Poole Investments Share Discussion Threads

[stichup] 02/2/2005 13:26

Arthur

Your views and original reasons for investing mirror my own. Basically we are at the mercy of a Board who do not appear to give two hoots to the shareholders.

thanks

screwed

[arthur_lame_stocks] 01/2/2005 16:43

The thing is screwed nobody really knows but they share the same doubts as you.

The reason I originally bought PIT (as it was) was that I thought that there was a good chance it could be effectively restructured to become a designer of tiles, relying on their well known brand name, which could then be sourced from abroad.

This would then have freed up most of the land and manufacturing assets for sale/redevelopment and I think we could have easily seen 10p a share, maybe much more.

The route they have gone down suggests to me that they are not that bothered about the share price but they just wanted to get their hands on the land, with as few liabilities as possible and all of PIT's tax losses, as cheaply as possible.

I would just like to get this over with now, I hope we are good for 6p a share but fear that it may be less.

Arthur

[screwed] 01/2/2005 16:13

ALS & Hybrasil

I think all small shareholders are wary of "The David Cicurel Mob" as you call them, but at least they are substantial shareholders, but still nobody has any views on Palmer??

WHATS IN IT FOR THIS PROPERTY DEVELOPER CHAIRMAN ?

[screwed] 01/2/2005 16:13

ALS & Hybrasil

I think all small shareholders are wary of "The David Cicurel Mob" as you call them, but at least they are substantial shareholders, but still nobody has any views on Palmer??

WHATS IN IT FOR THIS PROPERTY DEVELOPER CHAIRMAN ?

[hybrasil] 01/2/2005 07:46

why the board neither updates us or puts an end to our misery I do not know!

[arthur_lame_stocks] 31/1/2005 19:51

I'm more concerned about the intentions of David Cicurel's mob. I can't remember the exact percentages but they have holdings in PIV through David Cicurel Investments, Judges Capital, Starlight Investments and maybe some others. I think it adds up to at least 20% of the stock.

Dawnay Day claim to specialise in "contra-cyclical purchases and sales". So perhaps they are waiting for a property market correction before taking this from us for a song.

I don't trust them that's for sure.

Hopefully P O'Reilly has his own plans which do not coincide with theirs

Arthur

[screwed] 31/1/2005 15:47

Re the Chairmans position, as I put forward previously, whats in it for him?

No shares of any consequence,
no salary of any consequence

Yet he took on the position of Chairman of a tile manufacturing company from a property based development background.

To date nobody has attempted to answer my initial question.

With the virtual complete lack of info to shareholders, it is only natural for questions such as this to be asked.

I do hope that this is not another case of PLC company dropping into the AIM to allow a Board far more latitude as far as shareholder involvement is concerned and dragging the share price down to a level where a deal is done which leaves SFA for the shareholders.

I was reassurred to an extent by Hybrasil's views on Mr Booth but still we hear nothing from the Chairman

With the shareprice hitting the carpets for a company whose principal asset is a superb redevelopment site, something does not add up

[shirishg] 30/1/2005 05:41

Post removed by ADVFN

[bigface] 29/1/2005 23:05

I knew about the Chairman's connection with Berkely Group - it is in the report

[nod] 29/1/2005 21:35

petitcanard - that's an interesting point about Tony Palmer - I, for one, didn't know of this connection.
When posters have asked: what's in it for directors? I'm beginning to believe they are contriving ways to divide up the spoils and there will be nothing left for ordinary shareholders.

If the directors' interest was to sell off the land at the best possible price today, then there is no reason not to accept the best offer tabled - from whichever party.
If their interest is to maximise their personal stake in the future development of the land then that is a completely different game. Under this scenario, a deal will most likely leave shareholders with little.

Where O'Reilly fits in I don't know. Is he a real competitor or is he an accomplice. He now sems to hold 12.7m shares or ~£400k.

Shares in issue: 184.9m 5p Ords
Major Shareholders Amount % Holding
David Cicurel Investments Ltd 24,050,000 13.00
Dolmen Stockbrokers 12,700,000 6.87
Stable Management Services Ltd 10,200,000 5.52
Ennismore Fund Mgmt 8,300,000 4.49

Other Directors Amount % Holding
David John Booth • 3,440,508 1.860
Horace Anthony Palmer • 112,346 0.061

[petitcanard] 29/1/2005 14:53

Hi Everyone,

I inherited some shares in this company and I have been following the discussions with interest.

Maybe I am just an old cynic but am I the only one to notice that the Chairman is also on the borad of the Berkeley Group?

Perhaps this is a done deal and the rest is just smoke and mirrors?

Will any shareholder value ever be released?

[hybrasil] 27/1/2005 07:46

I think the best due diligence you can do here is go drive by the site. I think that alone makes this a no brainer.
Having said that I think you will see a continued fall for the time being in the share price as with the passage of time the prospect of a deal must be virtually non existent.

[hugepants] 26/1/2005 22:22

There has been a lot of debate here, mostly negative, about possible problems with the site but when you see the big shareholders buy more then you can bet they have done due diligence and see a bargain.

[arthur_lame_stocks] 26/1/2005 20:25

That's P O'Reilly. I hope he's going to start buying again, we might get the price back over 4p.

[fhmktg] 26/1/2005 20:21

Dolmen buying another million plus - maybe we're getting somewhere?

[arthur_lame_stocks] 25/1/2005 17:31

Some volume today, it really would be nice to get some sort of update soon.

[hybrasil] 25/1/2005 15:12

No my view is not based on information. Long term I am a holder but short term I see a fall indeed I see they fell since my first post

[fhmktg] 25/1/2005 13:38

hybrasil,
Is your view based on information, or just hope? - Presuming you think that a rise is in prospect!

[hybrasil] 25/1/2005 11:55

the bid will not stay at 3 for very long imo.I am surprised that they still have not said whether or not a deal is going ahead.

[bigface] 25/1/2005 08:32

What a convoluted mess!!

I regret to say none of us have got a clue!!

[arthur_lame_stocks] 23/1/2005 22:20

topvest

They are capital losses. I think it's because of these that they are trying to sell the whole company and not just the land.

[topvest] 23/1/2005 17:07

Not a tax expert, but I expect the losses are mostly tading losses from a different trade and cannot be used against property profits. If they are capital losses that is a different manner.

[arthur_lame_stocks] 23/1/2005 12:22

Here's another question.

Does anybody know what the tax losses may be worth? I looked in the AR and they say that they have 22m in tax losses (more than I thought).

If for example a purchaser of PIV went on to make a profit of 22m from the development of the land, how much tax would they save through these losses?

Arthur

[screwed] 23/1/2005 02:38

Thanks, but you haven't answerered the main question,

Whats in it for the Chairman and the Board?
They are not in it for their health!
I cannot understand why they are there because on the face of it, if it does take 2 or 3 years, they will have taken precious little out of the company, so what am I missing?