Mbl Share Discussion Threads

[encarter] 07/4/2011 23:08

microscope are you Timesmoney's stupider brother or is he yours? If a post from a notorious de-ramper can stop a company trading then they may as well close the whole AIM.

Read the last set of results, It's all there, how much goes out and how much comes in. They are expecting to pay creditors when they get paid themselves ( within 8 weeks maximum), if they weren't getting the cash from Morrisons they would have called in the receivers now.

[microscope] 07/4/2011 17:39

April Fool was last week gdasvin2. :)

Ever more amazing imho that these shares continue to trade in the light of Timesmoney's latest post.

[timesmoney] 07/4/2011 17:37

Is that the recievers van I hear pulling up? What happened to the 2.6M in cash at the Interims?

'Funding position'

The Group seeks to manage cash effectively and at 30 September 2010 had a positive balance of £2.6m. Working capital has increased in line with expectations and the Group continues to operate comfortably through the use of its cash deposits and a sales invoice banking facility. MBL has experienced stable levels of cover from credit insurers but continues to have to pay in advance of terms when necessary to maintain continuity of supply. Despite this, MBL did not have any requirement to revise its sales finance facility during the period.'

Time to accept a total loss on this one, there will be absolutely nothing for the shareholders. If I had any shares I would take 5p for them like a shot. (there are some nutters out there who will buy them)

[charliebrown2000] 07/4/2011 17:03

MBL requested two- month payment delay

Embattled wholesaler MBL Group has confirmed that it asked creditors to agree to an eight-week payment deferral from March 31 as it sought to reorganise its financial structure in the wake of Morrisons' decision to end their 14-year relationship.


Oh yeah, they're about to fly alright - straight into admin.

[timesmoney] 07/4/2011 16:55

gdasinv2 are you encarter's stupid brother?

[typo56] 07/4/2011 16:18

lol, it's so secret but you know!

[gdasinv2] 07/4/2011 15:43

MUBL will fly soon, secret news that they have a re-agreement done

[jeffian] 07/4/2011 11:21

Does anyone know if they've actually started building/built the new warehouse or was it just an agreement to lease? Clearly easier to deal with if the latter. Once the shed's up I can't see the developer letting 'em off the hook that easily - I don't suppose there's many alternative tenants looking for big sheds in Leyland.

[encarter] 07/4/2011 00:45

MRW would want to be done with MBL asap once the decision to part company was announced, there would be no advantage for MRW to continue to September. However the only reason for MBL to agree an early exit would be if MRW were taking any stock held by MBL on their behalf. They just need to agree the numbers imho.
If MBL have about £20m stock then £16m was intended for MRW. These kind of contracts usually allow for a % on sale or return, say 20%. So MBL could expect a cash payment of about £13m + the £2m on hand + whatever the can get for the rest of the bits say £18m total.

[kimboy2] 06/4/2011 17:33

I expect we shall soon see exactly wht the MRW stock situation is. However at the interims the total stock was £20.9m and the revenue was £3.75m per week last year.

Having 5.5 weeks inventories doesn't strike me as excessive.

MBL have surprised me before though

[timesmoney] 06/4/2011 17:18

Creative thinking from Typo56. The dump bins in JD could work out well. PC has a £300k shortfall in the trouser pocket department this year which needs making up. I am sure James Allan could broker the sale/purchase (so long as JD pay upfront)

[kimboy2] 06/4/2011 16:39

Well there was a contract so I presume by mutual agreement means exactly that unless one of the parties broke the terms of the contract.

[jeffian] 06/4/2011 16:05

davidosh,
The phrase 'by mutual agreement' or 'by mutual consent' may mean exactly what it says implying "a benefit to both parties", but in my experience it is just as (more) often used to give a veneer of respectability/save face (e.g. when the MD of M&B was bounced out unexpectedly after a short tenure, or Warren Buffet's heir apparent, David Sokol, was dropped after being caught front-loading). I think it's just a form of words they use one these occasions; I don't take much comfort from it.

[kimboy2] 06/4/2011 15:45

I can see why both parties wanted out of the contract.

MBL say they weren't amking any money out of it and MRW wouldn't want a disgruntled supplier who weren't giving them priority.

To some extent the remaining 6 months of the contract may have been the best stick that MUBL had to beat MRW with.

Unless Cinram has the existing capacity to easily deal with the contract the obvious thing to do seems to be to takeover MUBL.

[davidosh] 06/4/2011 15:14

It does say 'by mutual agreement' so there has to be a benefit to both parties in terminating early. I do not think staff will see any benefits from it but the contract will be difficult to fulfil with stock issues for six months and knowing you are not involved beyond September. No doubt Cinram are keen to get started and earning from the new contract so happy to step forward early.

[mbaxter] 06/4/2011 14:47

Timeismoney is correct.

The situation is unusual. Assuming that the contract was properly drafted by the MUBL folks, I would imagine that an abrupt contract termination would have penalties unless MRW had good reasons. Could be anything but I would imagine that they would have to be fairly serious to give sufficient grounds: force majeure, negligence, malfeasance, non-delivery etc. etc

OTOH could have just been rubbish drafting or bullying tactics from a major. Who knows? We don't have enough info, so all just guesswork.

[jeffian] 06/4/2011 14:34

DW,
We can but hope, but I'm not sure I share your confidence about MRW or that they care one way or the other what their suppliers think. (Mind you, as a MRW shareholder, I would expect them to adopt a hard-nosed commercial approach!). As you say "many on here know what was said" and in many respects it didn't sound as if 'honouring the letter and spirit' was very high on the agenda since they decided to open up the contract to tender!

[timesmoney] 06/4/2011 14:05

Dividosh. I will remain Timesmoney for the moment until matters become clearer. If at that point I can bring any value I will reconsider.

I note all you say and agree with most. However I do not feel that MRW have any questions to answer. We were never party to the real terms of the deal which will innevitably not be as favorable as we would like them to be. I have grave doubts about MRW's obligations under this agreement. We were told a number of things about the deal including the term and the obligation take stock held by MBL, none of which appear to hold any water.

[jeffian] 06/4/2011 14:04

Times (3863),
1) I'm not sure that public company Directors feel much "heat" from anonymous avatars on a free bb read by a handful of PI's. As davidosh says, steps you are suggesting may be afoot involving those with an appropriate interest in an appropriate forum, but I'm not sure this is it.
2) We are unworthy!

[deswalker] 06/4/2011 14:03

Just to add my 2p to what David has said.

The early break clearly suits both parties.

Regarding the stock, I find it very hard to believe that Morrisons will not honour (both in letter and spirit) the contract they have with MBL. They are not going to risk their reputation with other suppliers by trying to renege on any contract terms linked to stock settlement.

The relationship between MBL and Morrisons appears to be ending accrimoniously but that makes me think that full and final settlement will be brought forward too so that they can walk away from each other. I don't believe Morrions are going to argue over every last red cent.

So it all hinges on what MBL signed up to. Either it is watertight and the terms of the settlement are pretty non-negotiable or it is not in which case further blame lies with MBL.

At least things are moving and hopefully we'll see a further speedy resolution of U-Xplore and the warehouse at breakeven (hard to believe I know but many on here know what was said).

Then what ? Who knows ...

Surely the time to sell was yesterday (tax year end) so I guess those still holding like the odds. But if it does go pear-shaped then I suspect PC and TA will get both barrels from several different quarters, and they know it.

[davidosh] 06/4/2011 13:39

Timesmoney....Perhaps you could email me via the TMF facilty. It is clear to me that you have had some involvement with MBL or even TA in the past.

I am not specifically commenting on MBL at present for reasons that may become evident later but I do think that totally dependent on the outcome with Morrisons there can be a significant return for shareholders from this current share price. There is also significant risk of a complete loss.

I think we should also consider the plight of the temporary staff and long term employees of MBL of which the vast majority who will have thought they had jobs at least until September are now probably out of work today with no hope of replacement work and the compensation to them will be minimal.

The employees will be as bitter as we are. Some more so. There will also be vultures circling as this has the feel for them of EUK which went down with nearly £100 million of stock available for mega discount prices. MBL even allegedly bought £18m of that at knockdown discount prices but not so sure shareholders saw any benefit from that ! For these reasons we have to be careful about trusting what is posted by unknown posters here.

Anyway my point is that so much is still up in the air BUT if the end result is not satisfactory then a shareholder group is almost certain to be able to add further evidence to that which we have already uncovered. I think TA is already aware of the concerns and PC has a reputation that is at stake. He is the executive chairman of a FTSE250 company. LC is the sister of the new head of Tesco.

At the high point this was over 5% of my portfolio. Whilst most were bought two years ago I built my holding with a value firmly attached to the cash generation from the Morrisons three year contract. I do not take serious loss of wealth like this lightly. If MRW have not acted appropriately or do not honour legal contract committments then they will be a focus of my attention as well. Anything else is for a determined shareholder group to decide on the right course of action.

[timesmoney] 06/4/2011 13:02

jeffian. The only reason I am hanging around is firstly to ensure that the MBL monkeys get as much heat as possible, why, because they deserve it. And secondly because I am constantly amazed at the fools who can continue to convice themselves that some good can come of this. its become an accademic study.

[encarter] 06/4/2011 12:56

The contract was terminated by mutual agreement, no point in carrying on if Morrisons are taking the stock. If there was a problem MBL could insist on completion.