Trade Now

Capital at risk Advertisement
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Mobile Streams Plc LSE:MOS London Ordinary Share GB00B0WJ3L68 ORD 0.01P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.015 4.84% 0.325 0.32 0.33 0.335 0.31 0.31 57,202,196 12:06:25
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Mobile Telecommunications 0.4 -1.0 -0.1 - 11

Mobile Streams Share Discussion Threads

Showing 30351 to 30374 of 30375 messages
Chat Pages: 1215  1214  1213  1212  1211  1210  1209  1208  1207  1206  1205  1204  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
19/8/2022
21:06
The fact that I've spent my time assessing the industry, the trajectory of the business, the people behind the business, the value of the data and domain names we have (which are not included in the balance sheet) along with the sheer number of contracts we've entered, some of which are already making money and some of which have led to contract renewals.It's like if I came onto on of you investments and made myself look a complete fool trying to point out flaws in an industry that I have no interest in and know nothing about in front of a pile of people who have done as much research as they can to become as close to subject experts as they can. It's just ignorant and you're not doing yourself justice. I've seen the level of research you've done on stocks you're invested in so why you've not done it here when you so eagerly wish to point out the same things about balance sheets confounds me.
dougy1
19/8/2022
21:01
That's not what I'm calling immature. I'm calling your "well oh wise one" comment immature and your absolute refusal to acknowledge that while you may know how to read a balance sheet, you have time and time again demonstrated utter ignorance an entire industry you so regularly provide illeducated commentary on.
dougy1
19/8/2022
19:22
Dougy1. Why is it immature to point out that the BoD has a history of being rapacious to PIs? It seems that only mad positive views are allowed here. You should appreciate having a naysayer onboard. If you can satisfy yourself that my view is wrong then you have strengthened your investing case. Seems you are immature, not me.
purchaseatthetop
19/8/2022
18:26
You're just so immature. Admit you know nothing about the industry and move on. Great to see your White Knight complexities are still thriving as per usual.Also, just had some lovely publicity from the Mexican National Team!https://twitter.com/miseleccionmxen/status/1560665499796615168?s=21&t=gmI0-heL_r_jJLm1UsJ2Wg
dougy1
19/8/2022
17:58
Spud you like. Krunchdata net assets are £786. They paid £1.5m for that. Quantas we’re not in trouble. They were dormant on 28/2/21. Then the major contract RNS declared on 18/3/21 Then 31/3/21 the loan RNS of £500k. In between a placing of £2m sold into the share price spike. Any time you see “this is a no brainier” run a mile.
purchaseatthetop
19/8/2022
17:53
Yeah they bought a company that was owned by insiders that helps our company out with data analysis and will continue to do so forever, so what. It had to be approved by other insiders who got nothing from the deal so why say it like that? And they gave a company in trouble a loan, so what, they were in contract negotiations with that company so it made sense to keep them propped and contract negotiations easier. Also, for me, this is essentially a start up and I have only recently invest @.25 but have been keeping an eye for the past 12 months or so and I like the pivot and traction they are gaining in the NFT space and as a massive crypto fan and investor this is a no brainier for me as I've seen companies in this space go from zero to hero in 12 months.
spudyoulike
19/8/2022
17:33
Spud you like. £1.5m to insiders who owned Krunchdata £500k to Quantas for a 4% shareholding £250k to Scoffham for rights with no value. Gross margins hardly moved H1 to H2 New contracts where there is only an chance of any revenue more than two years away. Repeated confetti raises. Revenue in FY22 of £1.1m with gross margin collapsing. Go ahead and post rockets and do what you like. I will post what I see. Filtering me is an option. I have recently exposed BEN and forced three RNSs out of the company.
purchaseatthetop
19/8/2022
17:28
Man you are just getting boring now! You have no clue about this industry and you are trying to manipulate people who do into selling stock? It's laughable. Why don't you take your "excellent" balance sheet reading skills and go expose some boomer stocks like oil/construction while we push this baby to 1000x revs and post memes of rockets.
spudyoulike
19/8/2022
17:27
Well oh wise one. We will see who is right. Let me guarantee you one thing and that is that another placing is coming. This attempt to ramp up the share price with jam tomorrow RNSs can only mean one thing. They are running out of cash.
purchaseatthetop
19/8/2022
17:24
It's common knowledge for anyone who's actually bothered to read up or for anyone with investments in other similar business
dougy1
19/8/2022
17:09
Just to put things in perspective. The annual players wage bill at Pumas is $6m. In a world racked by the cost of living crisis and economic difficulties and war. Whether the total NFT sales need to be $100m or $700m makes little difference and my view is that they will get nowhere near $5m. Tommy. I just read the RNSs as they must be relatively accurate. There is no mention of all the original income coming to the revenue split.
purchaseatthetop
19/8/2022
16:47
You can't trust a convicted fraudster, no matter what he says.
hazelst
19/8/2022
16:43
Appreciate your input Tommy
dougy1
19/8/2022
16:41
Patt, you are indeed quoting the RNS. Primary sales in effect go to the creator at 100% less applicable creation and sales fees. All further sales (secondary sales) have a clause in the smart contract as to what amount goes to the creator/originator of the NFT. That is typically 10%. On the Art platform created for Artists I have been involved in, that secondary fee is set at 10% in perpetuity.
tommyknockers1
19/8/2022
16:38
I legitimately don't know if you're having a blonde moment here or you're being obtuse. That detail in the RNS is specifically for the royalty payment per trade of an NFT on its second sale or more. If you knew anything about this industry you'd know that.For example, if an NFT is minted and sold for $100 from the creator to the first time buyer, the buyer pays that $100 to the creator (in this case MOS). MOS will split that according to the agreement with whatever football club or 3rd party we are working with (as per other deals of this nature in the industry, I don't see it being less than 33%) MOS creates the NFT using digital imagery provided by the club (hence the original startup cost to MOS paid to the club in the form of a licensing fee). The NFT is created by MOS, promoted by both MOS and the Club, the payment is dealt with by MOS, the NFT is provided to the first time buyer by MOS and the full 100% of that payment is split between MOS and the club. According to you, $90-95 just mysteriously disappears the first time it's sold. Only after the initial NFT buyer decides to sell it on, does the royalty revert to the 5-10%.I hope that explains it to you.
dougy1
19/8/2022
16:31
I am just quoting the RNS. It says “these royalties are typically 5 to 10% of the sales price” when referring to the two Types of revenue. Why would MOS get 100% when the RNS says otherwise?
purchaseatthetop
19/8/2022
16:27
Spot on Stabilo. I wish I had read your post before responding to PATT but it's great to see someone else that understands how this works. Patt commenting here is the equivalent of a random person turning up at a Starwars convention having never seen movie, read a comic or attended any cast and director interviews and then proceeding to try and tell the Starwars fans how bad the franchise is and what's wrong with it and that it's going to fail. It's just ludicrous. Completely out of their depth and with no idea what they are talking about.
dougy1
19/8/2022
16:27
Yep way out
stabilo123
19/8/2022
16:22
Patt you are wrong.When the NFT is first sold, the club/MOS gets 100% of that. 100% minus nominal creation costs is huge. My estimate is that, accounting for even zero trades across all 5 years, they're only going to have to create and sell between $30-45M worth of NFTs across the 5 years in order for MOS to take between 33% & 50% of the deal and that accounting for absolutely zero trades after the point of sale.Again this is speculative but it shows you clearly have no idea how the initial sales of NFT benefit the seller/creator. An artist doesn't get 5-10% of the sale of the art the very first time it goes to market. They get circa 90-95% depending on the method of sale.Do your research as I have urged you to before.I don't question your ability to decipher 1s and 0s on a straight forward balance sheet but time and time again you demonstrate that you really know nothing about this sector or how it works. You don't value data, you don't value loyalty of a fan base, you don't value the previous relationship and existing contact we have with South America or JIO for instance.Move on and stop looking the fool.
dougy1
19/8/2022
16:17
Stabilo. $40m with 7.5% royalty is $3m. If MOS get 50% then that is $1.5m. I do not understand your maths. Payment terms only happen for the year following each year that may trigger a minimum revenue figure for that year. Where do you get the immediate payment bit? The RNS states otherwise. Love the fact you were approved despite your post being utter tripe!
purchaseatthetop
19/8/2022
16:14
Royalty is typically 5-10%. Revenue share not stated for obvious reasons. I reckon we only need sell $30-40M over 5 years to get our $14.5M and we might even even do it in much less time. They reckon National team is a larger deal in potential and yet in much shorter timescale. Opportunity is massive and payment terms fantastic ie immediate
stabilo123
19/8/2022
16:00
Roleybirkin. The target MOS revenue over the whole 5 year contract is $14.5m. not each year. The revenue split comes from 5-10% of the gross revenues: "Revenue from the NFTs will come from both the sale price of the NFT and a royalty generated from them each time they are traded in perpetuity, these royalties are typically 5-10% of the sale price." Therefore even if MOS was getting 50% of the revenue split then they would need to sell 14.5m*2/0.075 (mid point of 5 and 10%)= $386m. Based on the fact that Pumas already have an NFT partner announced in May 21 what is the chance of getting any where near that figure? Bear in mind that wih the IGS deal the split for MOS is only around 20% and you get the picture. You say the bondly contract was cancelled. Please post a link for this being announced.
purchaseatthetop
19/8/2022
15:11
https://t.me/+Gm73DPra7DZkNTM0 That’s the link for the open group MOS telegram group that now has over 150 members and a very active discussion
dgbell7
19/8/2022
13:18
https://twitter.com/MobileStreams/status/1560593927568101376 "Great meetings yesterday at the Mexican Football Federation. Lots done and lots more coming 🚀. #Mos #nft #letsgo"
nigel061
Chat Pages: 1215  1214  1213  1212  1211  1210  1209  1208  1207  1206  1205  1204  Older
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
LSE
MOS
Mobile Str..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

Log in to ADVFN
Register Now

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

P: V: D:20220819 22:34:25