Mediazest Share Discussion Threads

[russman] 17/11/2018 11:02

If I was Lance I would Johnston Press it.

[russman] 16/11/2018 09:40

Cannot have a rights issue at a price of less than 0.1p
Without another share capital "reconstruction".

[russman] 09/11/2018 15:48

When I questioned Lance at the EP&F AGM.
He stated CCCAL are shareholders registered in Alderney.
CCCAL is not registered for business in Alderney.

[frjdnverijtnhj8568934] 09/11/2018 10:50

The directors have obtained letters of support from two shareholders who have provided material loans to the Group totalling £453,000 at 31 March 2018 (2017: £385,000) stating that they will not call for repayment of the loan within the 12 months from the date of approval of these financial statements or, if earlier, until the Group has sufficient funds to do so.

So when the 12 months are up CCCAL can ask for their money back. MDZ have no money to pay off this loan so what happens then? Can CCCAL take everything? The situation is ridiculous and if I held shares in MDZ Id study carefully what O'Neill/CCCAL have done to EP&F Capital shareholders after they delisted the company. Brutal doesn't even begin to describe it.

[frjdnverijtnhj8568934] 09/11/2018 10:36

Timbo9 Nov '18 - 10:09 - 863 of 864
0 1 0
I believe it is a company with members of his family involved but supposedly not him or his immediate family members hence no disclosure...

Unfortunately we cannot confirm or deny this because the company is offshore and completely opaque! When Lance was challenged on why he was the registrant of the CCCAL.NET domain name the registrant was immediately changed to a guy called Tony Haywood, an individual who Lance used to be a fellow director with at another company.
If Lance has nothing to hide why did he not keep himself as the registrant?

Whether Lance owns CCCAL outright, whether he is a part owner, or whether it is members of his family who own it, it means effectively the same thing! Lance should be considered the owner of CCCAL by anyone holding shares in MDZ. It's why he is still a director after all these years of continual losses since IPO.

[timbo] 09/11/2018 10:09

I believe it is a company with members of his family involved but supposedly not him or his immediate family members hence no disclosure...

[russman] 09/11/2018 09:40

Is it Lance's "family company"; doubt Lance would admit to that after all these years.

[timbo] 09/11/2018 09:03

I believe Lance described CCCAL as a "family company" at the AGM...

[russman] 09/11/2018 09:01

Good questions.
Is Lance a Director or employee of CCCAL
Does Lance have any interest in the shares of CCCAL.
Lance has an investment management agreement with CCCAL.
The other interests are probably held "in trust" with Bodnar-Horvath.

[rocka999] 09/11/2018 01:00

Some idiots can't see the wood for the trees, Geoff the main man has virtually a pittance of a shareholding, the dilution does not affect him directly only the mug punters who continue with this farce. The loan agreement, as and when they need to borrow, greatly benefits CCCAL

Check out the salary increases recently for Geoff and Lance, they're not losing out

Who are the BOD of CCCAL, then ask Lance who allegedly is a beneficiary

If anyone can prove different please say so?

Please don't make me laugh on the cash situation, an early release spouting 12K in the bank is beyond belief when they could have waited and posted a much better number. Further expense no doubt that they don't want to make you aware of in my book, MDZ has a history of smoke and mirrors and so it continues

[russman] 08/11/2018 12:08

Can anyone get a personal email address at cccal.
Or do you have to be a related party?

[frjdnverijtnhj8568934] 08/11/2018 08:07

tlm, Well you could try emailing Lance at [e-mail] and asking him.

hxxp://www.epfshareholders.org/cccalDomainEmails.html

[toploadermike] 07/11/2018 10:49

Nearly any agreement can be legal if all party's agree. As long as it is within UK Financial regulations "as a financial agreement" then yes would be my response.

[russman] 07/11/2018 10:24

Was this 130k euro receipt already hocked to the invoice discount facility.

[frjdnverijtnhj8568934] 07/11/2018 07:56

The other thing to question is this letter mentioned in every set of accounts. That is the major shareholder promises not to call in the loan over the next 12 months! Have you ever read anything like that before? Is this letter legally binding? Somehow I doubt it. Yet another red flag that makes this a non-starter as an investment.

[frjdnverijtnhj8568934] 07/11/2018 07:48

"why don't you just call O'Neill with your concerns?"

Already have. It's a pointless exercise.

Im definitely suggesting O'Neill owns CCCAL. Any sensible investor should assume the same. Until proven otherwise.

What if you are a prospective shareholder doing due diligence and you check the directors shareholdings. You may be worried that the directors could take the company private but you are reassured because the directors only hold 3%-4%. You remain blissfully unaware the biggest shareholder is most probably a proxy of one of the directors.

If want to look at the fate of shareholders when O'Neill/CCCAL take a compay private check out EP&F Capital PLC. O'Neill and the other director don't even pretend anymore. The only point of EP&F Capital is for the directors to siphon the value of the company into their own pockets. They pay themselves sizable salaries theninvest what remains of the company's funds into their own busineses. It's so blatant I'm surprised there isn't a 2 fingered salute on the front page of the annual report.

[michaelmouse] 07/11/2018 07:09

You're missing the point again, and still haven't answered my question which is -

"why don't you just call O'Neill with your concerns?"

post 850 - "Shareholders on the other hand just face more and more dilution."

CCCAL are the biggest shareholders at 17%, and you are hinting that O'Neill is involved with CCCAL. He individually holds 3%, so are you suggesting he effectively owns 20% of MDZ?

If he holds 20% then even more reason to believe that he wants/needs the share price to appreciate rapidly.

Post 851 is just nonsense again designed to deceive.

In an ideal world they'd have £1m in cash on the balance sheet and no debt, but then then the market cap. would be about three or four times higher at this stage. Maybe that will be the future though, and that's what makes it an interesting punt at the current lowly market cap.

MDZ have made a maiden profit for the first time in their history and recurring revenues and margins are improving. To repeat, shareholders should regard it as a punt, but you still haven't declared your interest here?

[frjdnverijtnhj8568934] 06/11/2018 22:38

---- Try not to mislead people please. The interims clearly state that the majority of a EUR130,000 has been paid since the period end. ----

This means nothing. All we know is they had £12,000 in the bank at the period end. Since when they say they have received the majority of E130,000. So what? They may have less than £12,000 now for all we know. Running a business costs money. All we know for sure is they had £12,000 at the period end.

[frjdnverijtnhj8568934] 06/11/2018 22:35

--- This is a fairly small punt for me, and as such I know that O'Neill's 3% shareholding and CCCAL's 17% will cause them far more pain than me if the company fails to ultimately succeed. ----


O'Neill's annual salary is worth twice the value of his shareholding. His shareholding is an irrelevance.

CCCAL's annual interest on the loan is 30% of the current value of their shareholding.

O'Neill/CCCAL would obviously be delighted if MDZ becomes a successful business but as long as it stays solvent they can continue collecting interest and salary then they collect as they have for all these years.

Shareholders on the other hand just face more and more dilution.

Being a shareholder is not where you want to be here. That's where the conflict lies. CCCAL definitely do not want to convert their loan to shares because then they become a 40% shareholder in an almost insolvent business and their lovely income stream has gone.

[toploadermike] 06/11/2018 19:59

Good sensible talk here. :)

I have put my money on CO's that look a lot better on paper but have done much worse in reality, same in reverse so it's always a punt, but to see a positive improvement (if it's real) takes hard work and commitment, so I say well done and keep up the good work, the hour glass is running for every company in existence and nothing is forever, we all tend to forget that even the best companies fail due mainly to bad management, which often changes regularly in businesses where shareholders are involved....

[michaelmouse] 06/11/2018 19:10

post 846 - "Explain how MDZ can "produce" the work for another invoice with 12k in cash."

Try not to mislead people please. The interims clearly state that the majority of a EUR130,000 has been paid since the period end.

[michaelmouse] 06/11/2018 19:06

post 844 - You didn't answer the question, "Why don't you phone them and ask?"

"There is conflict with the largest shareholder also being the largest debt holder and taking a very high rate of interest on their loan."

Is there? I'd suspect their history means there are a pretty limited number of organisations that will offer them a loan on considerably better terms?

This is a fairly small punt for me, and as such I know that O'Neill's 3% shareholding and CCCAL's 17% will cause them far more pain than me if the company fails to ultimately succeed.

MDZ's market cap. is only just over £1m, and they've just reported a maiden profit (albeit at the interim stage). As a punt it's pretty attractive to me.

You're not a shareholder so what's your interest or concern exactly?

[russman] 06/11/2018 13:21

MDZ use an invoice discount facility.
Explain how MDZ can "produce" the work for another invoice with 12k in cash.
Got to pay the overheads aswell.

[russman] 06/11/2018 13:17

No. All related party disclosures have not been made to date.