Mbl Share Discussion Threads

[jeffian] 17/6/2011 14:28

Blimey, you're a sensitive soul, Mas. Nobody's having a go at you. My reference to 'shouting' - as I thought I had already explained - was because you seem to use bigger typeface than the rest of us. I gather using CAPS LOCK is considered 'shouting' in interwebbyworld, so maybe you're just talking loudly!

8-)

[madmix] 17/6/2011 14:21

Mas,

Remove the "!" and change it to a full stop. People will then interpret it as a bland statement of fact.

FWIW, I'm not trying to wind you up. Just trying to be helpful. Hope this doesn't come across as being on your case...

[masurenguy] 17/6/2011 14:19

jeffian - 17 Jun'11 - 4057: I took your opening sentence to be a complaint.

How can you interpret a bland statement of fact such as: "MRW inventory issue still not resolved after nearly 6 months has elapsed from their initial announcement !" as being a "harsh complaint" !

On Wednesday you were also accusing me of "shouting about it on a free bb." Why are you on my case !

[madmix] 17/6/2011 14:18

Mas,

To be fair to jeffian, one would not usually exclaim a neutral and factual observation.

exclaim: To cry out suddenly or vehemently, as from surprise or emotion.

"MRW inventory issue still not resolved after nearly 6 months has elapsed from their initial announcement !"

[jeffian] 17/6/2011 13:53

I took your opening sentence to be a complaint. We've certainly got plenty to complain about but I'd rather have some news than no news.

[masurenguy] 17/6/2011 11:23

"jeffian - 17 Jun'11 - 4055: it's harsh to complain that you don't like what you're told!"

Exactly where and how have I made a harsh complaint that I don't like what I've been told ? I just made a simple, neutral and factual observation about timescale in #4053 above !

[jeffian] 17/6/2011 10:49

Mas,
Given the amount of complaints about lack of information from the Company, it's harsh to complain that you don't like what you're told! They're damned if they do/damned if they don't, but at least they've told us something. It was obvious there was a problem with the terms of the Morrisons contract and one would hope that in due course they'd tell us what it was (i.e. how a 3-year contract with responsibility for stock becomes a less-than-2-year contract without), but there's not much more they can say until it's all agreed, is there? I can also see that extricating themselves from U-xplore and the warehouse contract is going to be difficult (why should they?) and I expect that hangs on the 'personal relationships' that got them into those in the first place. I imagine a few friendships are going to end up a bit strained! At least they think they'll still be around on 11 August! (though I expect some horrible write-offs in the accounts on top of whatever trading disasters are revealed). Do you actually have any of these or are you a 'concerned bystander' like Times?

[encarter] 17/6/2011 07:34

Yikes! not expecting an update until August?????

[masurenguy] 17/6/2011 07:19

MRW inventory issue still not resolved after nearly 6 months has elapsed from their initial announcement !

RNS Number: 3170A - 31 January 2011: "Morrisons has confirmed to the Company that it will assume responsibility for the stock held by MBL on its behalf"

RNS Number : 6018I
MBL Group PLC
17 June 2011

COMPANY update

Further to the announcements made on 18 March and 6 April 2011, the Board of MBL Group plc ("Board") would like to provide a progress update to shareholders.

The negotiations with Morrisons Supermarket plc ("Morrisons") in relation to the contractual matters requiring resolution are continuing. Whilst significant progress has been made by MBL in reducing the level of exposure to Morrisons in terms of debtors and allocated stocks, there remains a residual asset "lock up", which is the subject of continuing work in progress and dispute dialogue. The Board has been disappointed that a conclusion has not yet been reached and a further update will be provided with the Preliminary Announcement, which will be released on Thursday 11 August 2011.

The previously announced downsizing of the operations of the Group has largely been completed. Regrettably this has resulted in a significant number of job losses with an overall reduction of approximately 50% of the employee base. This will result in some exceptional costs being taken in the financial year to 31 March 2011. Discussions are also ongoing with regard to a proposed exit from MBL's investment in U-Explore and its obligations in relation to the proposed lease of the new distribution centre. Again, the Board expect to be able to report further on the outcome of these negotiations in the near future. The business continues to trade in line with the Board's expectations.

The Board is in the process of reviewing the detailed Business Plan based on the business activities and opportunities which presently prevail. The Board can also confirm that, further to the announcement made on 15 March 2011, the Board is not in any discussions that may lead to an offer for the entire Company and therefore under the rules of the Takeover Code the Company is no longer in an offer period.

[jeffian] 16/6/2011 23:43

You may be right, CB, but cutting my losses from a potential 100% to 'only' 94% doesn't do it for me. Thanks for your concern, though.

[charliebrown2000] 16/6/2011 22:52

Jeffian - I appreciate you making the effort to explain your reasons but I disagree and would discourage others from holding on. Bottom line with your argument is that you think it better to leave (continue to put) your investment in a company which it seems generally agreed shows a disregard for private shareholders and is in a business sector which is steadily and quickly declining (HMV, Cinram, Game, Technicolor, etc...) Taking your money and putting it somewhere else has its risks, but it is possible to find a business sector where there is a genuine prospect of growth and hopefully an investor community which feels happy with the way the company is being run and they way they are treated by the management. Cut your losses, my friend!

[jeffian] 16/6/2011 19:27

I don't disagree with any of that, CB2000, but what I meant by "hindsight" was that the issues you cite for selling NOW are historic - the loss of MRW, the shrinking of the market for physical sales, the sky-high bonuses - and unlikely to be repeated. We are where we are. I've taken a real caning on this and my residual holding has a value of a few £k. Even if I took it out and reinvested it in a stonking success, it's still going to be a few £k! What's the point? In the meantime, the whole she-bang is valued at less than £3m so the downside is minimal and the upside is......errrr.....well, whatever it is, but I'm prepared to leave a few £k running as a 500/1 outside bet! The fact that they are still trading means that there is still some kind of business there (the penalties for Directors trading whilst insolvent being what they are!) and I suppose the only issue is whether the controlling shareholders would treat the rest on an equal footing. I'm not holding my breath, but I'm resigned to seeing it through.

[charliebrown2000] 16/6/2011 18:48

Jeffian - it's not all hindsight. I dumped this stock a while back when you could still sell it for more than a quid. As for self-evident, well I would think so too but unfortunately there are still some out there who think some miraculous turnaround is in the offing. It really disgusts me to see how the management at this company are abusing shareholders IMO. As for residual value, it was mentioned some time ago on this bb that shareholders will come low on the list of recipients if the admin gets called in. My advice is take what little money from this you can. Surprising that we've heard nothing about the sale of the Uex stake back to the other shareholders (remember that one?). I mean, that had to be an easy sell, right? What? No-one wants it, not even the other shareholders? Just as it was previously with MRW, here we are again with everything riding on the back of one deal - Sainsbury's. Let's hope they don't suddenly switch suppliers or go solo, eh?

[jeffian] 16/6/2011 13:29

CB2000,
What you say is self-evidently true but is largely based on hindsight. At least CR made his call when there was still some value to be had! The remuneration issue related to the years they made super-profits and I doubt they will be rewarding themselves so handsomely now. As for taking our money and putting it elsewhere, I suspect most of us - at least relatively recent investors - have so little left here by value that they'd rather wait and see whether the dead horse is worth more to the Knackers than the market thinks it is. After all, if it goes t*ts-up, a total loss from this point doesn't represent much cash whereas it is possible that an outcome could be achieved at levels higher than the current share price which would be hard to match elsewhere.

[madmix] 16/6/2011 13:25

Bee.com are opening a store in the Arndale centre in Manchester tomorrow.

One of their opening promotions is £5 off a £50 spend in store this weekend :

[charliebrown2000] 16/6/2011 10:46

Timesmoney's sentiments are right. MBL is clearly still trading - the Sainsbury's website and Bee.com are still selling goods - so, we have to assume that the suppliers have been paid (I doubt if they'd be willing to go for further extensions, especially as they're already out on a limb supporting HMV). So where does that really leave shareholders? A company which is a fraction of its previous value and size (redundancies, sale of UEx, most likely the sale of GMV), a busted business model for a diminishing market (I take it you've all been reading the news about HMV, Game, etc.?) a board which appears to reluctantly dribble out information to shareholders and appears to put self-remuneration ahead of shareholder value (it would be easy and fair to say worse!). I mean, really, how many more signs do need before you get the message that this is the proverbial dead horse? If you needed to know more about the fundamental problem in this business, take a look at the share price of Cinram, the guys who just took over from MBL at MRW. If I were MRW right now, I'd be preparing Plan C (and don't kid yourself that it means a chance for MBL to walk back through the door)! Take your money and find a business with real growth prospects and a management team that care about shareholder value, not lining their pockets with remuneration levels typical of companies 50x bigger.

[jeffian] 15/6/2011 18:04

Aye, he did that.

M,
You're not quite on CAPS LOCK but you certainly seem to be talking 'louder' than anyone else - at least on my screen!

I don't know whether the 'woolliness' of PRM's announcements is intentional, but a lot of the interpretation here - e.g. that MRW would simply stump up in full for all stock at Book Value - was probably based on what people wanted to believe rather than what was actually being said. Mind you, having set a lot of store in the past on PC being a straight-talking, no-nonsense Northerner, I was shaken in one post-trauma discussion when I asked exactly about those earlier RNS's (the 3-year contract etc.) and his response was that he had no recollection of the detail! So I've learned something from all this; beware of straight-talking Northerners.

8-)

[essentialinvestor] 15/6/2011 17:48

CR nailed this one, it was a great call imv.

[masurenguy] 15/6/2011 17:45

jeffian - 15 Jun'11 - 4041: shouting about it on a free bb isn't going to make much difference....It appears that their "anticipation" of an imminent agreement was wrong but the rest was pretty woolly anyway.

Who is shouting ?

Hmmm......The term "woolly" seems to be a relevant adjective here. It kinda reminds me of the "3 year contract" signed in 2009 which was due to run until September 2012 but was prematurely terminated 18 months early in March 2011. The circumstances relating to that are pretty "woolly" too, don't you think !

[timesmoney] 15/6/2011 17:42

Lots of time worrying about RNS statements. There are no real sanctions and so these blokes don't care one way or the other.
Given the time involved there is clearly an issue with MRW, the assumption has to be that MRW are either not interested in the stock, not obliged in any event or are offering a derisory price. In reality is doesnt matter either way. This Co has always been a one trick pony and that pony died some time ago. Whether they have MRW cash in the bank or not makes no difference. Don't think the shareholders will get to see any of it. They will try to stay in business (if only for the salaries)and try new avenues, followers will know how good they are a diversification!!

[jeffian] 15/6/2011 17:24

It's ALL speculation, Masurenguy. Until told otherwise, presumably the position remains as per the last announcement -

"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.

A further announcement will be made when the final agreement has been confirmed."

It appears that their "anticipation" of an imminent agreement was wrong but the rest was pretty woolly anyway. "Assuming responsibility" for the stock gives little clue as to how much and when they might pay for it. There must have been a contractual position but, so far as I am aware, MBL has never said precisely what it was. There hasn't been a "further announcement" ergo there has been no "final agreement" IMHO.

I'm not saying it's satisfactory; I'm just saying it's not rocket science to understand what's going on and shouting about it on a free bb isn't going to make much difference. Shareholders could undoubtedly call the company - as I believe davidosh has - but I can't see Cowgill divulging anything to us individually that he isn't prepared to put in a RNS.

[masurenguy] 15/6/2011 16:54

What do you consider to be speculation ?
That Morrisons are:
a) Contractually obligated to take all of the stock at pre-agreed prices
b) That Morrisons have confirmed that they will assume their responsibility for the stock
c) That negotiations over the realisation of the stock position relating to the associated contracts for supply are likely to reach an "imminent" conclusion.
d) That no payment for any of the residual stock has yet been made by Morrisons

[kimboy2] 15/6/2011 16:47

I would say it is all speculation.

[masurenguy] 15/6/2011 16:42

So, despite their statement on January 31st (nearly 20 weeks ago) and their 3 subsequent statements during March & April, it would appear that Morrisons have still not assumed responsibility for the stock or made any payment for it either, if your assumption is to be taken at face value.

RNS Number: 3170A - 31 January 2011: "Morrisons has confirmed to the Company that it will assume responsibility for the stock held by MBL on its behalf"

If that is the case, would you say that the above statement was somewhat misleading or just plain naive ?

[jeffian] 15/6/2011 16:11

Yes, that's exactly what you should assume IMHO.