Coca-cola Hbc Share Discussion Threads

[moormoney] 19/9/2007 16:04

I read the RNS and see that the first bank agreed to repayment of the loan over 3 years and negotiations are continuing with the second bank { which the first bank was an agent for} to get their agreement to the same terms. If the transfer to Eren was to protect the business-it seems the banks won't get their money unless they agree to the deal. 3 years to get out of the mire and then we buy back the business seems a little more hopeful to me although they state the damage done to the business will severely impact the future performance at least this year! maybe Scrutable will have brighter news from the AGM.

[sparky333] 19/9/2007 15:28

Sam macalreavy ? from New zealand ?

he still works for GPT

[soggy] 19/9/2007 15:26

I'm re-reading the RNS - perhaps I'm totally misunderstanding the process...

Which part of the compnay is it that the banks are after? Looking at the latest RNS, it reads to me that what they've done is sell 90% of the company to Eren for $1 so the banks can only come after the 10% left. Whis is fine, exept that he is now sitting on 90% of the company, OUR company, in his own name, with no shareholders apart from himself.

Can anyone shed light on which way round it is, please...

[soggy] 19/9/2007 15:13

Page 18 of the reports


Turnover by origin shows that most of it is generated by Germany. £17,127,123 out of a total of £19,011,241 = 90.08%

Now, it's possible that the banks might do a deal, and not actually sink the business, it's better for them to re-structure their short term loans into 3 year loans and get their money back - they can add punitive charges for the privilege. But it does mean that any profit CCH would have been making on these deals would be diminished, or evaporated completely, and it does mean the company is tarnished - as said above.

The $1 deal seems to have been a precautionary move to protect the other 10% of the company, and if it does all get re-negotiated then they can get it back for $1. But as I said above, the cynic in me just knows that this isn't what's going to happen. Whatever the outcome, you know and I know that the PI will get shafted, the directors will come out of it with vast amounts of money one way or another and nobody will go to jail.

All IMHO and no libel intended!

EDIT: things may have changed since 31st Dec, of course. Maybe Germany is no longer responsible for 90% of the revenue...but I suspect it's still something similar. The other regions on that page of the accounts all show a loss. What might give hope (and again, I KNOW NOTHING of what this means) is that over a quarter of net assets are in Britain. Perhaps that's hopeful.

[sparky333] 19/9/2007 15:03

where in the accounts doe it say Germany was the source of all the funds ?

it isnt broken down by region in there i am picking details from lemmings

australia was miles ahead of the other regions

so if what your saying is the case the company is finished with no funds available.

because for every 1M they borrwo they finace 4times so they had 2 billion this year to play with which has gone up in smoke

[sparky333] 19/9/2007 14:59

GPT is my prime subcontractor in the FT

Megamob means nothing to me

I see what you mean with regards to funding will take time to restore confidence

the question i have how how the heel the german ops is going to finance $350M - something smells here and i feel the shareholders have been taken for a ride bigtime

[soggy] 19/9/2007 14:58

Sparky, as I said, I know nothing about picking details from accounts, but just looking at their report for 2006 on their website (which will be presented to the AGM today) almost all of their revenue (and I assume therefore their busines and their profit) came through the Gmbh subsidiary. The businesses might be in Australia or anywhere, but that's the arm of the company that most of the revenue came through and that's the arm which has been sold off for $1 because it's being pursued by the banks who want their $500m back, right now, pronto, tout-de-suite, allegro, vivace, fast. And we ain't got it.

[sparky333] 19/9/2007 14:23

Thinking on this a little more most of the turnover last year was australia and actually very little in europe so is the Germany part going going to be such a big hit ?

plus they have russia , US and south america

[sparky333] 19/9/2007 14:18

UK Ministry of defence on secondment to the SANG upragding there Comms

Not military though - i am a civil servant

[mister md] 19/9/2007 12:46

I can confirm my initial buy in this share, the day before suspension, will definitely be my last!

[sparky333] 19/9/2007 12:06

ASS FUC EKED SPRINGS TO MIND SOMEONE SHOULD BE IN JAIL FOR THIS

[sparky333] 19/9/2007 11:49

LOl what the hell can they tell us at the AGM - CCH has been fraudulant in the german arm

thus will the man in charge at German be stacked or charged ?

well my 10K has vanished

[soggy] 19/9/2007 11:45

Looked further at the report - of the £19m revenue for the group, £17 came from Germany. So that's it folks. The fat lady has begun her song. 90% of the entire business has been sold to Erin for $1 to protect the other 10%.

they may be able to do some deal which gets the bank(s) off their backs, or to restructure the loans, but if they don't, that's the business gone.

All IMHO, and my opinion counts for even less than a CCH share. Perhaps they'll clarify things at the AGM, perhaps they'll tell us it's all OK now.

Let's see...

[moormoney] 19/9/2007 11:41

It seems to me that the Nil bros holding on to 85% of the co. hasn't helped them in this situation either. We.ve been complaining about the poor liquidity and if they'd released more shares at least they may have been able to raise funds from the shareholders and been considerably richer themselves.
Not a good day for me!!

[sparky333] 19/9/2007 11:39

i agree it look slike 50% of the business has been shafted

[soggy] 19/9/2007 11:34

OK, I gave in and had a quick look at their report. In 2006 they funded $950m of short term receivables. So, even with good growth it looks like £500 is a huge chunk of their operation.

It seems incredible that they banks provided the funds on short term loan and the compnay then used it for long-term funding. I suspect that the sub-prime crisis is behind this - the bank panic, ask for their loan back cos it is a short term on, the company have to own up that they've used it for long term deals (perhaps hoping that all their increased business would enable sufficient cashflow and profit to get away with this) and the excess nitrogenous matter hits the fan.

Just pure speculation on my part, I have no financial expertise, just trying to make sense of the RNS.