Content Media Share Discussion Threads

[knowing] 22/6/2012 13:51

It is a sell but not whilst I am making money on the rise.

[345654] 22/6/2012 13:49

Not surprising as you must have bought in, i'd say it is a cast iron sell
especially as i have met the directors.

[knowing] 22/6/2012 13:44

Think it's going to a penny as the stock is taken by the Directors

[345654] 22/6/2012 13:40

Sell size at 0.6p, another chance to get out maybe

[345654] 22/6/2012 13:38

What do you think then Clive ?

Strange how delisting stocks go mental all the time before it happens, cannot
even get a quote for 100k to buy

[moneymagnet1] 21/6/2012 09:02

pimp

What will the members of the concert party who are not directors or employees of the company and jeff sagansky gain from this scenario as they will just be ordinary shareholders like us. Maybe mr sagansky is looking to vote against and is building up his percentage, if only we knew his outlook on this as i would follow his vote.
As of yet i am undecided, if we delist i'm hoping of many years of regular dividends and then an eventual sell off of the co or even a relisting,who knows.
If the vote goes against and we end up liquidating then i hope with their assets after paying out the preference shares i can claw back some of my losses.

I'm in a real dilema over this as i hold just over 1% and at first i thought my vote wouldn't make a damn difference but since hearing of mr sagansky's 8% and i'm sure there's some of us on here who hold a tidy few, so just aybe there is a chance this won't go through.

aimho
mm1

[pimp] 20/6/2012 19:21

The directors will do what they can to make a delisting a certainty. Jeff Sangsky undoubtedly is with them. The only time they buy shares in the company in the last few years is when they want to ensure it is delisted. Makes you wonder whether this whole thing was manipulated from years ago ( lack of investor interaction/news). Call me cynical but these guys are only interested in continuing to line their own pockets. Shareholders are just an obstruction to them.

[fft] 20/6/2012 18:23

as i recall, jeff is not part of the concert party or a current director.

so, is he in or out regarding future placings ? that could make a big difference for the voting.

[345654] 20/6/2012 17:16

Which way though ? :-))

[swizz] 20/6/2012 16:57

345654 - Perhaps a cheap way of ensuring the vote goes the way someone wants it to??

[345654] 20/6/2012 16:43

Important Rns just out, what do others make of that ?

Content Media Corporation PLC

Holdings in Company

The Company was informed on 20 June 2012, that on 19 June 2012, Mr Jeff Sagansky had acquired 6,200,000 ordinary shares of 1pence in the Company ("Ordinary Shares") at a price of 0.5pence per share.

Following this purchase, Mr Sagansky holds 14,230,688 Ordinary Shares representing 8.0 per cent. of the Company's voting rights.

[fft] 19/6/2012 16:11

I suspect it will be someone from the concert party. It would make sense for them to mop us as many pi sellers as possible before the AGM. That buy was 3.5%.

[bangers for bucks] 19/6/2012 15:48

I think some one knows a bit more than us! that last big one must take some one into an % rns

[dpmcq] 19/6/2012 13:55

Spot on 345654

[345654] 18/6/2012 20:47

And there is a 650k trade as well after the close so that will probably be another director.

[345654] 18/6/2012 20:46

Not good news if he is voting for the delisting.


Director/PDMR Shareholding
Share this article
Print
Alert
TIDMCMCP

RNS Number : 6284F

Content Media Corporation PLC

18 June 2012

Date: 18 June 2012
On behalf of: Content Media Corporation PLC ('the Company')
Content Media Corporation PLC

Director Share Dealing

The Company was informed on 18 June 2012 that on Friday 15 June 2012 John Schmidt, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, had acquired 350,000 ordinary shares of 1pence in the Company ("Ordinary Shares") at a price of 0.5pence per share.

Following this purchase, John Schmidt holds 2,815,384 Ordinary Shares representing 1.6 per cent. of the Company's voting rights.

- Ends -

[pimp] 17/6/2012 22:13

I am tending to agree with you djderry.i suppose another word for it would be theft? But as always with AIM stocks the little guy has very little say even when a burglary is taking place.

[djderry] 17/6/2012 22:07

Let's be clear: management and the preference shareholders (and,as you know,some management are also pref. shareholders) are trying to get this on the cheap.The co. is doing £20 mill. turnover,EBITDA of £3.6 million,tax losses worth 6p a share according to Ediso,a library worth circa £40 million (remember they don't get loans without collateral),a 50/50 interest in Collin's Avenue which has a hit with 'Dance Moms' (2 million viewers for the new series this week)etc,etc.
We understand that the pref. shareholding needs to be resolved.However,under the guise of solving this issue,they're trying to pull a fast one.Why delist? It makes absolutely no strategic sense.The suggestion put forward,i.e., that as a private company it would be easier to access loans is a load of tripe.Has anyone ever heard such drivel? Every day public companies (and private ones) access loans.They get them on the basis of (among other criteria):cash-flow and profitability.To suggest that suddenly,because the co. is listed on AIM,they will find it more difficult is scare-mongering of the worst sort.Like a petulant child that doesn't like the reult of a game crying:'I'm not playing anymore! Then get off the pitch and let new management take over.
Delisting means no questioning of a remueration policy which has continued to reward management while the share-price has imploded,delisting means deals behind closed doors with no accountability,delisting means throwing ordinary shareholders to the wolves.

[pimp] 17/6/2012 17:08

The timing of this is also a little suspect. Results due in the next few weeks and i suspect they would be good. If the share price rose above 1p they could issue more shares and swap debt for equity. They say they have to delist due to aim rules not allowing any equity below 1p. All imo .

[sscrabble] 17/6/2012 16:49

And how we will keep updated as to what is happening with our shares? Will we get regular updates posted to us at home? -- or have to rely on what we read in the press - or how?

[pimp] 17/6/2012 14:54

My concern for shareholders is how they will unlock the value in their shares. How will they exit once delisted?

[wimirob] 17/6/2012 14:51

I couldn't put it better myself!

Why are the preference shareholders doing this? - because they think they'll make more money this way. Or put another way - they didn't think they would make as much money as things stood. ie the share price has shown that the business wasn't worth much whilst the preference liability was there. In short it was stifling the business.

This is why the chairman is claiming that it is a good deal for shareholders.

Unfortunately we won't get to see the impact on the market cap of this announcement as the business is being delisted - but the price they raise the 15% placing at (we will find out eventually) will be a sign as to what the business is currently worth freed from that liability.

[wimirob] 15/6/2012 15:35

catch 22 scenario sums it up well.

It is the fear of delisting and what that entails I suspect is causing the most problems for smaller shareholders in deciding what to do. Some will be comfortable holding in a private company environment, some will not.

The delisting offers prospects via the conversion of the preference shares whereas non conversion of preference shares probably does not as the liability will continue to grow & hence the hurdle before ordinary shareholders would see any value would also continue to grow.

I would guess it has been a very lengthy & difficult process to find a way forward with the Preference shareholders. The directors have found a way to generate new business in the limited capital environment of the last few years. The shareholders that vote in favour of the proposed resolutions will be hoping they can show substantial growth with the access to new capital without have to suffer an undue level of dilution at a low price.