Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Mediazest Plc LSE:MDZ London Ordinary Share GB00B064NT52 ORD 0.1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  +0.00p +0.00% 0.175p 0.17p 0.18p 0.175p 0.175p 0.175p 3,982,618 08:00:00
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Media 3.0 -0.1 -0.0 - 2.25

Mediazest Share Discussion Threads

Showing 4051 to 4075 of 4075 messages
Chat Pages: 163  162  161  160  159  158  157  156  155  154  153  152  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
18/4/2018
13:02
but dependent on the timing of several material contracts. They usually sneak something like this in just when shareholders are getting their hopes up. Safest to assume this company will lose money indefinitely until proven otherwise. No matter how I do the sums and adding "hope value" I can get nowhere near the current market cap. EP&F PLC, the O'Neill/CCCAL vehicle, were valuing these shares at 0.035p in their accounts which is closer to the mark.
frjdnverijtnhj8568934
17/4/2018
13:39
I thought Lance predicted a profit this year.
russman
16/4/2018
12:54
We're well after the year end and no update. I don't think I need a crystal ball to predict another substantial loss is in the offing - with the obvious ongoing solvency concerns.
frjdnverijtnhj8568934
23/3/2018
15:53
I reread the placing RNS and it is nauseating. They are saying they are working on material contracts. Of course they are. Does anyone know what happened to the "transformational" contracts they were supposed to be working on 2 years ago? These have died a death obviously and not a peep from the management. The other obvious point here is how can MDZ deliver a "material" contract anyway. They have no money and no-one is going to pay these guys upfront because how could you be certain they will still be around in 6 months. So the only way they can fund a big contract is with another placing.
frjdnverijtnhj8568934
21/3/2018
09:16
70k must be one of the smallest placings in history. Expenses would have chewed a good percentage up.
russman
20/3/2018
15:27
I anticipate another placing shortly. That 70K won't last long.
frjdnverijtnhj8568934
16/3/2018
08:51
Cargil is still showing as resigned as company secretaries at companies House. MDZ have not recorded last months rights issue either.
russman
13/3/2018
12:37
Suprised Hallett has not got a seat on the board.
russman
12/3/2018
16:21
yes from £400,000 to £600,000. Easy to increase 50% from a low base. I wouldn't bank on it being a trend. Anyway they need over £3 million revenues to break-even so its small potatoes. If a Hallet enterprise had given mdz a large contract I think we'd have heard about it by now. This is not exactly a company that sits on good news
frjdnverijtnhj8568934
10/3/2018
11:16
In the last fundraising; Lance anticipates a significant increase in contracted recurring revenue.Can only guess that a Hallett enterprise has given mdz a larger contract.
russman
09/3/2018
16:05
I can't see what Hallett gets out of this except being trapped with a major shareholding in a tiny, barely solvent company. At least O'Neill takes a sizable salary and O'Neill/CCCAL get paid 12% interest on the debt but poor Hallet gets nothing.
frjdnverijtnhj8568934
09/3/2018
15:55
To me anyway his buying makes little sense unless you assume he is a connected party. He's bought a 20% stake and he's now the biggest shareholder but has little control. CCCAL/ONeill control the company via the debt and their shares. I can't believe he did not know O'Neill and CCCAL are effectively one and the same. It makes you wonder if Hallet is a shareholder in CCCAL as well. Also why has he suddenly stopped buying. Has it just dawned on him that he's bought shares in a turkey?
frjdnverijtnhj8568934
09/3/2018
09:47
I hope Hallett knows what he is doing.
russman
08/3/2018
18:40
What percentage is in free float? Anyone know?
andre
08/3/2018
17:12
The current market cap of £2.4M defies belief. If you add on the £1M in net current liabilites you have an effective valuation of £3.4M which is absolutely ludicrous. The last valuation by EP&F in their accounts, another company controlled by LanceO'Neill/CCCAL, was at a share price of 0.0325p. Even that is far too high but at least it's closer to fair value.
frjdnverijtnhj8568934
15/2/2018
12:28
Because they are out of money. Again. The question is how long will 70K last. I'm reading between the lines but it sounds like the business they were expecting for Q4 has not materialised and that's why they are running on empty again.
frjdnverijtnhj8568934
15/2/2018
12:10
But Ian Hallett bought shares and now owns 20% I believe. So why would he be required to 'put any significant money in'? I agree a £70K issue is peanuts. But why both Hallett and Lance buying just £70K of shares at 0.15p?
andre
15/2/2018
12:10
But Ian Hallett bought shares and now owns 20% I believe. So why would he be required to 'put any significant money in'? I agree a £70K issue is peanuts. But why both Hallett and Lance buying just £70K of shares at 0.15p?
andre
15/2/2018
11:46
It could be Ian Hallett refused to put any significant money in. Whatever, it's a "keep the lights on placing" as Shareprophets have reported. They reiterate their bargepole rating. MediaZest – at 3:31pm “pleased to announce” a placing… because it keeps the lights on? By Steve Moore | Wednesday 14 February 2018 If you like this, please share this article using the buttons below Disclosure: I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from ShareProphets). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article. Creative media agency and audio-visual systems company MediaZest (MDZ) “is pleased to announce that it has conditionally raised £70,000 (before expenses) through a placing… at a price of 0.15p per ordinary share”. Hmmm, a ‘keep the lights on’ placing then? The company states it to “fully take advantage of two specific, recently won opportunities, and others that are still at the pitch or negotiation stage” and for “strategic growth opportunities” that it believes should be explored. It adds it “continues to grow its contracted recurring revenue base and the board anticipates announcing a significant increase in this year on year with the 31 March 2018 results”, but also that “further to the announcement of Mediazest’s interim results on 15 December 2017, the group continues to make progress and is in advanced negotiations on several material contracts. The timing of the closure of these contracts will have an effect on the year end results as referred to in that announcement”. Hmmm. But it’s two months closer to the year-end from then, and now less than 7 weeks away – and results for the first half of the year showed a loss of £0.15 million (2016: £0.07 million) on lower revenue of £1.3 million (prior full-year: loss of £0.14 million on revenue of £3 million). The balance sheet showed cash of £0.10 million and net current liabilities of £0.95 million – though the company now also argues it “is aware of the dilutive nature of any fundraising at the current share price and as such has limited the amount raised”?. With the shares having declined from comfortably above 0.20p at the start of 2018 to close at 0.165p on Monday, it still only able to be got away at 0.15p though? Overall, the half-year financial situation and track record see me very wary here – and the shares remain on the bargepole list. D_Stone • a day ago This is pure and simply a lifestyle company. It's CEO has never been aligned with the owners. His remit seems to be to keep all the parasites well replenished and not shareholder value. Things must be getting close to its eventual departure from AIM as this must be one of the lowest placings I've ever come across.
frjdnverijtnhj8568934
15/2/2018
11:35
70k why bother.
russman
14/2/2018
11:54
They are out of cash hazl. That's the bottom line O'Neill needs to be paid. CCCAL need to be paid the interest on their loan. If you read the announcement carefully I think they are preparing shareholders for another biggish loss. They go on about the timing of contracts. Quite farcically they say they are awre of the dilutive nature of these placings! No sh*t. There are now 1.3 billion shares in issue. These guys have averaged a placing nearly every year. It's always next year when the big breakthrough will occur. Meanwhile they keep raising cash and O'Neill and CCCAL keep getting paid despite the company never posting a profit. What is Ian Hallett thinking? He's bought over 20% of this company and it's already looking for cash to remain a going concern. I wonder how much he was asked to cough up.
frjdnverijtnhj8568934
14/2/2018
10:29
Just a natural retracement in my view.
hazl
14/2/2018
10:28
I disagree with your initial comments. The placing was not at a dissimilar price to the current price and recurring revenue sounds good as well as the comments about expectations in March announcement. 'Further to the announcement of Mediazest’s interim results on 15 December 2017, the Group continues to make progress and is in advanced negotiations on several material contracts. The timing of the closure of these contracts will have an effect on the year end results as referred to in that announcement. In addition, the Company continues to grow its contracted recurring revenue base and the Board anticipates announcing a significant increase in this year on year with the 31 March 2018 results. The reasons for the placing are hence twofold. Reasons for the Placing 'The Company is becoming more focussed on dealing with large, complex global organisations. This has led to a need to keep a proportion of operating cashflow earmarked for deposit purposes with suppliers. In order to fully take advantage of two specific, recently won opportunities, and others that are still at the pitch or negotiation stage, the Board has decided to execute this small fundraise to meet these requirements. In addition, the Digital Signage market continues to grow and with the ongoing improvement in Group performance, the Board believes that there are strategic growth opportunities that should be explored and an element of the Placing funds will be set aside for this purpose. The Board is aware of the dilutive nature of any fundraising at the current share price and as such has limited the amount raised to cover these two requirements only, with a handful of existing long term shareholders..'
hazl
14/2/2018
10:24
The fact O'Neill has subscribed to the placing should be completely ignored. He takes far more out of the company in salary. If he has to put in 20 grand to keep the company going for a bit longer it's a good bit of business for him. As for the other unnamed major shareholders who have subscribed I'd be guessing CCCAL are one. CCCAL's links with O'Neill are well documented. They could in fact be one and the same but we don't know because no-one even knows where this mysterious entity is domiciled never mind who actually owns it. We do know though that a Lance O'Neill was the registrant of the CCCAL domain name. Haha.
frjdnverijtnhj8568934
14/2/2018
10:14
Not really. There was a placing announced yesterday at 0.15p. The announcement contains the same relentless bullsh*t that shareholders have been subjected to for the last 12 years about the potential, customer base, material contracts in the offing etc etc. I still believe these shares are completely worthless.
frjdnverijtnhj8568934
Chat Pages: 163  162  161  160  159  158  157  156  155  154  153  152  Older
Your Recent History
LSE
GKP
Gulf Keyst..
LSE
QPP
Quindell
FTSE
UKX
FTSE 100
LSE
IOF
Iofina
FX
GBPUSD
UK Sterlin..
Stocks you've viewed will appear in this box, letting you easily return to quotes you've seen previously.

Register now to create your own custom streaming stock watchlist.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P:33 V: D:20180523 03:40:55