Mbl Share Discussion Threads

[alunmorris] 26/9/2011 17:05

Unbelievable! The AGM hasn't finished and we have adjourned until 9am tomorrow. If talk was money we'd all be rich.

The formal business didn't even begin until 14.45, 3h15m after the board arrived.

[fft] 26/9/2011 14:39

slightly unusual not to get an AGM statement before the agm starts. is this going to be the case of the winner writing/rewriting history ?

its been going for over 3 hours now - i have just had an mri, 30 mins of consultation and 2 hours of treatment - all for getting off the seat in an underground train the wrong way. Mind you, presuming last weeks meeting is an accurate guide, it is probably less painful than what is going on in Leyland at the moment.

[curvedair] 26/9/2011 12:27

I am sure if some ex employees knew about the existence of this board then they would have a go? Judging by some of the comments that have appeared over recent weeks some have already made their comments and then been chucked off...

Apparently there is one ex employee that has collated some very interesting allegations about strange goings on at MBL and connected businesses. PC and TA are both aware of the existence of this evidence but have not asked to see it...but why would they!? It has been suggested that this employee was paid off to keep his mouth shut and has signed an NDA.

I don't suppose we will ever find out what these allegations are but by there mere existence something smells?

[curvedair] 26/9/2011 10:00

I have been unable to find out about specific senior staff bonuses as you would expect. What however is more interesting is that some senior staff were employed on the promise that generous bonuses would be agreed as part of a package but once on board they were never discussed again. I suggest that no member of staff however senior ever received a bonus in line with those awarded to to the board but that in itself is not unusual. I am sure this would have created a level of resentment but the problems go much much deeper than this and those reasons would not be appropriate for this board. The expression "not fit for purpose" would be fitting

Put bonuses to one side. There has been huge sums wasted on hiring and firing over the last couple of year running into hundred's of thousands of pounds.

TA took personal responsibility for the day to day running of the Morrisons contract.

[davidosh] 25/9/2011 15:23

Just out of interest do any of the ex employees around here or those who seem to know a few of them actually know if all senior staff at MBL received significant bonuses at the same time that the directors took those huge awards last year ? If not is that one of the reasons we are seeing the resentment from ex employees or is there more to it ? Who within MBL at a senior level was dealing with the Morrisons contract on a day to day basis before we lost it ?

[jeffian] 25/9/2011 00:02

That may be, fft, but that wasn't what they were telling the market. My point is that they have constantly been 'behind the curve' in keeping the market fully informed and that has implications as to whether there has been a proper market in the shares. With the benefit of hindsight, many of the company's public statements via RNS and periodic statements turned out to be either not the full picture, or overtaken by events (as you describe), or just plain misleading.

[fft] 24/9/2011 22:18

jeffian,
one of the problems mentioned by PC was that MBL could not fulfil there side of the contract for the 6 months notice period due to withdrawal of financing by banks etc. This would allow morrisons to sue MBL. there was supposed to be an independent party (KPMG i think) who was going to sort out the stock situation. However, that doesnt seem to have happened. Messy. Very Messy.

[kimboy2] 24/9/2011 10:27

An impressive bloke Allan Livesey;



He seems to have made some enemies though (apart from those on this board);




Do we know who the accounts manager is ? Is he in cyprus ?

[jeffian] 23/9/2011 22:50

David,

A contract's a contract. What happened between "Morrisons has confirmed to the Company that it will assume responsibility for the stock held by MBL on its behalf during the remaining period of the existing contract" (31/1/11) and "...the issue of the remaining stock balance remains unresolved" (26/8/11)?

[davidosh] 23/9/2011 21:35

It was suggested that the change at the top (January 2010) and of course the new guy directly responsible for the MBL account (July 2010) did not like the set up (no doubt having seen the directors bonuses at MBL !) Morrisons were in the driving seat all the way through as they have the cash and no doubt their minds were made up not to let TA and PC have a million this year so played hardball on every term and weakness in the contract. I doubt MBL could really afford a lengthy battle with lawyers

Why did they change the account manager ?

[jeffian] 23/9/2011 20:53

JakNife,
That may have been the practical reality but it doesn't explain why what has happened since (the early contract break, the assurance that Morrisons "will assume responsibility for the stock", the assurance that staff would transfer under TUPE avoiding redundancy costs for MBL etc) proved so different to what we were told at the time. New Morrisons management may have wanted to change supplier but they were still bound by the terms of the contract and they appear to have ridden roughshod over MBL.....unless MBL's RNS announcements were 'economical with the truth'.

[timesmoney] 23/9/2011 20:50

David
As you say there are the obvious questions and I am sure these will be asked.
Perhaps some questions about where the company is now and how any sort of value is to be returned to shareholders might be helpful.
Questions.
What is the status of the sales of the subsidiaries?
Is the group actively looking for a buyer of the whole?
Given that recent acquisitions have proven to be disastrous can the Chairman assure shareholders that there will be further acquisitions without professional third party valuations?
What are the current salaries of the board and are there any bonus arrangements?
Given the general disquiet surrounding related party tansactions can the Chairman accept that at the very least these should be avoided?
What are the companies intentions re the Olympic tickets

[judgement] 23/9/2011 19:56

"Another sad lesson for me - don't EVER invest anything that looks like it's being run in the interest of management - cause it probably is."


That's Gable off the list then!

[curvedair] 23/9/2011 17:29

JakNife. So what was the explanation re Morrisons contract?

[davidosh] 23/9/2011 17:24

For those who are not coming to the Agm please put your questions here. Not the obvious ones as they will almost certainly be asked by those attending but try to think of the less obvious or ones that have been pushed aside years ago but need asking after recent events maybe ?

[evaluate] 23/9/2011 16:37

I seriously hope he was squirming in the meeting.

Though I suspect he's got more front than Brighton.

Another sad lesson for me - don't EVER invest anything that looks like it's being run in the interest of management - cause it probably is.

Poorer & wiser!

Sigh.

[davidosh] 23/9/2011 15:30

I am afraid the vast majority of the current shareholders are unlikely to be interested in any new projects going forward having seen all the write offs and horrendous investments made already with shareholders money.

It is now a question of stabilise the business and sell it. That means individual bits and excess stock to return cash or the lot. That was the message given to PC on Tuesday.

[charliebrown2000] 23/9/2011 15:06

CurvedAir. You need to consider that MBL effectively own two separate operations doing the same thing; GMV which runs the online operation for Sainsbury's Entertainment and Bee.com which is a direct to consumer business. It's perfectly feasible that Sainsbury's would buy the GMV business and take it in house. Note also that despite earlier rose tinted forecasts (eagerly lapped up by the gullible) GMV doesn't appear to have any other business and there's been no updates, progress or announcements since things turned sour. Note that Sainsbury's and other high street retailers will still need to provide an online offer regardless of LVCR because customers want the convenience. That leaves MBL with its own remaining ecommerce business, Bee.com. Unfortunately, if LVCR relief goes, then Bee.com is just a no-brand online store unable to compete with the much bigger, much better known, much better advertised retailers and their online stores which can benefit from massive buying scale and supplier support to provide sharp pricing. In short, there are no realistic prospects of turning MBL around. It's too late in the day to build up a successful consumer brand and no major retailer is going to consider MBL as a credible supplier.

[curvedair] 23/9/2011 07:22

A question for the AGM perhaps given MBL's activity in this area in support of Sainsbury and Bee.com.


www.sainsburys.co.uk/entertainment is a site operated by MBL Entertainment a cell company of MBL Guernsey PCC Limited (we, us, our) registered in Guernsey under company number 52041 and with our registered office and main trading address at Anson Court, La Route des Camps St Martin Guernsey GY4 6AD.

Recent speculation surrounding the sale of Play.com a couple of days ago has placed a further ? over the future of companies exploiting LVCR (Low Value Consignment Relief)a VAT loophole. What impact, if any, will this have on MBL?

See Links:

[davidosh] 22/9/2011 16:33

Any more for the Agm in Leyland on 26th

marben100
davidosh
myrtle1000 (TMF)
OliG (TMF)
DesWalker
Manxman
jeffian
Mr Contrarian (TMF)
Hillsy



Any more ?

[curvedair] 22/9/2011 05:20

Davidosh

I have checked out PC's comment about TA's interest in sport. It goes to show that these 2 individuals clearly don't communicate about the important things in a man's life outside the office..Sport. The use of his expression to the "best of his knowledge" in this instance is bizzare. TA is fanatical about Test Cricket and has been known to fly half way around the world on more than one occasion to watch a game of Rugby. TA has a box at Lords each year which no doubt is also paid for by the company, it has been suggested to me, but used to entertain staff and customers so this must be OK ...right!

I am not sure whether anyone has picked up on the fact that Matt Porter,the chap behind GMV resigned from the company only last week. This was reported on a trade website a few days ago. Yet a another casualty and I would have thought a serious blow to MBL particularly while in the process of trying to offload this company.

Davidosh. While taking on board your last comment, for those shareholders that cannot get to the AGM was there any update regarding a settlement with Morrisons that you are able to share with us?

[davidosh] 22/9/2011 01:20

Apologies as only just back after four company meetings today.

I can certainly confirm the olympics tickets story seems true as PC was aware of it but said that they would be used as business incentives !? He suggested that TA was not interested in sport to the best of his knowledge so would not interest him !!

PC was fairly straight to the point in answering all the questions but I do not think it is fair or reasonable to present them on this forum as they are bound to be asked and directed at the WHOLE board on Monday. I also think it is very important to have a good turnout at the Agm rather than guessing outcomes on here.