Coca-cola Hbc Share Discussion Threads

[soggy] 21/9/2007 16:35

Accrillia, what on earth are you having a go at me for??? I was paraphrasing, hence the expression "in effect". I know what was actually typed, I'm reflecting how it sounded.

And if you take the time to look back you'll see I've been supportive and appreciative of Scruts and, what is more, I've never attacked, derided or demeaned anyone on this BB or any other.

Nor have I ever taken any pleasure anyone else's misfortune. I assume that Scruts is probably more heavily into CCH than most of us. All I was saying was that the last paragraph, SOUNDED a bit like telling people they should have been smart enough to get out and therefore, if you aren't sitting on a pile, it's really you're own fault.

If nobody else read it that way, fine. I'm missing something.

But what the hell's the point of having a go at someone for voicing an interpretation?

Now, back to wondering how this will all pan out.

[accrillia] 21/9/2007 16:23

mrionionbahjee2 - 21 Sep'07 - 16:08 - 1308 of 1308

The first part of your post is useful information, which can form part of investor research. More of it please, its much more useful than mud slinging for the fun of it, plus its more mature.

As for CCH being ''hookey'' i am not sure they have? CCH may have extended the use of the funding, which appears to be beyond the scope it was applied for? Does this mean the management are ''hookey?'' Foolish perhaps.

Lets hope CCH advisors are smarter than the directors holding on to 85% of the shares.

[accrillia] 21/9/2007 15:55

confusedcoalboy - 21 Sep'07 - 14:33 - 1306 of 1306

Just speculation on my part. I'm not sure who CCH bankers are, but imagine the're caught up in the sub-prime blowout and need funds themselves, CCH give the bankers the excuse they need to ask for funds back pronto. It seems a lame excuse for the bank to request the funds to be returned, unless CCH missed several payments. This does not appear to be the case.

CCH directors should be looking at selling down their holding to the bankers as part of the renegotiations, surely the business model is still viable, we all know it works.

[confusedcoalboy] 21/9/2007 14:33

exactly Accrillia.
What CCH seem to have done is at best breaching contracts, at worst breaking the law. What the hell were they thinking? I can see this being palmed off on some 'sub-prime market situation' excuse, but the real fact is that they deliberately breached the terms of their capital loans. Does this now mean that if the sale for 1$ takes place, then the 85% stake held by CEO increases to 90% automatically since this is the slice of the pie sold off? Also, will what remains be expected to service the debt with 10% of the turnover of the group? Seems murky.
If there is a case to answer, whom should we contact? The exchange? FSA? SFO?
At the moment it seems like there is a good chance that we'll all be walking away with our CEO: Nil.
Alan

[accrillia] 21/9/2007 13:45

Its no good blaming the tipster, journo, the directors only tell them what they want them to know. You expect the truth from those purposrting to be looking after investor company assets.

[accrillia] 21/9/2007 13:43

Soggy, do you think nobody else can read? You seem to be adopting creative licence with your lemming quote. The actual quote appears here. ''Hopefully, the market termoil would have prompted many to lockin profits from many of the companies featured, thus sat on a substantially improved cash pile. You should now be well armed.''

Now compare your quote here. "...you should have made enough by now and if you were sensible you would have taken profits before this happened.."

SEE THE DIFFERENCE?

I'm as angry as the next investor, but i know whoes responsible and i know its not scruts. FYI i have been informed scruts is locked in with a large holding. If it pleases you, you make take comfort from this, you seem the type.

[soggy] 21/9/2007 13:26

A lot of clients etc will be tied in to contracts. As long as there is a CCH then it MIGHT be possible for them to continue, or salvage something.

As I said above, the two banks which have called in their money should surely be sensible enought to allow the company to keep trading, and just restructure the deals - rather than sinking the whole company and lose their $500m, or a large part of it.

As for the update from Lemmings posted above, it's a bit rich to end with, in effect, saying, "...you should have made enough by now and if you were sensible you would have taken profits before this happened.." Did you, Scruts?

[confusedcoalboy] 20/9/2007 09:53

reading more:

If the First bank will get an option to buy Gmbh for $1 on a timescale which the company says it cannot seek shareholder approval under AIM rules for the sale to E Nil, does that mean that First Bank are virtually guaranteed to be offered it? Given it has their money, why wouldn't they take it?

Alan

[rampmeister] 20/9/2007 08:38

Barely believable that we are wiped out due to basic school boy error - you would have thought they would have shown higher professional standards when dealing with their major clients or maybe carried some form of E&O cover.

This has proved to be yet another shooting star AIM stock that eventually crashes and burns. I managed to get out in time with the likes of VOG, WNG and SOLA but not much you can do once shares are suspended. Condolences to those who managed to build up a reasonable stake.

RM

[mustau] 19/9/2007 18:37

No feed back from Lemming I guess?

[sparky333] 19/9/2007 16:47

and also which business keeps the cash on the books ? as there is a fair amount

and i also expect full profits upto the 28th sept to be held by our part of the compnay and i expect that will be a fair amount.

so we could be looking at 5-10M cash in the bank so gives some level to the bottom

[sparky333] 19/9/2007 16:43

ASo where do we think this will open when it comes back

10p ? 5p ? 1p

20 p

[sparky333] 19/9/2007 16:40

why 3 years ?

They used $350M are you telling me CCH entered into agreement with the Banks money over 3 years when they new full well it was short term - FFS that is plain stupid

as you say it depends how quick CCH recover the $350 Longer term and get it back to Bank 1

it just doesnt add up to a simplton like me #

why not just tie up the whole compnay for 3 years ? Eren must be confident and the bank as they can have the business for $1 as well

so why bloody do it just hold the debt over the entire company

Just sound like a rip off job to me

[soggy] 19/9/2007 16:14

moor - yes, that seems to be the deal. And if I'm looking for hopefulness, it won't actually be 3 years till we're out the mire, we will be out the mire as soon as the 2nd bank signs up for the new deal. Then we can get back to business. The business will be limping, and carrying a bell in front of it while calling "unclean, unclean" but at least it would be a business. Then after three years that arm comes back into the fold.

Oh I would like to think so...but we know, we all just know, it won't be as straighforward.

Come on Scruts, get back from the AGM and cast some pearls here.