Sportsworld Media Share Discussion Threads

[dogpoo] 12/4/2002 16:15

Primrose,please show the SWD holders the respect they deserve from you
and answer the question 4 below

4.What do you have to say to holders on this thread who have stated
your lies persuaded them to hold on against their better judgement


why will you not answer these questions?

please explain how you can post I am always wrong?

Please answer

[happygolucky] 12/4/2002 14:26

Regarding the comments of a PWC partner, I think he is referring to the PRODUCTS being kept going into the future ie Pepsi Chart Show etc - the survival of the products is not the same as the survival of SWD, I only wish it were that simple. Also, the receivers were only called in this week, so it is very unlikely that they have got good knowledge of the overall situation.

Regards

HGL

[digital sport] 12/4/2002 13:28

Yes Primrose an answer please !!

[cyber investor] 12/4/2002 13:25

Primrose please answer these questions

especially #4

[primrose] 12/4/2002 13:15

The intro to this thread has been edited further as a post,following
earlier requested edits by holders and e-mails,not erased elements..
Nothing's changed-things simply become clearer as the actual company
makes announcements and progresses. Even if it'd seem a great deal
of earlier information from them has become delayed or "lost" concerning
certain key areas,some of which I think Home... touched in post 947 ?

No matter.
Phil

[digital sport] 12/4/2002 13:13

More jibbering rubbish from Primrose!!!

[grimreefer] 12/4/2002 11:46

Even if.... best case scenerio - SWD returned back to trading. How would existing shareholders feel? Would new shareholders really be interested in investing into the existing management? Changes at the top needed at the end of the day they are accountable for this mess.

[philwalker36] 12/4/2002 11:31

I too have a small stake in SWD (very small now it would seem)

My guess on the PWC costs is:

say 3 people for 75 man days (based on having to submit a report after 3 months)
=225 days

Daily rate of £2000 (Guess)

£450k + any susbsitance costs, debt collection costs, legal costs

All told well rounded up £1M, is that a fair guess ?

[2francs] 12/4/2002 09:30

Porky,

If the company were receiving bank support, then I can only see that indicating that they had an overdraft or loan facility. This would normally indicate to me that they were in debt - maybe not much debt with respect to assets, but in debt all the same, in that situation they could easily say "we are hardly an indebted company". How much the banks are owed is a little unclear.

I don't suppose you know how much PwC consultants are charged out at? I have a fair idea and that'll just add to the debt big time.

I have a small stake in SWD so I'm trying to look at this objectively rather than reading everything with (prim)rose tinted glasses.

[lukeb2002] 12/4/2002 09:16

Looks like I've found my straw. Question is "is it the longest one?"

[digital sport] 12/4/2002 09:15

Pork Belly- You missed out a Venture Capital CO

[monman] 12/4/2002 09:10

This is good news l would love to get any of my investment back

[spiritworld] 12/4/2002 08:56

Morning all

[laney£] 12/4/2002 08:36

great post porky keep up the good work!!!

[pork belly] 12/4/2002 08:34

2FRANCS

No.

If they had 0 debts (and remember they already stated on 21 feb,5 days AFTER 2nd profit warning "we are hardly an indebted company") but 0 cash in bank (as seems to be the case here)then a loan is unlikely. This leaves them with 2 options:

1.....Issue more shares.Long winded + costly (do not have the time anyway)
2.....Sell some assets to continue trading.

Cheers,Porky.

[2francs] 12/4/2002 08:25

If they had no debts they could get a loan.
I believe the debt is over £9M.

[pork belly] 12/4/2002 07:56

>>NAV_Mike

I have already written off my SWD investment as most companies that go into Receivership simply do not return.

However, it is well known that SWD do have "valuable assets" and, bearing in mind it appears to be for a shortage of funds for continuing operations and not debts, then i believe there is still an outside chance that SWD will return.

Porky.

[nav_mike] 12/4/2002 07:49

I would love to get summat back out of this but dont most deals have termination clauses that are triggered if a company goes into administration/receivership?

I have just have the feeling that PWC dont have as long a list of assets to sell as we might think...


Apart from that ray of sunshine....Morning all!

[pork belly] 12/4/2002 07:41

Some extremely encouraging news which hints that SWD will return to normal trading !

In an interview with "The Herald" newspaper today, David Hargrave, a Price Waterhouse Coopers (SWD's Receivers)partner said "we are optimistic that many will be preserved for the long-term".

This is very promising considering this guy is very close to all the "goings on" behind the scenes.

Cheers,Porky.





Sportsworld Media calls in receivers
STEVE HAWKES
TELEVISION, marketing and promotions group Sportsworld Media called in the receivers yesterday to complete a dramatic reversal of fortunes.

City accountants PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) will take over the day-to-day running of the firm, which employs 300 people in the UK and Australia.

Sportsworld, which owns half the rights to the Popstars show that spawned pop band Hear'Say, had been looking to sell off assets to raise cash.

PwC said the directors had decided there was "insufficient working capital to continue the process in the short term".

Only six months ago, the group hailed a list of major advertising deals with Mastercard, Sony and L'Oreal and shrugged off fears of a downturn.

David Hargrave, a PwC partner, hinted that a sale of Sportsworld's main operations was likely following the move into administrative receivership.

"Significant interest has already been expressed in numerous subsidiaries and we are optimistic that many will be preserved for the long-term," he said.

Sportsworld produces a range of TV programmes from international versions of the Pepsi Chart Show to shows on extreme sports. It also sells programme sponsorship and billboard advertising at sports stadia.

Sportsworld had been forecast to generate profits of £16m for 2001-2002 but warned in February its results would be "substantially below" revised estimates of between £9m and £10m.

-April 12th

[tkon] 12/4/2002 00:40

Hear, hear, smiffy.

Some of these people, mentioning no names, oddball, seem to think that investing in shares is like the building society. "I gave you £1000, I want it back. Ooo, plus a bit of interest please!"

Complete clowns. Get used to it, people. If the general creditors get 10p in the pound they'll feel lucky. You don't have a snowball's of seeing a penny!

The Knight of No.

[mhsmith] 12/4/2002 00:35

I can't believe this debate is still going on.

Wake up everyone.

And take a big sniff of this: