Worldlink Share Discussion Threads

[4laffalot] 23/8/2015 18:16

I digress but lets look at the business plan of My Club Betting.

They dont own proprietary software so there is no USP or ownership in that they have just licensed software probably on a revenue share.

The maths is probably as follows:

Lets assume they continue to Sign up mickey mouse partners.

probably 20-30% of any smidgen of revenue goes to the company that provides their betting back end

20% as we know in their marketing goes to Mickey Mouse FC

Minus running costs, marketing, there will remain a smidgen of a smidgen x many mickey mouse FC = multiple smidgen.

Lets bear in mind their track record, non ability to deliver to shareholders, massive debts, and the biggest sponsor deal todate was ...wait for it.....sponsorship of Copa America on Premier Sports (who) in the UK.

The only way this company can possibly make money is to sucker in investors but who's gonna make the money ....uhmm let me guess .....paying back the so called creditors (aka existing management)

Investors .....dont waste your time. Do Ladbrokes, Bet365 and William Hill show they are at all in the slightest worried about My Club Betting???

[apfindley] 23/8/2015 18:04

Also have made NO mention about any payout. None at all. And certainly not about a big payout.I mention there will be 'massive damages' if the case is won.That doesn't just mean payout, and remember we've only got our percentage to come when Quest pay us from any award they may get.There is the possibility of perpetual future income though, depending on what happens.It's going to be one huge can of worms if this case is won.

[hugosamuel] 23/8/2015 18:00

apfindley, just go back a handful of pages and you will find various posters on here stating they have been called by brokers pushing MCB shares on the back of the PTAB decision based on the share of proceeds for MCB and Worldlink. One guy even tried to say Quest had won and NR was travelling out to negotiate the settlement! That is the direct method they are asking for punters to part with their money RIGHT NOW to invest in a vehicle owned by the ex-executives of Worldlink. There is no point arguing. We will know soon and too late for Quest to back out (neither do they want to given the backer they have). Bloomberg etc get dozens of patent infringement claims a year as do many major companies. They cannot be seen to be weak so will take this through. For Quest, they have a confidential backer who has funded them on this case. Over $1 million I believe. Both sides have very good lawyers especially BB/CS. Either way, it ends here. Patent win or it dies here. The irony is that all anti-Worldlink organisations (creditors etc) share our hope that Quest win. Finally everyone singing from the same hymn sheet although I imagine most are realistic.

[apfindley] 23/8/2015 17:55

Errrrrrrrm, Peter, I was addressing marty.Why are you answering as marty?Eh-oh.Pot, kettle, lol

[peterblok] 23/8/2015 17:25

UMMmmm - Obviously, WGP can't be used as a vehicle for extracting more money from their shareholders, but MCB can, and will no doubt be trying harder in the future.

Interesting, as you would appear to be a new name on the BB, and seem to be very very upbeat about the prospects of a big payout. I can't help but feel I've seen your style of writing before under another name. Want to enlighten us ??

Oh - and I'm a very small person, who knows little except he has lost c£20k on Mr Riches' enterprise(s).

[apfindley] 23/8/2015 14:59

Lol you fruitcake'sThe company isnt asking for any money, and the stock is suspended, so its not like they can scam any money, or cost us any more money.We are awaiting the outcome of a massive legal case. Massive. Groundbreaking.The consequences are far beyond what you could realise. It will affect the delivery of real-time updating of mobile data on a global scale.!!!The stage was set here by a world famous news service entering into a contract with worldlink many years ago for data delivery....if that does end up being relevant in this case, a precedent will be set which will pave the way for massive damages against the respondents in this case.Wait and see.Meanwhile I and everyone else can only sit and laugh at your big-man-in-the-know pretence.It's often the case that people who try to big themselves up, are usually very small people afraid of not getting noticed, pretending to be somebody more than they really are....

[peterblok] 23/8/2015 12:46

I can only endorse cromarty's advice NOT to give Neil Riches any more money.

If any of us get any of our money back, I'll have to start going to church again as it would show that miracles can happen!

[cromarty] 23/8/2015 12:22

ap

you would be amazed at what I know about these companies.
I suggest you do your research and stop listening to the brilliant spin from one of the best scammers in the industry.

[hugosamuel] 23/8/2015 10:05

All now waiting for the trial. Both parties on time with their respective submissions (core tech documents, summary of alleged breaches etc). Some big names lawyers on show. Clearly the Defendants are taking it seriously.Just keep up to date with the dockets, they are increasing in frequency. Two on Thursday.

[apfindley] 23/8/2015 09:03

Marty.

Your response makes it clear you have no idea what's going on in the background here.

Stop being bitter, start researching what's going on during this quiet period.

Have you actually contacted anyone regarding Worldlink, clubbetting, or the quest case?
I have, and others have been contacted too, it might be slow but it is all happening in the background.

It's a pity you have nothing worthwhile to add, preferring to be ignorant.

[cromarty] 22/8/2015 10:53

What ever you do don't give these people any more money.
You will be just paying the salaries of people who sit in an office dreaming up the next way to tap you for more money.

[apfindley] 19/8/2015 13:39

Any further news?Both lots of shares just stuck in the account, waiting, waiting....for starters orders.

[the stigologist] 29/7/2015 18:01

oh what a coincidence the two mugs who are strangely as stupid as each other both posting at the same time

coincidence or something more sinister

maybe twins separated at birth

[worldlink1] 29/7/2015 17:55

warwick69 - I have just looked at Stig's postings on other threads. Have a look. Don't waste your time responding to any of his posts.

[warwick69] 29/7/2015 17:45

Bog off stig as you know I have other bigger worries!!!!

[worldlink1] 29/7/2015 16:48

I have only been on this thread for a few days. Some very interesting comments being posted.

[the stigologist] 28/7/2015 22:48

funny how warwick stopped posting when worldlink started

anybody would think he would be happy someone equally gullible and naive had turned up to debate this pos

is there some gullible and naive union agreement where only one can operate at a time for health and safety reasons or something ?

[peterblok] 28/7/2015 22:33

Thank you Hugo,

I knew you couldn't stay away for long :)

Keep up the informative posts please

Peter

[worldlink1] 28/7/2015 21:38

Thank you so much Hugo

[hugosamuel] 28/7/2015 18:56

Wl1, everything I posted is easily obtainable from Google which will bring up the various official sites like Pacermonitor (the best for up to date court dockets) and various articles and blog posts. The official sites are 100% beyond doubt as it is the Court themselves that post the dockets.Google terms that are useful:"Quest vs Bloomberg et al""PTAB Quest Bloomberg"PLEASE make sure you check everything yourself. This is a bad share for ludicrous opinions. We've all had years of that.Secondly, re-read all the press releases, the Prospectus for LSE and every RNS. Then compare them to what actually happened. Then find the earliest dated post on WGP either here or over on LSE forum, note the date and read that post and the next 50. I'm pretty sure whatever you find will have the same pattern.Once you have done the above three things, you are armed with what you need to make a decision on whether to invest or not.Best of luck with whatever you decide.

[worldlink1] 28/7/2015 18:01

BTW Hugo - are you a lawyer? You seem pretty clued up on all of this.

[worldlink1] 28/7/2015 18:00

Brian Fox - My Club Betting. He has been sending the paperwork out.

[hugosamuel] 28/7/2015 16:17

Sorry Worldlink1, missed your question at the end. The Alice case that was the precedent the Defendants were using for PTAB was decided in June 2014, barely 10 months before the first PTAB decision on our patent. So, you can decide for yourself on the veracity of the 3% statement.

[hugosamuel] 28/7/2015 15:31

ps. who did you manage to speak to at Worldlink? I thought they were in suspension and administration with no staff?

[hugosamuel] 28/7/2015 15:21

Worldlink1, you are being fed misleading information from individuals that do not appear to know much about the legal process.

The patent Trial case and the PTAB process are DIFFERENT.

The case itself is under the Delaware District Court under Judge Sleet.
In late 2014, Bloomberg et al asked for a Stay of the main patent case because they felt they could get the patent dismissed under CBM by PTAB and thus AVOID the need for the trial.

The PTAB side show was brought about by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Alice Corp. ruling which the Defendants hoped to use to argue that the patent's abstract nature renders it invalid. This would have meant the pain of going through prior art, non-breach etc in the Trial was not required. A quick end was the desired outcome.

Quest objected very strongly to this but Judge Sleet agreed the Stay.

hxxp://www.delawareiplaw.com/2014/12/judge-sleet-grants-motion-stay-pending-cmb-review-pto.html

It is fair to say the PTAB process from the Defendants was rather clumsy. The Chairman stating "more than a conclusory showing of standing that addresses the claimed subject matter as a whole is required."

The Defendants then asked for a review by approaching the method that PTAB used but PTAB denied the review on the points raised.

This being a decent result (but kind of like killing one wasp in a swarm), the actual Patent Trial itself resumed but in fact, was only at the point of intial discovery anyway. i.e. VERY early stage.

All of the Defendants submitted the Technical Documents on time at the end of June 2015. Just over 4 weeks ago. Quest had 30 days to respond.

Quest responded YESTERDAY (just before the deadline).

The Patent case is in the Discovery stage still. It will cover the real issues of prior art, invalidity, lack of novelty etc.

This is the notice from 27 July 2015:

NOTICE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Initial Infringement Contentions filed by Quest Licensing Corporation.(Belgam, Neal).

Worldlink1, note "INITIAL INFRINGEMENT CONTENTIONS" dated yesterday from the Court itself.

I would be careful who you speak to especially if there is a background "here is a great chance to invest before we become huge" commentary going a long with it.

Best advice is to read all the RNS and update from Worldlink on here and LSE. You will probably realise that Worldlink were guaranteed billionaires 8 years ago, no 7 years ago, no 6 years ago...actually next week, next month, next year.