Mbl Share Discussion Threads

[jeffian] 03/11/2010 16:58

Not sure about the psychology there. Having loads of small shareholders sending in stroppy emails is just as likely to make a dominant shareholder/executive say 'oh sod it' and take it private for a quiet life, no? The trouble is, in the information vacuum following the shock trading updates, we have talked ourselves into a lather. I would rather wait a while to see how things pan out rather than jump to conclusions. Maybe naively, I have some reliance on Peter Cowgill doing what he said he would do and stick up for the minority shareholders. If we antagonise Cowgill AND Allan, we've got nobody on our 'side'!

Having said that, if the GE holding is now in the hands of Livesey who is a Director of U-Explore (have I got that right? been out of circulation recently), it all looks uncomfortably incestuous. The quicker the results of the 'strategic review' are out in the open and these issues can be discussed openly with the company, the better.

[timesmoney] 03/11/2010 16:28

Pleased to see people getting vocal. Unfortuately most people vote with their wallets and are long gone. That is why this stock is so badly rated and an MBO or similar likely. The root of the problem is innapropriate directors and governanace. The blame lays squarely with the SE who do not do enough to monitor, companies and their boards, nomads and brokers. The rules should be rigid and transgressions dealt with severely.
MBL should simply not be able to trade their shares without an appropriate board comprised of proper independent non execs. The 'you scratch my back. I will drive your Jag' arrangenments between Alan and Cowgill is a disgrace.

[davidosh] 03/11/2010 16:07

Miamisteve....Can you email me via the TMF facility ?

[miamisteve] 03/11/2010 16:01

Remember PC's BS about how he likes to incentives his ceo's hence TA renumeration.

I looked up the relevant figures for JD Sport's ceo

Barry Bown £302,000 +3% operating profit £62,308,000 + 63%

Completely at odds with what TA is getting £1m+ for operating profit £8m.

I'm writing in an email to Peter Cowgill to say how disgusted I am. I think we all have to get proactive so that they are so sick and scared that they'll stop stealing and buy us out at a fair price.

[miamisteve] 03/11/2010 13:50

David - For another company I have invested in 2 minority shareholders one of which is myself are now being proposed as non-executive directors at the upcoming AGM. This is quite a particular situation in which the company has been delisted and we engaged in quite vociferous lobbying for over a year leading up to this outcome.

I think it may be a good idea if you were to stand as a non-executive. We can actually force the issue if we can attain 10% of shareholders to request an EGM. TA would be in quite an awkward situation if he was to then vote against.

We don't need someone with 40 yrs of distribution experience. We need common sense, and someone in touch with the sort of transparency that the public expect.

It's quite ridiculous that we are being sold the line that TA is some sort of genius and deserves to personally rake of 15% of the companies profits after we had spent 5 years paying off his debt, and yet all we really see is one of the worst deliveries of IR, PR and corporate governance on the lSE.

[kimboy2] 03/11/2010 13:30

You do know everyone !

[davidosh] 03/11/2010 12:34

kimboy2....Played against him at rugby no doubt as QEGS were our arch rivals. He is a Blackburn fan whilst I support Blackpool. I did speak to him though just to rule him out. Livesey is a fairly common name round those parts btw and there was another in my class at school who was a very good golf player.

[kimboy2] 03/11/2010 11:52

Do you know Andrew Livesey ? You seem to know everyone.

[davidosh] 03/11/2010 11:43

Kimboy2...I can 100% confirm it is not Andrew Livesey. I rather think it will be A for Alan who is a director at U-Xplore ?

[kimboy2] 03/11/2010 10:41

David
No idea who the Livesey's are but could it be this bloke;

[yump] 03/11/2010 10:30

I'm not sure there is one and as yet of course we can only judge by appearance, action or lack of action.

However, if things aren't written in black and white, then there are very few people in business that will stick to moral behaviour when they are given the opportunity to legitimately change things for their own benefit.

If you see what normal everyday people do in the course of meeting business targets, then there should be no surprises if people with way more resources follow the same path on a more complex and less accountable scale.

Business gives people an excuse to exercise behaviours and to inwardly rationalise them as being 'just business', that would permanently lose them friends or lead to a loss of teeth in the 'outside' world.

I occasionally have a drink with some folks who are very senior management in a very well known company, who when they were buying a house, sent some other 'friends' around (3 lots I think) to view with the brief of basically knocking the property and the price 'you won't get that price mate', in order for them to come in with a 'better' offer.

My opinion of them changed on that day, particularly as they seemed puzzled when I said it was no better behaviour than a fraud or con-artist.

Its up to MUBL board imo to PROVE that they are absolutely acting in shareholders interests, not to leave it to rumour. Isn't there a saying about silence ?

[timesmoney] 03/11/2010 10:14

Yump
Glad someone prepared to speak the unspeakable.
Even if this does not apply to MBL, they should distance themselves from that possibility.
The interims will help clarify the position.
What is the sanction if a company can be seen to have deliberately talked down the results etc?

[conlon2] 03/11/2010 10:11

Yes, I heard it was Cliffy D'Arcy and one of his fellow FOOLs

[davidosh] 03/11/2010 10:10

Has anyone checked out the couple who reported their 1.3% holding yesterday ?

[yump] 03/11/2010 09:52

I nicked this off a totally unrelated thread, but quite interesting stuff on Wikipedia explaining management buyouts...

"...The impending possibility of an MBO may lead to principal-agent problems, moral hazard, and perhaps even the subtle downward manipulation of the stock price prior to sale via adverse information disclosure - including accelerated and aggressive loss recognition, public launching of questionable projects and adverse earning surprises...."



Hmmm.

[deswalker] 02/11/2010 17:46

Now in the name of Talisman Dynamic Master Fund. Also this couple disclosing 1.3%.

[masurenguy] 02/11/2010 17:44

Very strange - it looks like GE's associated vehicle Montoya has now sold out completely !

[deswalker] 02/11/2010 17:15

Anyone got any idea what's going on with these RNS's ?

[scott84] 01/11/2010 14:37

Another or same 1.135 mil trade at 101p.

Take it it's not a cross then David ?

[kimboy2] 01/11/2010 08:24

IIRC it was said at the conference call that the move had been fully expensed in the last figures.

[davidosh] 01/11/2010 00:47

I am in the same camp as Kimboy and also doubt that the interims will show a significant difference in revenues for H1 although there may be some one off costs lumped in ahead of the move and of course the figures will not be audited until the year end so there will be some flexibility.

We really need a new non exec at the earliest opportunity and if anyone here has any recommendations then I am happy to put them forward.

[jeff h] 01/11/2010 00:01

Thanks Kimboy.

Yes the Interims wont even be audited - lots of scope to throw in one off costs without specifically mentioning them.

Most companies make a point of highlighting exceptional costs...increased depreciation, Cowgills bonus, amortisation and whatever else been chucked in not even worth a mention from MBL.

[kimboy2] 31/10/2010 22:42

They aren't allowed to make forecasts during an offer period so I don't think we will be getting an official numerical estimate of the last TS.

IMV the revenue H1/10 will be slightly below H1/09 but the gross margin will have improved from 10.4% to perhaps 11%. This is below H2/09 which is why the TS referred to the 'anticipated fall in profitability' and the profitability being 'behind forecasts', rather than an actual fall.

Perhaps they may find some writedowns (a stock revaluation would be handy?) or exceptionals (cost of moving to new premises?) to reduce the H1/10 profit figure below last year.

We shall no doubt see but I am sceptical about the whole process, as you can see.

[jeff h] 31/10/2010 22:13

Kimboy - Brewins seem to have withdrawn the profit forecast I mentioned previously....any ideas besides it being an error in the first place?