Live Share Discussion Threads

[darola] 18/10/2019 16:40

Jaknife. You clearly heard incorrectly. No information publicly available supports your £70k number. Nothing in recorded podcasts or written word. But plenty supports the numbers given by ginger nut. Including the text he’s posted from the brokers note. Just admit it, you misheard.

[gingernut1] 18/10/2019 16:35

Don’t need “common sense” mate, just need to be able to read....

It’s clear that getting between £400,000 and £500,000 k per asset per year is perfectly possible. So 6 x touring sets easily between £2 and £3 million.

Saying otherwise is a deliberate attempt to mislead.

The economics of touring assets
The economics of the Zoo touring assets are highly compelling. A large set of assets typically takes three months to build and costs around £300,000, of which steel, which provides the core support of the structures, represents almost half. Specialist bricks, not necessarily held in stock at Bright Bricks, also represent another significant cost, with around 4,000 different types of bricks used to create the Zoo assets. Assuming a theoretical 100% asset utilisation, which cannot be achieved in practise, each set of touring assets could yield up to an estimated £600,000 of revenue per annum at peak rates and a gross profit, at an 80% margin, of £480,000. This equates to an annual return on investment of 160% and a cash payback of seven and a half months. In reality, given the need to move these assets between locations, with cleaning and any routine maintenance also required, 100% asset utilisation is impossible to achieve. However with high demand and careful planning, asset utilisation rates of at least nine months are perfectly feasible.

[gingernut1] 18/10/2019 16:22

Circa 67k net buys today. I wouldn’t like to have a short position open with the big news that DC is hinting at coming.

[gingernut1] 18/10/2019 16:19

Nice try again jacNife in the £70k a year fantasy. I contacted the board directly and have been assured that the rental they get for the touring sets is as per highlighted in the Brokers Note and as noted in interviews with the Chairman, where he said specifically that for 5/6 zoo rentals in the USA they were looking at circa £2/3 million revenue a year.

[gingernut1] 18/10/2019 16:14

#LVCG RNS suggested there is a consideration for @BrightBricks in shares that should have been sorted but is being deferred. As DC has hinted at further news on the way, could this simply be that BB are inside and therefore can't take the shares yet?

Interesting take on the deferment. DC has been hinting at a massive deal to come both in interviews and also at the investors conference call.

[darola] 18/10/2019 16:00

They only get the best if those shares are worth something. Given that they hold 2.8m at .65p then they’ll protect that holding by minimising dilution.

But I like that you recognise that it is VERY worthwhile holding lots of shares in LVCG. Something we can agree on. You’re probably right they will want as many as they can get - I’ve been the same - going to make us all rich soon.

Or perhaps you have another view why they might want lots of shares? Only worth something if you sell them.

[gingernut1] 18/10/2019 15:33

JakNife

Just to remind people what you previously said

6 June “£70k gross revenue from each zoo” per annum. You also said “won’t be long before LVCG needs to place again”

17 June “A typical zoo deal brings in revenue of slightly north of GBP 70k". You said then “more funding would be needed”

And last week you kept your fantasy that there is a “racing certainty that they will need to place again”, yet the cash balance is increasing and they are paying off their loan. I can lend you a calculator as you are having trouble with those simple fact.

You also seem to have trouble with the facts that the revenue for this year has already been booked as £5.2 million, with some highly cash generative events like Bricklive at the NEC to come. Take the revenue, minus costs of sales, minus HQ costs etc and anyone will clearly see that this is well on track to make a maiden profit this year.

So the only thing we will find is

A. Your lies on event revenue have already been exposed. Funny how you don’t mention that?

B. There is no need for a placing. Will you come back and apologise for misleading people, as you have not just offered an opinion but stated it as a certainty ?

C. They will make their numbers for this year. Will you apologise when that happens too?

You must really be sweating to post So much when you are not invested in something. I wouldn’t like to have a short position open when the massive news hits.

[darola] 18/10/2019 13:37

I can understand why you wouldn’t get it.I have met the individuals concerned and they have integrity. When you spend your life trolling and trying to twist scenarios to a negative perspective, you’d miss the dimension of a reasonable human nature.

[darola] 18/10/2019 13:10

Jackknife. That’s my point. They ARE shareholders. The majority of their net worth is tied up in LVCG shares 2.8m at last count, and this settlement will take that over 3m. You really think they would make a personal decision that would damage their holding, and as they are company directors also their livelihood. The company’s performance and their own reward from the transaction CAN NOT be seperated.

[darola] 18/10/2019 12:31

Jackknife. So you don’t think their significant interest, holdngs and active involvement in the companies success will have any bearing?

[gingernut1] 18/10/2019 11:56

Well given its not you and you are not invested thats ok then.

That short not going to plan by the looks of it.