish in the early days, predicting great things for the company, so interested to know if they have done a complete "about face" or whether the times was having a dig at them (link not working to check for myself!)

[katylied] 01/2/2007 17:24

CTV gets mention... as an Evo woof-woof...



Ho Hmmmm...

[tifosigb] 31/1/2007 17:33

I agree that CTV would be better off listed in NY. I think i will try to contact Dublin office tomorrow and ask what barriers if any are there to a dual listing.

What's the chances of them returning any calls?

The £700m value mentioned in press reports of the Dec 06 deal, was refering to the overall turnover value of the travel booked through Tzell. It was not meant to suggest Tzell was valued at £700. Tzell's own turnover figures are of course only a proportion of this overall travel bookings.

[katylied] 31/1/2007 17:18

Not really. As shareholders, all are equal (or supposed to be). So for example, in the event of an MBO, they can't pay more for Ross's shares, than they pay for yours. Maybe this is what blocks an MBO. Ross wants equity recovery, not some shadey deal that offers him a back door, post some cheap buyout. He probably doesn't trust the management either. He is already twice burned by this shower. That presumably, is why Ross Jnr. is on the board...

[the drewster] 31/1/2007 17:11

The point remains that the big players here are in it to get THEIR money back, not ours for us. BIG difference.

[katylied] 31/1/2007 17:03

All a bit of a mess really. CTV would be better off listed in New York, where someone might give a damn. Surely Tzell must be of interest to some predator? That has got more complicated of course, now that they are carrying significant debt. Then there was that recent buyout/merger (All Star Travel) reported in the US press. What was all that about? I hope there was more substance to it, than just another demonstration of how effortlessly CTV management are able to 'spend' shareholder money...

[tifosigb] 31/1/2007 12:02

KatyLied,

I agree with your points concerning the board members being present at the time of the previous disasters. However, I would suggest that perhaps Finbarr really did treat this as his own personal company right up to two hours before the 2005 AGM when he was bundled out of the company.

I was at the meeting and raised a public argument, which i did not drop easily, with regard to the previous Ross family interest. I then took the oportunity to speak with Shamus Ross Jr after the meeting. He was very forthcoming with the answers I wanted. Namely, that part of the CNG plc group as it now was had previously been lent money by the Ross family. That money was almost totally lost. It was effectively stolen by a group of Americans who sold the previous incarnation of CNG a total Pup (NOT TZELL). The exact details of this remains a dirty secret of the pre floatation CNG, presumably because its embarassing that some seriously wealthy Irishmen got screwed over in America on a massive scale. The Ross family were given stock in CNG as 'compensation' for that loss of value when the floatation happened. This information was actually in the 2004/5 annual report, though cloaked in such a way as to make it appear insignificant.

Tzell was also purchased independlty of this other 'error' and remains the one excellent purchase.

MAjor sharehoders then gave Finbarr a chance to restore/create value with his great hope, TLC and with Places to Stay. History now shows that TLC was doomed before it started. It was supposed to take advantage of the poor state of the travel industry. It's launch coincided with an upsurge in the travel industry and availability of suitable inventory of rooms was shut off to TLC. It never caught on and therefore never would. It was the idea of TLC which sold the company potential to Techinvest, who tipped it as an excellent technology play based on the TLC software. I would speculate that its possible Finbarr himself sold the idea to Techinvest. He was the smooth talking salesman at the helm who used to mix with Irish politicians on the international trade stage. It does not follow that he was necessarily a great businessman.

Immediately post 9/11 would have been the perfect time for TLC. It was right to ditch it. Places to Stay was a terrible purchase. Finbarr would have been a the centre of it. Infact, he was apparently interested in buying it.

I also spoke with senior TZELL management at the same meeting. Its very clear that Tzell was not directly controlled by Finbarr or the Irish at all.

Finbarr is gone. TLC is gone. Places to stay is gone. The cancer has been cut out. Post this era, CNG has long since been refinanced in the USA via a big name in corporate finance. This could not have happed if it was not a viable proposition.

The only thing that appears the same now, is how frustrated we all are, and thats because we don't get enough information. That needs to change if the current managment expect to generate enough interest to facilitate a reasonable recovery in the share price.

[katylied] 30/1/2007 16:56

Definitely ineffectual 'Non-Execs'. Corporate governance has
been very poor. Something to do with being an Irish company
perhaps? The standards were maybe set by Baltimore...

[the drewster] 30/1/2007 16:49

I still think it was shocking how a potentially profitable service was "spun off to management" without any of the details of such a spin off being made available to shareholders. The service then appears as one CNG are using (and no doubt paying for) but again, a total lack of any details to substantiate or otherwise.

Maybe they will get their money back via these "spin offs" which is worrying, as there may be others or more to come!

[katylied] 30/1/2007 16:44

I agree with much of what you say. However, more or less all of the people you name, were on the board when the company was wrecked. It is all very well (by implication) to point the finger only at Finbarr, but most of these guys were there on the flight deck, presumably backing his delusions. The bottom line is... err... the bottom-line. They have to produce some numbers that impress. They still haven't done that. The market will treat them like lepers until they do. The open question remains... are they really up to the job?

I agree about Tzell. It must be worth more than this.
I am amazed, the company has not been taken
private. I can only assume that Ross has
blocked any such moves....

[tifosigb] 30/1/2007 16:31

Obviously not. lol

[tifosigb] 26/1/2007 17:48

We can't be to far from an encouraging update on this company. Just re-read the statements for previous interim and full year results. I had forgotten how frank and honest the statements were with regard to previous mistakes. I had also forgotten just how many shares the current directors were holding between them:

P J King (our current CEO, appointed after the previous disasters) has

627,644 shares - (563,043 he was holding as at the end of 2004). This means he has an actual paper loss of over half a million pounds to recover. He also has options of 724,112 which are not 'back in the money' until north of 60p. Plus another 100,000 excercisable @ 103p.

Shamus Ross Jr. is on the board tasked with recovering Ross Family money of almost £20m. They have 18,840,258 shares , which have been held since before the end of 2004. They lost it all once but were bailed out by the floatation when they were 'awarded' these shares for the dubious late repayment of a previous loan to a pre flaotation CNG. However, history does not change the fact they need their money back. I am sure he and the family are very committed to recovering value.

Michael .W. Smurfitt Jr. is also on the board tasked with recovering value on 2,908,984 shares held by his Dad Dr Smurfitt since before the end of 2004. They too are nursing a multi million pound paper loss. Again, I am sure his interest is one of ensuring no repeat of previous mistakes , no reckles gambles and sure footed prudent recovery in business value and share price.

Zara Stassin is holding 568,640 shares (536,960 of which pre date the end of 2004). Again, an active board member nursing a paper loss of around half a million pounds.

Luke Mooney holds 167,241 shares (153,780 of which pre date end 2004). £135,000 is not an inconsiderable paper loss to be sat on.


My point here is: Despite my extreme discontent with the historical way in which this company was previously run and my dissappointment with the way the 2004yr AGM was held in 2005, I consider that these people have very real intrests in restoring shareholder value and that this year could very well show that this is to be a reality, through the prudent growth of Tzell.

I also think it unlikely that any further asset stripping has or would take place here because it would require the collusion of the whole board and would be very obvious and public.

This compmay is now a simple play on Tzell and I reckon could well now be seriously under valued.

Any other thoughts...............?

[the drewster] 19/1/2007 16:30

Another tick down ... must be something else of value "spun off" to management.

[the drewster] 14/1/2007 22:18

Anyone heard anything about when we're likely to see the next formal results? PResumably if this is a loss, there'll be a discussion about whether the accounts are prepared on the "going concern" basis, or something altogether more painful.

[the drewster] 04/1/2007 14:23

Just a thought, but maybe Tzell has been "spun off to some of the manegement" and that's why now, all of a sudden it's worth $700m?

[the drewster] 04/1/2007 10:01

Divested for nil consideration to some of the management team would be the final nail in the PI coffin. We never got any financial details of any other "spin offs to management" which we now have the dubious pleasure of paying for.

[katylied] 04/1/2007 09:56

But... do CNG/Tzell still have a Hotels bookings
inventory to have benefited from? Or was that
(like most everything else) divested?...