Scotty Group Share Discussion Threads

[minerve] 21/3/2011 18:01

Yeah right, that is the biggest load of BS that has come from you yet. What is in your glorified head is completely different from reality. LOL

Nearly ran MMD. Ho Ho Ho. PMSL

You seem to think that you are so good, why don't you offer yourself to be on the BOD?

The truth is: Scotty, Aupix, Liveworks have been failures. Nothing there for investors. MMD became a failure when Pikelock left. After all the talking and all the posturing by those concerned, the image, the charm etc.. etc.. the delivery has come nowhere near to what Pikelock achieved at MM from the beginning until he left.

IMHO & DYOR

[scotty tsquared] 21/3/2011 17:59

Minerve,

It is quite obvious I could have run SCOTTY GROUP better than them ........ as I was always one or two steps in front.

As for MMD ..... I nearly did !!!

LOVL

[minerve] 21/3/2011 17:53

Pikelock

Thanks for your contribution. Yes, £600K does seem an incredible sum. Yes, all this about €4.2m is all smoke and mirrors. It is irrelevant to us as shareholders. It is like someone telling you how much they are going to spend on your property (house) once they have bought it and hoping that because of their future commitment you will let the property sell for less! LOL

I like how ScottyTsquared feels he can make comment on the C-phone acquisition. Does he think he can run the business better than Pikelock did?

Ha_ha! I would like to see him try! LOL Well, he did try and look what happened!
All talk, no affect. PMSL

[scotty tsquared] 21/3/2011 17:51

Video-buddy ............ with NO friends !!!

[pikelock] 21/3/2011 17:30

No it wasn't.

They had some very useful complementary products and technology. Some really promising prospects were being followed before others ran the whole company into the ground.

Anyway, that is not the point. What is currently being proposed shoud not consume £600k in costs or anything like IMHO.

[scotty tsquared] 21/3/2011 17:17

the purchase of C-Phone was the biggest mistake MMD ever made.

IMHO DYOR

[pikelock] 21/3/2011 17:06

This reminds me of when Motion Media PLC bought the business assets of C-Phone in the USA. Basically, the C-Phone Board had lost the will to carry on.

The thing that concerns me about all of this is the amount of money haemorrhaging out of the deal. The headline £3.7m does not appear to be all it seems or even relevant. Through smoke and mirrors it is reduced £1.85m and then another £600k is taken in "costs associated with the sale" leaving a net £1.25m.

What is the £600k for? From memory, the costs associated with the purchase of the C-Phone assets and business to Motion Media PLC, mainly legal fees, were a few £ tens of thousands. I am not sure what the cost of the sale to C-Phone Inc was but I suspect it was similar perhaps plus some for an EGM. I am sure it was nothing like £600k or they might as well have gone directly into liquidation.

So what if there is an inter company balance? Surely its the value of the net figure of £1.85 million for the intrinsic business activity that matters and whether that is a good deal for the shareholders.

I see little to inspire here and it is difficult to see much prospect for improvement unless something changes radically in the way this company is being run.

[scotty tsquared] 21/3/2011 16:39

"Key question: Who is the enemy?"

Yes .... you are being share_shafted ........

Ha_Ha

[blodders] 21/3/2011 16:23

EOS-GEW Privatstiftung







EOS INVEST AG

[blodders] 21/3/2011 16:20

EOS-GEW Privatstiftung + Dr W GmbH at bottom of link, same address

[goldengoose] 21/3/2011 14:28

Thanks one and all. My view is heartily strengthened by remarks made by s_s and Minerve above (among others).

Sorry LH. While I totally see where you're coming from, and appreciate that Plan A - if it followed the logic proffered, might give shareholders some cash to exit with at the end of a long hard road, rather than the prospective pot of gold we once invested & hoped for, at the end of our illusive rainbow.

Bird in the hand? I suspect, despite best case scenario & cash shell working in our favour, eventually rewarding us with a share valuation c. 12/18p (12/18 months), think the reality of that happening in this present market is unlikely - especially with so much anticipated churn.

I keep returning to the reasons I bought Scotty so heavily in the first place (apart from averaging down post merger); I believed in Scotty's products and strong position in their chosen field & market. We can point fingers at the BOD with some justification, but they've had a tough climate to work in, and though few will believe it (I struggle), they could have done an awful lot worse!

I believe there is now a significant accumulation of valuable contracts pending approval/award. Large/Medium/Small Projects that Scotty stand a very good chance of finally securing.

To my mind, the safety-net offered by Ernst is our only hope of seeing Scotty make that long-haul back to health, and with more reasonably appropriate reflective valuations; wealth!

Just one of these 'outstanding' project contracts would quickly see us return to double digits, upon announcement. Two or three would open the floodgates, and easily (I use the word cautiously), push share price to 20/30p, and eventually beyond. However, putting any realistic exit price on this is useless, arbitrary at best - being so dependent on CONTRACTS, lumpy and otherwise.

But if these do materialise while we remain in AIM, we may be in a better position to increase holdings or sell to a buoyant market. For years now it has been about survivability, as it is today. Many have chosen to cash-in and take their leave, and presently benefit, while others wish they had. And yet some of us appear convinced to remain 'locked in', and see it through this next, and possibly last, stage.

Whatever our losses, there are at least half a doz. others with significantly greater losses, a few appear to have a keen interest to turn their investment and Scotty around. If they, with our support actually make it, I would be delighted for Scotty and Shareholders (wherever they're geographically located) and probably have something of substance to show for it.

To obtain such a result, moderately more likely scenario imo, I have to first vote Against the resolution, saying 'No Deal' to IE's offer, go to the end-game, and open a box I can only presently hope, contains a significant 'Red value', and not a just 'the penny' for my thoughts!

If successful, Scotty will quickly draw attention from other parties, investors, buyers etc., at home and abroad.

For better or worse (total failure), I'm prepared to see the game through with the little bit of Scotty I own, and support Ernst (if his investment is needed), with lighter overheads, in an attempt to finally cross the rewarding line - I'm a patient man or stuffed goose $>).

2012 / 2013: Growing global economic stability; national debts easing; banking industry functionality restored with liquidity; industry, law enforcement and military capital expenditure and technical investment essentially catching-up for the previous 5+ years; And exponential economic growth for a while... I'd consider 40/50p is realistically achievable with the right balance of contract awards and global financial recovery. I suspect IE believe this too!


Last year LT believed Scotty could make it, though he underlined it wouldn't be easy, and gave it his best to open doors. One day we might hear the result of this, but imagine he was under no illusion as to what would happen this time if Scotty hadn't performed well. Falling on his retirement sword is an appropriate dignified exit given the circumstances. He's a passionate, honourable man, who in different times may indeed have made a significantly beneficial impact.

Adieu - GG

[levelhead] 21/3/2011 13:48

HMMMnn I wonder who it is who wants to by my shares? No,..can't think!

[minerve] 21/3/2011 12:24

share_shark

You raise some good questions in your post (Ref 5335). You have obviously spent time to digest the circular well. You raise some good points about the positive side of a listing in Austria and I think they are quite valid.

Your last two paragraphs really conclude your post nicely. It is what we aren't being told, the information we aren't being given, that should be registering with shareholders when they come to cast their vote.

They have had plenty of opportunity to deliver the accounts. Why isn't it in with the circular? Why haven't the brokers delivered a trading update? Where is the explanation to why the €2m is needed in Scotty Austria? These are items that could quite easily have been provided to us by this time of the year.

If you look at 'scenario A'. KK remains happy. He still runs the company, he still, no doubt, will have a significant shareholding in the new company, or at least share options. He is rid of us. HE and BS remain happy, they continue as directors of Scotty PLC, can excuse all previous problems onto KK et al. The nomads are extremely happy, no need to explain that one. IE are happy. The Lord, can be the 'excuse', he is retired and well off, so who the hell cares? Right?

Guess who is the loser? It isn't any single one of them above, and yet, they are ALL guilty of incompetence and not delivering the results. I say we 'force' Kurt to stick to the grindstone. Let some of the other 'dead wood' directors, be removed, forced through cost reductions. May I suggest BS? What the hell does he do?

Let a new shareholder be born. One that carries significant weight. One that can make the rest of the board accountable, because it is what we lack the most.

IMHO & DYOR

[minerve] 21/3/2011 11:50

4gazza & Levelhead

4gazza's point on liquidity is absolutely right. For the last year or so, and longer, liquidity for any trade in Scotty has been poor, and painful, given the spreads. A cash shell, as ladybird1 mentions above, and in my opinion also, will trade at a discount to net assets, and thus we will see liquidity drop further, to almost zero, unless trades are prepared to happen at much less than 6p. Meanwhile, if there is no consensus on investment policy, or there is a delay in its implementation, the risk of share suspension and delist is extremely high: LSE with invoke one or the other through AIM rule 15. I couldn't rely on the current BOD making sure this wouldn't happen. They have taken the best part of a year to get to this point with the offer. They never deliver the accounts in a reasonable time frame, either through manipulation or poor management.

IMHO

[4gazza] 21/3/2011 11:46

Level, sell in the market you can get 6.5p for your shareholding and you can then rest peacefully!

[levelhead] 21/3/2011 11:36

The UK directors back the offer as poor as it is, it is realistically our only chance of getting cash back.

There will be more fund raising after Wustinger too, even more dilution.

In my opinion this situation is like ripping a sticky plaster off a wound. The quicker its done the quicker we extricate ourselves from these opportunists and get on with a new business who say what they do and do what they.

I am sick and tired of the lies and wonder why other think there will be something in it for them. Not with the Austrians there won't be!

[ladybird1] 21/3/2011 09:51

We are where we are, level.

If Option 1 is accepted, net cash will be about 6p per share, running costs (listing, etc.)will eat up the rental income from the Bristol lease, so the best that can be hoped for is the cash stays stable. The only hope forward is a long bet at long odds that a white knight looking for a listing will come along & will then be a raving success. Make your own judgement.....

Conclusions:
- The shares would trade at a discount to net assets for the foreseeable future & would be very illiquid (why would any ordinary investor buy?). The current 6p or so would not be attainable in thoses circumstances.
- For me, with the value of the shares now so low, I'm willing to take my chance at 'double or nothing' with Dr.W..

As an aside, may I suggest The Board in 'backing' (scarcely with unbridled enthusiam) this option are in a cleft stick. No orders coming in, they must find it difficult to make a case to continue. They note that, even with Dr.W's investment, another cash raising is probable. That, of course, gives no certain prospect of ultimate success. Could they, given their duty to shareholders, recommend this last fling as opposed to at least some cash in the ban? I suspect not.

[4gazza] 21/3/2011 09:46

level, Scotty, listed on the very liquid AIM market( you claim), is currently 5.5p bid for a minimum of 100,000 and offered at 7.5p for 1,000. A paltry 30%+ spread. Frankly Portobello Road is a better market.

[levelhead] 21/3/2011 09:40

I think these slurrs on Allenby are unjustified. My understanding is that they have acted with absolute professionalism in the teeth of aggressive Austrian efforts at manipulation.

Anyone reversing into Scotty shell will anyway pay these fees and there will be a net cash premium for Scotty UK Plc

[levelhead] 21/3/2011 09:29

Sorry, but when the company is in the Wustinger's hands the price he will pay will be as smoke. By the way the Third Tier of the Vienna exchange is NOWHERE NEAR AS LIQUID AS AIM - 4Gazza get your facts right.
Wustinger will grab everything it is pure naivity to suggest he will do anything other than grab everything he can - within the law.

He'll get all his cash back just from the Eurocopter rollout then he is in for NOTHING. As for their suggestions of prospects, that really is a laugh - not.

[share_shark] 21/3/2011 09:11

Northwards .

With regards to fees..........I am sure you clearly remember the amount RAM won from the Greek Government ?. $2 million plus ?. How much did RAM actually receive after all the legals et al,took "their cut"?. £90000 !. I will not forget that in a hurry but it did teach me a lesson.

[northwards] 21/3/2011 09:02

SS - a reasoned post. i must say your eloquance has improved!!

i'm sure allenby has several 3rd parties waiting in the wings to take over the cash shell - and they can already sniff the fees associated with that. as you say, it makes you wonder....

[4gazza] 21/3/2011 08:24

I completely agree that the villains of this particular piece are the Brits, aided and self servingly advised by the slimy Allenby.

[share_shark] 21/3/2011 08:00

Key question: Who is the enemy?

Initial RNS coupled with other info received, appeared to put "the Austrians" in the frame but the Circular has changed the game.

Mention no names but some should have waited before boxing themselves into a corner. Perhaps they were too close and naïvely bought the line of only one side as being fact. What then if that side was working more in self-interest than in shareholders interest?

Circular still thin on much of the detail but has nevertheless provided much food for thought.

In the event of a NO vote, suggestions on the BB that placing shares could ever have been issued below their nominal value of 5p were uninformed at best and scaremongering at worst. Likewise the parallel suggestions that Wustinger was seeking to gain control of SCO on the cheap through craft, stealth and opportunism at great cost to shareholders.

The Circular surely raises big questions over the motives behind the source of this line. A source which I would imagine is not too far removed from "the English" and I would be so bold as to include the Company advisers here.INMHO.

At a stroke, Wustinger, though I suspect somewhat gagged by the legal framework of the Circular and perhaps those that compiled it, presents strongly as a shareholders' "friend". Someone who has enough confidence in the future of the business to put in up to £500k at a very fair 8-9p given the current share price

There's a certain suggestion here that the Austrians would be mainly happy to go on, subject to funding, cost-cutting and dual-listing. Are they being stifled by the real opportunists here?

Why, as might be normal, were we not given a statement of the stance of individual Board members and how they would vote themselves? Specifically, why has the Circular not given Wustinger space to offer shareholders his personal outlook? There seems very little that falls within a legal framework at this first stage so what is the problem with openness? Shareholders are surely entitled to any relevant guidance from BOTH sides of the fence.

Is this first vote not just a stealthy way to circumvent the protection afforded to shareholders by AIM Rule 15 which would require the publication of certain VITAL information on which shareholders could make a more considered judgment? As such, does it not seek to make shareholders responsible for what should be a Board decision at this stage? Makes you wonder if the Board is as one on this.

Seems a YES vote would open the door for various parties to fill their boots up to (an estimated) £600k from the process and then present shareholders with a fait accompli that they pre-approved whatever the final terms. Noticeably, they aren't saying they've arrived at Head of Terms as might be usual, so what if the buyer now seeks to drive a harder bargain? What if a major contract is secured during negotiations? Will the terms be just the same? Over a barrel or what?

Would a YES vote and successfully completed sale then lead to further work for certain "English" parties, sorting out a new purpose for the shell. RTO? More legals and ducuments? Show me the money that's left.....luvverly!

Is it just me or does it leave any others wondering who is set to gain most from the process here if shareholders decide to approve further negotiations and conversely who might lose their job as part of the cost-cutting and/or dual-listing should shareholders vote no? To this end, is the Circular tilted towards a certain persuasion and do we think it is the principally the Austrians or the English who framed it?

Is it just me or why do I feel there is more emphasis on the dangers of the future following a NO vote, even resorting to highly conditional, uncertain statements of the loss of Takeover Panel protection and/or delisting from AIM. Will they or won't they and in what likely timeframe? That would be a valid statement! Otherwise it seems more there to unsettle.

Likewise the potential dual-listing is strangely not afforded any positives. Does it not have great potential to bring in European institutional investors such as IE? Are they not exactly the sort of investors that clearly see value here where London does not? Would it not provide SCO with easier access to further capital if required? Why no helpful information? Why no particular emphasis on Wustinger's strong support at a significant premium to the current SP? Does it not suit someone's desired outcome? The English or the Austrians?

Seemingly some background buying interest. Is someone seeking to make sure the vote goes a particular way? One other possibility occurs - a prospective "white knight" soaking up stock ahead of launching an opportunistic bid for the whole company, hostile if necessary.

Talk of a speedy delisting when such action has neither been proposed nor is the subject of a definite intention seems highly speculative and I would argue has no place in the Circular at this time. In its present uncertain form, it confuses, it does not enlighten or clarify. Intentional? In any case, shareholder approval would be required, no particular emphasis on that either!

Overall, in searching for the answer to the Key Question, I find it is the distinctly undersold aspects of the Circular that are carrying more weight with me than those aspects I feel I am being influenced towards, some of which I rate as being more conjecture than fact and have questionable place in what should be a balanced Circular.

Personally, I think it would have been fair to give better emphasis to the obviously strong commitment of Ernst Wustinger; the inherent value of the Austrian sub as demonstrated by the full IE bid price but which will be mostly lost to shareholders as a result of the costs of the process; the potential benefits of a dual listing; and any meaningful insight into future trading.

All things considered, I'm now in the NO camp.

All in my Honest Opinion.

[share_shark] 20/3/2011 20:37

What a difference 14 days make!

From the RNS on the 4th.March.Note the words "net cash proceeds"

"The proposed purchase price is Euros 4.2 million, payable in cash, out of which approximately Euros 2.0 million would be utilised in offsetting inter-company balances owing to SCOTTY Group Austria GmbH by SCOTTY Group plc and its associated companies, which would leave net cash proceeds of approximately Euros 2.2 million for the Company. "

Strange....NO mention of kK is there ?.