Managed Support Services Share Discussion Threads

[w1ndjammer] 28/9/2011 18:08

ho dear how could it have all gone wrong,
the biggest bull run ever,and this one crashed out.

WJ.

[2float] 28/9/2011 10:41

I think you're right Venlib, we'll agree to differ. I hold an old fashioned view that if you're going to investigate something objectively you should do just that and speak to all involved. By your last post, you appear not to think that it was necessary for the AIM team to behave like that. Let's all hope you don't get treated the same way if you end up one day with a serious legal issue and someone trying to damage your reputation, as appears to be the case with the former directors of this company.

I'm pretty sure I'm not missing anything as I've followed this stock as long as anyone.

[2float] 27/9/2011 12:16

Hi Venlib

You'd think you'd be correct in assuming that AIM would have carried out their investigation into Blue Oar diligently and therefore we could rely on them to be factual. Indeed we're all entitled to believe that AIM would act properly in this regard. But given what's happened with regard to the SFO investigation you begin to question.

So I've been digging and as I pointed out in my earlier post, if you speak to the AIM team, they will confirm that they didn't speak to a single senior person who was at the company at the time. So whilst they have based their report on the facts as reported to them (by SB) you have to appreciate that their understanding of the facts is flawed.

Take Lumenglow as an example, WNG was spending significantly with external electrical contractors to the tune of hundreds of thousands a year. They purchased a tiny electrical contractor (Lumenglow) solely for their trade accreditation. WNG would then be able to carry out all electrical installation in house thus saving literally hundreds of thousands in margin on this part of the works. Given this, it is highly unlikely lumenglow was ever going to be itself profitable, its' job was to do in house installations.

Now the AIM team concluded that the company was "in fact, performing worse year-on-year and there is no evidence to justify the Company's statements regarding accelerated growth or exceeding directors' expectations".

Surely you recognise that if you've never spoken to a former director, you have no idea what their expectations were and also that it was entirely normal and expected for lumenglow to "perform" worse than the previous year if your metric for performance is profit. When clearly it was not the function of that subsidiary to be profitable as it's benefit was to increasing the overall margin.

If we can't rely on just this one highly flawed aspect of the AIM report, how can we rely on anything else in it. Again, the only information from the company was provided by SB. As has now been shown, you cannot rely on him, as adequately demonstrated by the SFO dropping large chunks of the investigations brought about by his allegations.

By the way, I mentioned in an earlier post, I've been following the stock for ages hoping for an opportunity, but clearly that's never going to arrive with the bunch of no hopers who are currently in charge.

With regard to Blue Oar, it's universally common in the City for advisors to get fines and censures and not contest them so i wouldn't read too much into that. They can't win because they're complaining to the body who imposes the penalties in the first place not an independent body. They always just take it on the chin and get it out of the way rather than have it hanging around in the press for ages.

Have to say though, not sure I'd be so scathing about the "Worthingtons" as you are. Seems to me that they've been pretty badly treated by SB based on a lot of hot air. Whatever their relationship with you, it doesn't make them crooks or liars. In fact your last post really demonstrates the reputational damage that's been done to them.

[richmond9] 27/9/2011 08:58

Venlib. I hope your well. good to have you back. This share is so far off the radar that were shouting to each other across an empty forum here.

Just a couple of points:-

There is no such thing as a collective "the worthingtons" in Law. You cannot accuse or charge one of something for being related to the others. The SFO has investigated the complaint made by SB and after reviewing everything, for 4 years, has found no evidence of wrong doing pre IPO.

The only Worthington who worked in the company post float was MW. EB left on admission and PW was a non exec for 1 year. That means the only person involved in the release of RNS statements was MW.

You run your own business and therefor Im sure you understand that one large contract can be the paddle you were looking for. In the case of WNG the cash from the city was the paddle and the Plc was the new canoe. If there was wrong doing post float then you would hope a full investigation would find it and if not then it should be announced so that people can decide what the reasons were for the complaint, which may lead to SB having to answer for his actions and the squandering of £27m and 300 jobs.

I would say to you have a look at the placing document and read it cover to cover. WNG announced losses for the year 2005 of £1 million and profits of 2% for 2003 & 2004 so it was never going to get an IPO away based on that. It floated on future earnings and a buy to build strategy based on acquiring small company's, like project air, for cash and equity and then reducing the overhead to increase profit. Exactly the same as SB has tried and failed in doing and he was put in by the city as an expert. The fact that money was raised and company's were acquired (Project Air 3m, Lumenglow 150k, Classic Interiors 3m, Euro Property Services 5m, Woods Group 6m) confirms this.

I have read the AIM censure for the first time and its not good reading if you were the broker, but its not damning of the company. Just on one point (i dont want to go through them all) AIM seem to have missed the reality of business in this sector. If i want to win a contract to air condition a hotel then you have to negotiate with the owning company to get that one hotel not the individual hotel as managers are just that, managers, and do not own the asset. It naturally follows that if i have won five hotels from five different hotel groups then, unless the other 85 hotels are already air conditioned, i have the potential to increase my sales to those groups by doing a good job and if and when they decide to upgrade the other sites, i am in prime position to win the work. (without teaching anyone to suck eggs, that is the basics of selling) If i am aware that the other hotels are already air conditioned and still announce the contracts without announcing this fact then i am misleading the investors, but a quick look at the web sites for these hotel chains shows that 90% of their hotel portfolio is still not air conditioned four years later.

[venlib] 26/9/2011 20:35

2float - I didn't 'mention' anything. I merely copied and pasted the news report as is. The AIM censure was a public censure and its contents were not contested by Blue Oar, neither was the subsequent fine which was arrived at on the basis of the contents. I think it's safe to say that the AIM document was based on the facts and not built purely from tittle tattle by SB

I'm not going to pick holes in every one of your comments which largely focus on semantics - lets just take one example. You say that the company wasn't lying because there was still some of the trading year left to run. The point is their forecast figures said they'd do X but they told the market they'd do Y. If they'd got lucky and Y was achieved they'd still have lied, although people would have cared less no doubt

The Worthington's are crooks – they were up creek without a paddle pre IPO – then they made a killing by putting out 'false and misleading statements' if you want to be nice, otherwise known as a 'pack of lies' if you want to be more to the point – in order to get another 20 mil and they went for it before the true figures were published. They may have been a fledgling listing and Blue Oar obviously had their heads stuck in a Porsche or two otherwise they should have put foot down. But if you're saying it wasn't the Worthington's fault that they lied about the forecasts as Blue Oar should have stopped them then that's plain daft

I don't know where you've come in on this one – but a lot of water has gone under the bridge. If you're coming to it cold then you've missed out on a few years that would have enlightened you. It's too long winded to go back over now

BTW – I'm not protecting SB – we're on the same hymn sheet there - they'd have been better shutting the company down rather than taking yet more money off the PI's and II's just to line his and his cronies pockets. But that doesn't exonerate the previous shysters

V

[2float] 26/9/2011 12:41

Venlib

Your posts are interesting in that you keep mentioning "facts". Given that the various investigating bodies have found no evidence to support the accusations brought by SB, and have now dropped all but one aspect of case (as mention by R9 and confirmed on the SFO website) I'm intrigued why you still refer to "facts" which seems contrary to everything subsequently found so far. The one aspect which is still an open investigation, also sounds like it's not going very far either.

As far as I can see you've based your "facts" on the AIM censure of Blue Oar and press reports about that censure and also press articles that SB has fed the market over the years, yet we all know that you can't rely on anything in the press as being fact. As Toad pointed out, the criticism of Blue Oar was entirely to do with their in house proceedures and not because they (or anyone else) had lied.

Your 24 Sept post is the most interesting because it doesn't reflect accurately what was written by AIM in their censure of Blue Oar.

Your first statement talks about the "quotation register" yet your corresponding fact refers to the "order book", which is not the same thing. You can have a quotation register running ahead of the previous year and still have an order book lower than the previous year. One doesn't make the other a lie which the AIM censure actually recognised. Your summation of the AIM censure is itself misleading to anyone reading it.

Similarly in statement two a reference is made to being "in discussion with a further five hotel chains" whilst your fact refers to "negotiating contracts in relation to five hotels, one from each chain". Again it would seem logical that you would be discussing with 5 hotel chains about lots of work and negotiating a contract to do one at time (or the first one to see how it goes). It doesn't make the statement a lie and indeed the censure doesn't use the word 'lie' or even 'misleading' it only talks about the possibility that the statement "gave the impression", which is very subjective. The censure only said Blue Oar should have made this clearer, it doesn't say anyone lied.

Again in statement three you refer to a statement that talks about newly acquired companies "exceeding directors' expectations" and your coresponding fact is that the "companies were performing worse year-on-year". Two points, you can't say what the directors' expectations were for the companies so you can't say it's a lie and also a company can still perform worse than the previous year yet still be profitable and exceed expectations. It doesn't constitute a lie. Indeed one of the companies, Lumenglow which was a tiny loss making electrical installation company, was only bought for it's trade accreditations so WNG could save money by not employing outside electrical contractors but by doing it in house. Chances are it would never be "profitable" but would save the overall group a fortune because of savings on electrical installations thus being of great value.

Lastly, your final statement refers to the company expecting "profit margin" to be stable for the year as a whole, because of increased second half of the year revenue expectations. And you state that because revenues are running short of budget so far, this makes the statement a lie. Again not so. As there is still some of the trading year left to run it isn't possible to say that the company's full year expectations are a lie. Indeed AIM's assumtions are themselves flawed because they refer only to "secured" revenue and therefore take no account of (as yet) unsecured revenue expectations for the year, which would make up the balance.

Surfice to say, as a fledging listing, WNG would have been relying on Blue Oar to ensure it's statements could not be misinterpreted. That doesn't mean anybody lied, sounds more like Blue Oar weren't perhaps being as diligent as they should have been.

Most interestingly though, if you ring AIM, they will confirm that not one senior person who was at the company at the time was interviewed during this censure process. All the "facts" and other information was provided by SB. The same person who it appears has been feeding rubbish to the press over the last four years. Isn't that interesting, that AIM sort to only speak to the person making the accusations.

[iiinvester] 25/9/2011 15:46

WJ It is you that is blind, blind to SB and his total failing as a turnaround expert. I said advfn require a court order to release your name etc unless youa re so sure of yourself that you can just pop it on here to save the lawyers time in suing you and the other libleous people??

Who are the bandits you keep refering to? Lets see if they want to sue you to!

[w1ndjammer] 25/9/2011 10:33

iiinvester

are you colour blind, i pay advfn for the privilage.
they have my name, address, and banking details
i don`t hide behind a cloak, like you and the bandits.!!!

WJ.

[iiinvester] 25/9/2011 01:12

Yawn! Yes we can all rea Venlib....copy & paste isn't clever

[venlib] 24/9/2011 15:29

and if the Lawyers really want to go to town then they need look no further than the LSE themselves who wrote...

[venlib] 24/9/2011 15:24

Well iiinvester - the Lawyers can start with The London Evening Standard



from where my post was copied and pasted...

and a few hundred other papers who carried the same story

[iiinvester] 24/9/2011 14:22

the Worthingtons lawyers are going to have a field day! All they need is a court order to get the names of Venlib and Wj (which is very easy) and thats two more to sue along with SB and his Mail on Sunday mate

[toad6] 24/9/2011 14:17

Blue Oar was not fined for lying as you suggest but for incomplete procedural errors.

[venlib] 24/9/2011 13:14

Among various statements made to investors by Worthington under the oversight of Blue Oar were some blatant lies.

These included: Statement: "The emphasis on the quality of client service has led to a high percentage of recurring revenue with existing customers, which means that the quotation register is significantly ahead when compared to the same time last year."

Fact: The actual order book was down from £932,077 to £164,580.

Statement: "The group is currently in discussions with a further five hotel chains which, in aggregate, own in excess of 90 hotels."

Fact: The company was only negotiating contracts in relation to five hotels, one from each chain.

Statement: Two recently acquired businesses had "exceeded directors' expectations."

Fact: The two companies were performing worse year-on-year.

Statement: "We expect profit margins across the group to remain stable for the full year as a whole recognising the benefit derived from the increased run rate of revenue in the second half."

Fact: Internal financial forecasts, seen by Blue Oar, showed that revenues were running 9% short
of budget.

So no lies there then? - just a £250k fine because the LSE felt like it?

[richmond9] 24/9/2011 10:02

OK Venlib. You can keep repeating the same lies, but it dosnt make it the truth.

The SFO and Cheshire Police have found no evidence that "The Worthingtons" did anything to artificially inflate the value pre float which has resulted in them confirming that they are no longer investigating this lie told by SB or two of the original three suspects.

They are now looking at the announcements made by the company. The main accusation being that the company (no longer the Worthingtons) released false or misleading statements which resulted in share holders investing in the company. I have reviewed all the announcements (11) made by the company post float. Six of them are announcements of fact stating an acquisition or a new contract. These are irrefutable as the advisors would not release an RNS without verification of the contract and the company's were purchased so thats easy.

The other five are announcements relating to the financial performance. (Full year 06, Trading update April 07, Half year 07, Full year 07, Profits warning) With regard to this you have to ask one simple question. If there was wrongdoing and the numbers contained false information or had been artificially inflated, this would have been clear when KPMG conducted the forensic investigation of the accounts between September 2007 and December 2007.

I have been shown a copy of the KPMG draft report submitted to the Board in 07. KPMG found NO EVIDENCE of any wrong doing and sanctioned the prudent write downs made by the old board pre SB. They also agreed to take on the company as its accountants/auditors. Not the actions of a big four company who have found evidence of wrong doing.

SB dismissed KPMG in his first week at the helm because they refused point blank to confirm his additional write downs and write offs made following the suspension of shares in Nov 2007. This caused SB problems because if KPMG remained how could he crash the shares and get his stock on the cheap. Call Stuart Burdass at KMPG Manchester and ask him to confirm otherwise. Im sure he will be reluctant to talk, but this will change when he has to do it under oath in court.

SB = FRAUD

[venlib] 24/9/2011 01:10

I certainly supported the class action WJ. The Worthington's fed the market a pack of lies and got their Porsche fed brokers to back them up – that is a matter of fact. If I'd invested I'd sure as hell had brought a civil suit by now. Criminal is a whole different ball game. Blame it on the Lawyers, blame it on the Nomads, blame insanity et al. If all it amounts to is the Worthingtons taking the PI's and even the II's for a ride then the CPS don't have a public interest ball game to kick. It's market bets either side – the gambling machine rolled - the Worthington's won that big time. It rolled again – SB's riding it all the way

As regards SB. All he's done is take over a going concern – marketed it within 'market rules' paid himself and others a big fat salary and expenses – within market rules. Anybody suggesting he's going to cop for it via the FSA or the SFO is dreaming

Welcome to the market Guys - it's not for the feint hearted – you're on the back foot from day one and they aim to keep you there

[2float] 23/9/2011 18:01

Yes Windy, but I bet it won't upset the Worthington's legal team when it comes to actions for the reputational damage that's been done! They must be rubbing their hands with glee at the thought of what they could now do to Simon Shining Knight. I'll bet that after lining his pockets so handsomely everywhere he's gone he's worth going after as well. And just think of the damage done to the professional teams, etc. All that nonsense about the company not being fit for flotation in the first place. There must be several professional firms interested in that one.

Thanks for the update R9, makes you think, doesn't it. You've only got to read the posts on this BB for the last four years or do a google search to realise the true extent of the reputational damage, all based on what SB's been feeding the market as facts. Wouldn't like to be in his shoes! Only the other day you gave us a prime example, Windy, when you apparently referred to the Worthington's, the old board and the professional advisors as "bandits" on this BB.

[w1ndjammer] 23/9/2011 16:58

Ho dear that will upset venlib, and his class action team.

WJ.

[richmond9] 23/9/2011 16:19

The SFO have updated the website (below). They have removed the reference to the company value being artificially inflated pre float by the vendors and sold on the back of this, which means that there was no evidence of wrong doing so "The Worthingtons' were telling the truth. Does that mean SB and his friend at the Mail on Sunday were telling lies? Also they have confirmed that two of the three are no longer being investigated. Once number three is released, i think that says everything about what SB has done here.

SB = LIES + MARKET MANIPULATION + FALSE ACCOUNTING = FRAUD

Update as of 21 September 2011

Worthington Nichols Group was an AIM company involved in air conditioning installation & maintenance. Allegations were made that after listing in 2006, a number of announcements were made to the market which were misleading. These led investors to buy shares in the company at artificially inflated prices. The investigation which is being conducted together with Cheshire Police is looking at around £30 million of share purchases. In June 2008 three residences were searched in Cheshire. Two of the initial suspects are no longer under investigation. The enquiry continues.

Updates as of 23 February 2010

June 2008: Three residences in Cheshire were searched. There were no arrests.

[risk1] 21/9/2011 21:59

excellent SB

[iiinvester] 19/9/2011 13:51

WJ- is 'out of the UK' a pseudonym for receiving continuous psychiatric help? I can think of no other reason (unless you are SB) that you would be so blinkered in your love for SB and not see the past 4 years for what they are?

PS Im not an ex employee/disgruntled/ex supplier or anything else for that matter, just a p@s$ed off invester

[2float] 19/9/2011 09:48

Windy

Yes it is interesting isn't it, interesting that you can get an internet connection in order to make snide comments about those on this BB that don't buy SB's self promotion yet you can't treat us to a reasoned argument why we should have any faith in anything he says.

Let me get this straight, you seriously believe that Simon Shining Knight is the listed company equivalent of Rooney. You're nuts!! And it's strange how your continued references to past performance don't seem to include the last four years of past performance. SB's career hasn't been that great in total. A failed banker, horrendous dilution everywhere he goes, shares that seem to bomb after he takes charge on the back of his apparent uncovering of criminality by previous boards (which always turn out to be unfounded). The only thing he seems to be good at is taking home an enormous and undeserved salary.

So come on Windy, stop avoiding the questions, stop making snide comments and give us straight answers. Who are you referring to when you said "the bandits"? and explain why we should have any faith in useless SB?

Over to you Windy