Mbl Share Discussion Threads

[jeffian] 06/4/2011 12:49

Funnily enough, CR, the same rather unpleasant thought had occurred to me but I edited it out of my 3845! Until there is a satisfactory explanation of the unexpectedly early termination and apparent wriggling over contractual terms, it must be a possibility that something has come up which over-rides the contract.

Having said that, I'm not sure what you, Times and others are bringing to the party at this point. Do you all hang around in graveyards after midnight?

[encarter] 06/4/2011 12:45

Morrisons are contracted to take most of the stock they just need to do the math.

[encarter] 06/4/2011 12:41

LOL! HILARIOUS!

[jonc] 06/4/2011 12:41

It doesn't matter what size my friends company was I was commenting on the nature of contract with large retailers.

I didn't expect you to be objective though.

[timesmoney] 06/4/2011 12:39

CR, sounds like you know or suspect something unpleasant?

[cockneyrebel] 06/4/2011 12:38

If you ask me it looks like MRW want to distance themselves from MUBL asap - for reasons I'm sure will become clear at some point.


CR

[timesmoney] 06/4/2011 12:34

Time for one of you shareholders (not encarter, who is either mad or a wind up merchant) to head up a shareholders group. There will be a DTI enquiry into this comapny when it goes bust which is looking more likely by the day.
It would help the enquiry to have a focal point of shareholder concerns.
All the issues will need to be exposed.
Related party transactions
Valuations on acquisitions
Where the acquisition funds went
Dodgy RNS messages.
Forgetfull Chairman
Bonus payments
Leases on buildings. etc etc

Perhaps also time to track down 'birds of a feather' he was obviously an insider who might have some useful knowledge. Bet he still reads this BB.

[pre] 06/4/2011 12:16

40p a share...i can feel a short squeeze coming now the cat is out the bag as mentioned by earlier poster...

[encarter] 06/4/2011 12:06

Great news today and more just days away it would seem.
Any truth in the rumour that shareholders are to receive 40p a share cash back?

[masurenguy] 06/4/2011 11:58

jeffian - it was a rhetorical question !

[jeffian] 06/4/2011 11:55

M,(3848)

You're asking ME?!!!

8-)

[masurenguy] 06/4/2011 11:52

JonC - 3847: A friend of mine had a contract with one of the big DIY shed companies for the supply of bedding plants. The "contract" bound my friend to grow a certain number of plants for different trading weekends but did not bind the DIY Company to actually take the stock.

Hmmm......and did he run a publicly quoted company and was the contract worth over £125m per annum and was the business at a level where he was paying himself over £300,000 last year and his co-director circa £1.2m per annum and would he have been left with up to £18m in stock if the weather turned cold and wet or if it snowed ?

[masurenguy] 06/4/2011 11:48

jeffian - 3845: Cowgill actually claimed not to have any memory/knowledge of the June 2009 RNS and said he would "look into it"! I haven't heard anything yet and the inconsistencies would certainly seem to require some explanation at the post-mortem.

How can the Chairman of a publicly quoted company just 'not remember' an original RNS announcement released under his name, that related to a contract which accounted for some 80% of the companys business, at a teleconference with shareholders that was specifically arranged to discuss the loss of that same contract and its implications for the future prospects of the company ?

[jonc] 06/4/2011 11:48

I dunno about that.

A friend of mine had a contract with one of the big DIY shed companies for the supply of bedding plants. The "contract" bound my friend to grow a certain number of plants for different trading weekends but did not bind the DIY Company to actually take the stock.

For example if you grow plants for the Easter weekend and it is cold and snowy the DIY shed would sell fewer plants all at my friends cost until his company was liquidated.

[masurenguy] 06/4/2011 11:39

CharlieBrown2000 - 3844: Now that MRW is clear of MBL, what incentive do they have in paying anything significant for the stock? It's effectively worthless, fit only for being sold from a market stall or car boot sale!

Any prudent contract of this size would contain legally binding clauses that committed the customer to taking the inventory bought and held exclusively for them at a predetermined contractual price. If this was not the case with the contract signed with MW in 2009 then MBL left themselves wide open to be left with any stock that MW suddenly decided they didn't want and to take also massive write offs on any remaining stock that MW might be contractually bound to take if the price was not predetermined.

None of these issues have been explained or clarified to shareholders on the same basis that no clarification or explanation has been provided as to how and why Morrisons was able to cancel a 3 year contract in March after less than 2 years had beencompleted.

[jeffian] 06/4/2011 11:20

Masurenguy, (3841)

Cowgill actually claimed not to have any memory/knowledge of the June 2009 RNS and said he would "look into it"! I haven't heard anything yet and the inconsistencies would certainly seem to require some explanation at the post-mortem. I agree with your comment "Contracts are normally legally binding agreements in my experience and are legally enforceable if breached by either party" and that is why I am mystified by the many contradictions about both the length of the contract and the terms and conditions of its termination.

CB2K,
"The way investors have been treated by this company is outrageous". That may be true but, on the surface at least, it would also appear that MBL in turn have been rather badly treated by Morrisons.

[charliebrown2000] 06/4/2011 10:43

The longer you hold on to DVDs and CD stocks, the lower its value becomes. Now that MRW is clear of MBL, what incentive do they have in paying anything significant for the stock? It's effectively worthless, fit only for being sold from a market stall or car boot sale! Take a trip round Tesco and you'll see plenty of it on sale for £3! If an agreement had been reached, don't you think it likely that MRW could have been asked to hold off on the trade announcement long enough for MBL to get an RNS out? The way investors have been treated by this company is outrageous, but what's worse is the way so many keep holding on in the hope that good news is around the corner. Battered wife syndrome!

[kimboy2] 06/4/2011 10:21

Hmmm! If that were the case, surely the whole deal would be wrapped up in a single announcement? To announce the definitive termination of the agreement without the terms which are still in "advanced negotiation" tells us the stock position HASN'T been agreed, surely?

Possibly. However I think that an agreement has been reached but not signed off yet and that their hand was forced by the trade announcement.

I thought that their best card with MRW was the potential for disruption to their supply.

At the interims they had £20.9m inventories. 82% of that would be £17m.

[jeffian] 06/4/2011 10:13

"It would seem to me that the stock position has been agreed and is waiting to be signed off. I think that is a positive."

Hmmm! If that were the case, surely the whole deal would be wrapped up in a single announcement? To announce the definitive termination of the agreement without the terms which are still in "advanced negotiation" tells us the stock position HASN'T been agreed, surely?

[masurenguy] 06/4/2011 10:07

jeffian - 3835: I have to say that I'm struggling to compute these two statements - 22/6/09 "a new 3 year contract with Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc ('Morrisons') for the supply of Morrisons entertainment into 2012"
6/4/11 "the trading relationship with its major customer, Morrisons Supermarket plc ("Morrisons") has terminated with immediate effect"

This situation as to why a 3 year contract could be prematurely cancelled was raised at the recent teleconference following the first announcement last month. Cowgill would not give a direct answer to that question - he just talked about declining ranges and margins on the deal and would not be drawn on any of the issues relating to why it terminated or any resolution of the outstanding inventory issue.

Contracts are normally legally binding agreements in my experience and are legally enforceable if breached by either party unless their is an agreement for mutual determination. In the case of the latter this is usually followed by an announcement explaining why mutual determination was agreed, a clear and stepped timetable for disengagement and the agreed terms for the disengagement including the resolution of all outstanding matters relating to the contract. However this has not been the case here and shareholders are still speculating as to what is going on !

[kimboy2] 06/4/2011 10:07

It would seem to me that the stock position has been agreed and is waiting to be signed off. I think that is a positive.

The word was that they weren't making any money on the MRW contract any more so an early termination is not necessarily a problem.

If they have got the money for the inventories at or near to valuation then there are 2 further issues.

Firstly whether they can get out of the scandalous lease they signed us up to with their mates. I am sure they will get out of it. The only question is whether it will cost.

Secondly what sort of business is left and what can be built up. There was the suggestion that the cash realised would be handed back to shareholders.

IMV that would be the best solution.

[fft] 06/4/2011 09:35

gd,

errr.... did you see the RNS of about 30 minutes ago ? deal completely over, but no terms agreed for stock.

It now depends on what they get for the stock, and what renegotiation occurs for the long lease on a building they dont need, and whether they can get any money back on the investments of last year (as per conference call). And whether TA exits stage left with his pockets stuffed or empty.

[microscope] 06/4/2011 09:33

What a saga of failure imho.
IF the rumour about a part of management 'doing a runner' has any substance (I've no reason to think it has or has not, merely note that I have read of it on here, but if it has there will surely be an another RNS imminently) then I would not be surprised to see a suspension 'pending clarification....' before long.

And boy, I think a suspension may happen imminently anyway it's my opinion that a whole lotta clarification for shareholders is much neeeded!

All very much imho.