Mbl Share Discussion Threads

[masurenguy] 15/6/2011 15:45

encarter - 15 Jun'11 - 4034: they have said that they will update shareholders so they should announce it when they get the cash.

RNS Number: 3979E - 6 April 2011: "The Board of MBL is in advanced negotiations with Morrisons in regard to the realisation of the stock position relating to the associated contracts for supply and anticipates an imminent conclusion."

So should we assume that an "imminent conclusion" was not achieved and they still haven't been paid !

[typo56] 15/6/2011 14:41

encarter, are you sure you're not reading more than they've said? Have they actually said that "Morrisons are taking the stock which they are contracted to take?" If so, I must have missed it. In fact, I must have missed it several times!

It may just be a question of semantics, but it could be significant.

[encarter] 15/6/2011 12:52

They have stated several times that Morrisons are taking the stock which they are contracted to take. "Negotiations" were necessary to determine the exact amount of stock Morrisons were to take. An RNS would not be compulsory once the expected payment had been made. However they have said that they will update shareholders so they should announce it when they get the cash.

[jeffian] 15/6/2011 12:36

Kimboy2,
But it was far from clear that MRW were simply going to pay Book Value for stock on the Balance Sheet.

"Negotiations are also continuing regarding the stock balances which MBL has purchased in support of the existing agreements and which represent a high proportion of the total stock balances of the Group. The Board will update investors as soon as the financial commitment has been agreed with Morrisons."

"Negotiations" would not have been necessary if they were simply reimbursing MBL. Also, note the last sentence. My line remains that if they had something to tell us, they would.

[kimboy2] 15/6/2011 12:16

If they have been paid for the stock the balance sheet position hasn't changed. Therefore has their fiancial position changed ?

Our expectations may well have changed though.

[jeffian] 15/6/2011 12:12

Kimboy2,
The first para is correct but not sure I agree with the second. If an agreement had been reached with MRW then I'm sure we ought to be told about it, particularly as the sums involved - and therefore impact on the company's finances - were far from clear. The only conclusion I can draw from the lack of RNS statements is that the position remains as before and the discussions are ongoing.

[masurenguy] 15/6/2011 12:09

As at April 6th they had not reached an agreement with Morrison over payment for stock. If they have received payment since then it would represent a significant change in their financial position. If they have not received payment yet then they should explain why, and what they propose to do about it, given the statements that they made in their RNS announcements #3170A on January 31st & 3979E on April 6th.

[kimboy2] 15/6/2011 11:35

They need to issue a statement if there is a change in it's financial condition or if the performance or expectation of performance have changed.

WRT financial condition if MRW had coughed up for the stock then they would not need to issue anything as it is not a change in financial condition. If there has been an agreement where they won't then that would need an RNS.

[typo56] 15/6/2011 11:17

Yes, given their previous announcements, surely if they have nothing to say then they have to say why they have nothing to say?

It's all about unknown unknowns.

[masurenguy] 15/6/2011 11:14

Err.........what about the "imminent conclusion" to the "advanced negotiations with Morrisons in regard to the realisation of the stock position" that they stated in an RNS on April 6th following two other references to this issue over the preceding three weeks ? What is your definition of "imminent" - mine is certainly a lot less than 10 weeks !

And what about the statement in their RNS released on January 31st - almost 20 weeks ago - where they stated that "Morrisons has confirmed to the Company that it will assume responsibility for the stock held by MBL on its behalf". If that was the case why havent they done so already and why hasn't Morrisons adherence to this commitment been confirmed in a subsequent RNS by MBL?

Do you really think that the company "has nothing to say" about this key issue following on from their RNS announcements on this specific and important subject during March and April ? Perhaps you think that this is not an issue that shareholders - part owners of the company - have any right to be updated upon !

[jeffian] 15/6/2011 10:55

There is no obligation to issue RNS statements unless there is price-sensitive information to be disclosed. The usual reason for a lack of RNS statements is that the company concerned has nothing to say!

[kimboy2] 15/6/2011 09:52

I suspect that technically they should already have issued an RNS detailing some sort of agreement or payment from MRW. If they hadn't had anything then I would have thought that some of these suppliers, who were not being paid till it was sorted, would be pettioning for administration.

If they gave a blow by blow account that would no doubt have unsettled them.

I expect that they are wanting to issue an RNS with all the issues resolved and a plan of attack to go forward.

IMV the risk/reward is probably quite good at present but I cannot bring myself to buy any more. I just don't trust these monkeys.

[davidosh] 15/6/2011 08:32

tiswas....When did I make a specific comment as that was just a general request ? I am waiting to know what is happening like the rest of us... I cannot act or react without information !?

[tiswas] 15/6/2011 08:07

davidosh - 6 Apr'11 - 13:39 - 3864 of 4021

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.


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.

With all due respect David I am very surprised to see you now saying

I have put in a request for an update and advised that shareholders are not happy about waiting nearly ten weeks.

Seems like a complete change in language to me. Has nothing been going on behind the scenes as you implied above?

[davidosh] 15/6/2011 00:30

I have put in a request for an update and advised that shareholders are not happy about waiting nearly ten weeks. Not least as the company is still listed we need to understand whether there is something left that is investible in and what is going to happen to the remaining parts of the business ?

At some point there needs to be a set of results too.

[masurenguy] 14/6/2011 17:52

Since MBL are still keeping schtum on the "imminent conclusion" that they were anticipating some 10 weeks ago on April 6th, perhaps you might like to phone Mr Cowgill to float that putative suggestion ! Performance linked financial rewards can often be very effective !

[rbcrbc] 14/6/2011 15:35

"Morrisons said it will refit 150 of its biggest stores in a new format as it sets out to maximise physical sales of DVD, games and music in store."

Could it be that morrisons has come into a large holding of stock that it now needs to shift ? Could that mean that MBL will now receive payment for it. If so TA must have worked hard to achieve that, maybe he desreves a big bonus !!

[jeff h] 13/6/2011 19:26

If TA etc had achieved this with MBL then their pay cheques would have been less of an issue:-

Morrisons to give 25% more space to home ent.

Morrisons said it will refit 150 of its biggest stores in a new format as it sets out to maximise physical sales of DVD, games and music in store with about 25% more space for home entertainment.

[masurenguy] 13/6/2011 01:56

Posted on a TMF Board yesterday

"Well what a surprise ! Having mugged shareholders for £300k in bonus (which was ten times his pay as non executive chairman) last year at MBL Peter Cowgill is now under pressure in his executive chairman role at FTSE250 company JD Sports.

The Mail on Sunday (sorry cannot find an online link) today carries a story about an attack by shareholder groups for the excessive salaries and bonuses paid ahead of the vote on remuneration at the JD Agm this week. The Association of British Insurers has issued a 'red top' warning its highest level for alleged corporate governance failures !

Executive chairman Peter Cowgill received a package worth £1.5 million. Shareholder group PIRC has recommended that shareholders oppose the groups remuneration report. If they looked at MBL I would be amazed if they have a red flag big enough to fit on the mast !!

Meanwhile at MBL there has been no communication from chairman Cowgill for months even though in the last RNS about the desperate mess that the company was left in following the Morrisons contract debacle Cowgill stated that news would be imminent !? I am not sure if imminent has a totally different meaning when you earn millions each year but when you are a vastly impoverished long term shareholder or employees wondering about their future at MBL I think a bit more certainty and concern from those at the top would be appreciated.

Cowgill must have earned more in ONE year from his various chairmans roles than 90% of the rest of us earn in a whole lifetime !"



It was very interesting to note that the MBL market cap at Fridays closing price was only £1.930,000.
Just to put that into some perspective, it is only 12.5% higher than the combined remuneration of £1.715,000 that was paid to the 3 executive directors (Cowgill, Allan and Clarke) last year !

[masurenguy] 09/6/2011 12:11

Timesmoney - 9 Jun'11 - 4011: There comes a time when the company should be called to account for misleading RNS announcements, the time is up

There seem to have been a few other 'inconsistent' RNS announcements previously.

RNS Number : 2066U - 22 June 2009: NEW 3 YEAR CONTRACT WITH WM MORRISON - The Board of MBL Group plc, the UK distributor of home entertainment products, is pleased to announce that it has signed a new 3 year contract with Wm Morrison Supermarkets plc ("Morrisons") for the supply of Morrisons entertainment into 2012. The contract covers the supply of CDs, DVDs/BluRay and all Games formats.

Great news - a 3 year contract !

RNS Number : 6382X - 09 December 2010: The two supply contracts with Morrisons are due to terminate in September 2011

Hmmm.....isn't that timeframe just over 2 years from the June 2009 announcement !

These RNS announcements seemed to be a bit 'inconsistent' too !

RNS Number :3170A - 31 January 2011: The Board is pleased to announce the appointment of Steven Walsh-Hill as Finance Director. Steven is replacing Lisa Clarke who will now assume the role of Chief Operating Officer. A further announcement regarding Steven Walsh-Hill's appointment to the Board will be made later today

A new FD is appointed !

RNS Number : 4020A - 31 January 2011: the following disclosure is made in accordance with the AIM Rules in respect of the appointment of Steven Phillip Walsh-Hill, aged 42, as Finance Director. Mr Walsh-Hill's current and previous directorships within the last five years are set out below

Seven listed but oddly his stint as MD of Servassure - appointed Nov 2009 - was strangely omitted !

RNS Number : 7117A - 04 February 2011: Steve Walsh-Hill, Finance Director, purchased 10,000 ordinary shares of 75p each in the Company at a price of 49.5p per share. The Board was also informed on 4 February 2011 that, on the same day, Mr Walsh-Hill, purchased a further 9,000 Ordinary Shares at a price of 49.5p per share.

New FD makes initial share purchase

RNS Number : 9476C - 15 March 2011: Further to the announcement made on 31 January 2011, the Board would like to confirm that Steven Walsh-Hill will be leaving the business by mutual agreement with immediate effect. This is due to being unable to reach agreement on the terms of Mr Walsh-Hill's appointment.

Umm....some 6 weeks after being appointed the new FD departs because they were "unable reach agreement on the terms of his appointment" ! This is a new one on me - all new appointments, especially at Board level from outside, are usually based upon agreement of terms prior to the incoming executive accepting the role. When Walsh-Hills appointment was announced on January 31st they did not qualify their RNS announcement by stating that his appointment was still "subject to terms being agreed in the future" !

[jeffian] 09/6/2011 11:30

Thank, Times, your input - as a non-shareholder - is invaluable. Suspension is indeed what we poor saps are craving.

Compel away, old son. Do let us know what answer you get.