Sportsworld Media Share Discussion Threads

[matto] 09/7/2002 13:52

roy - I have the same - also with comdirect. 0.1 p seems a bit miserly but maybe better than nothing. No rush. Will be interesting to see what happens over the next couple of weeks.

[stewjames] 09/7/2002 13:47

This is not the first time I've seen this. Allowing management to buy back their own companies from receivership is so blatantly open to manipulation and conflict of interests that I'm amazed the law hasn't been changed to prevent it yet. Anybody got a good reason why such a practice SHOULD be legal?

[royalexile] 09/7/2002 13:41

Just got this from Comdirect - any suggestions??

TERMS: PURCHASE OF SPORTSWORLD MEDIA GROUP PLC SHARES BY TRAFALGAR CATALYST
FUND Trafalgar Catalyst Fund Managers are pleased to announce their willingness to purchase a maximum of 10 million ordinary shares of Sportsworld Media Group Plc 1p shares at a price f 0.1p per share. comdirect requires your response to this offer no later than 8am on the 24th July 2002.

[veneto] 02/7/2002 08:59

Like many other companies in the market today,this one managed to rip off the shareholders for every penny.

Once again the regulators remain silent.

Once again it appears that the directors have cooked the books and got away with murder.

Until the cess pit of corruption that is the city today is brought to its knees,there will be many other stories like this.

[gorwel] 01/7/2002 13:38

FACTORY PHIL,

Quiet as the grave.

I remember Jimmy Tarbuck once saying about a Liverpudlian expression, "it's like farting against thunder".

Trying to get anywhere with this one is just like that I fear. Everything lost.

The terrible thing is that nobody in authority gives a damn.

[factory phil] 01/7/2002 13:32

still very quiet here anybody heard anything new

[stillgutted] 25/6/2002 00:52

I think we've all realised that we're not gonna make a comeback like Railtrack and Just Group. The monies dead. We've been shafted, whilst others have made a killing. Tough business shares. It's not about bulls and bears, it's about sharks!!!

[homewell] 21/6/2002 13:09

what's the latest here - is there a fighting fund in place? It's all gone pretty quiet.

[matto] 12/6/2002 17:55

I think one should distinguish between the directors and the management of individual business units. Its the directores that have shafted us. Management teams such as those referred to above are largely innocent parties and may have been let down by directors as we have.

[gorwel] 12/6/2002 17:06

It is all so sad, and such a great shame. There are thousands of angry shareholders and NOBODY does anything to protect them.

Yet listening to all the 'suits' they talk sooooo high and mighty about ensuring everyone is protected and wrong doings are cracked down upon.

isn't there any organisation able to help.

If this was America this ex-management team would be in jail now, or at least shaking in their shoes.Now they just laugh into their beer, sorry champagne.

[go han] 12/6/2002 16:32

Also reported here:

"2002-Jun-12 05:34:
Pro-Active Television has clinched a deal with the receivers of the ill-fated Sportsworld Media Group, allowing it to rise from the ashes of the collapsed company.
The sports production company became part of the Sportsworld Media Group two years ago. The group fell into administration earlier this year.

Now original owners Alan Morton and Tommasina Kay have struck a deal with the receivers to continue to head the firm as an independent business.

For the full details, see the features section of sportbusiness.com.
Chris Britcher
[e-mail]
Source: © sportbusiness.com"

You'd think an announcement should be made by the receivers now as they seem to have done at least two deals.

[veneto] 12/6/2002 16:31

Funny isnt it how the shareholders lose everything,yet the management get to buy back the business for next to nothing and will no doubt end up multi millionaires.



And they are allowed to get away with it.

[pork belly] 12/6/2002 14:25

From Bloomberg, yesterday, 11 JUN 02:



Sportsworld Media Unit Says Management Bought Back the Business
By Toby Anderson

London, June 11 (Bloomberg) -- Pro-Active Television, a unit of Sportsworld Media Group Plc, said its management bought the business back from the bankrupt television and events sponsorship company's lenders.

Pro-Active, which Sportsworld Media bought in 2000, was able to buy the business back because of ``safeguards within our original sale contract,'' Managing Director Alan Morton said in a statement e-mailed to Bloomberg News. Financial details were not disclosed.

Sportsworld Media asked lenders to appoint receivers in April after it failed to find a buyer for the business. The London-based company, which produced the ``Popstars'' TV show, had expected to benefit from an anticipated shift by some advertisers from short TV commercials to sponsorship of programs and events. That strategy failed when companies cut spending and delayed signing sponsorship contracts.

``We're clearly disappointed with the Sportsworld situation and obviously relieved to be clear of it,'' Pro-Active director Tommasina Kay said in the statement.

[veneto] 11/6/2002 11:42

Just another shining example of the greed and corruption that prevails in the city of london today.



Lies lies and more damn lies!

[sprinterman] 03/6/2002 17:57

If the managements "offer" was the only one on the table,then I guess they can't be accused of underselling.We've been shafted and these guys are laughing all the way to the bank.

[philwalker36] 03/6/2002 16:10

Forgive my ignorance in such matters but:
The Adminitrative receiver works on behalf of the creditors to recover as much or all of the debt, including his fees. In this case it is PWC. Have they any liability towards the shareholders. I am not saying it has happened in this case but if one suspected that an administrative receiver (in a case like the SWD case, called in by the management - not court appointed) had sold things too cheap, could he be prosecuted ? Who would prosecute, the FSA. Given the Enron debarcle, I am sure that one of the big 4 auditing / financial services organisations wouldn't like to be associated with underselling.

In thie SWD case specifically and not the hypothetical case previously discussed, it is a scandal and when the facts are available they should be brought squarely into the public domain.

[puddlejumper] 01/6/2002 22:07

How about a concerted campaign, informing all sports ventures etc, -(marketing agreements with the England & Wales Cricket Board and all six Test match grounds, the Rugby Football Union, the European PGA, a number of Premier League clubs and the Toyota F1 team), - which are supposedly going to be connected with this new "Sports Media", what a bunch of crooks they are?

[jeffmack] 31/5/2002 22:24

The management that did such a lousy job in running the company, now get all the best bits for F@$k all, with none of the debt.

Same old story and a lesson learned that you should stay away from these small cap piles of sh*!