We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Just need an rns to confirm this and steady the ship back to the 20s before the next major event ie the results in September.
I mean there is no reason for them to refuse a waiver similar to what cine had received for 2 years. Mooky even said at some point that Lenders are willing to provide up to 6 months lockdown worth of support on the backend if the pandemic raged onwards.
We need to accept that Cineworld need to play the damsel in distress. They are in arbitration with Cinemark after all (lol) oops, I mean Cineplex. I am continuing to buy and holding a significant amount now, more than my TUI holding which is 50% down at the moment.
Go by your own risk appetite and always remember to only invest what you can afford to lose.
I am subscribing to the tired proverb from Buffett, Be Greedy When Others are Fearful.
Perhaps they are waiting to see what happens with Cineplex first. If Cineplex appeal fails they may do it as a means to help pay off the fine.
If Cineplex appeal is successful, they may wait until the business has vastly improved and then float in the US market for a higher value.
Also CINE mentioned about US listing as one of the alternative financing option?
They can put their US estate - Regal for sale to pay off the debt.
With cinema getting back to pre-covid levels, Regal can fetch $2bn atleast?
"So you think the lenders are out for blood now and CINE is vulnerable?"
I'm not sure how you get that from responses. All I am saying is that the thing with the RCF '35%' is not negotiable from either side. It's like the leverage test itself - you pass or fail.
The negotiation is where the waiver comes in. This is where the lender can play hardball but we have no communication on this other than it is still being looked at and different people will read different things into that.
I have no doubt in the future of cinema given the recent trends in Box Office and believe for the last month or that CINE has been making good money so its long term fundamentals are sound and the sp is ridiculously low based on them. They just need to get over the immediate hurdles in front of them first, in any way they can.
So you think the lenders are out for blood now and CINE is vulnerable?
"What if they intended to pay it, but exceed the 30 June date if necessary. Similar thing to the Regal shareholders."
Tegop - In my view it's not similar at all. If they exceed the 30 June then the test applies - it's a fixed condition, there is no negotiation, or rather the negotiation then becomes one of whether the test can be waived.
"What else could you expect IR to say? If an investor contacted them about the RCF they wouldn’t say ‘oh yes, we paid it off don’t worry’. Furthermore, IR doesn’t actually SAY that the company is considering those two options, it just simply states that an RNS would be required if either of those two things happened"
Fair points mountainous but I would have expected an RNS if they paid it off (so need to ask the question on RCF in the first place). If CINE did not think that merited an RNS then don't then see why IR would then have a problem answering the question directly as they clearly didn't think it sensitive enough for RNS disclosure.
I know they are not the best at communicating but to give the statement they did, then at the very best they are being disingenuous if the RCF has already been paid down. Put it this way, I will be delighted if they have paid down the RCF (as this for me is/was the best option) but will lose all confidence in what they say and just view them from now on as the corporate equivalent of BoJo.
No - the terms are in black and white. The test applies on the 30th June if they have drawn more than 65%. It doesn't matter what it is on June 29th or July 1st.
If you don't believe that then consider why this option wasn't mentioned by IR. Instead they only mentioned the waiver and refinancing - both of which they do indeed have 90 days to do.
@hexam
What if they intended to pay it, but exceed the 30 June date if necessary. Similar thing to the Regal shareholders.
Hmmm @Hexam,
What else could you expect IR to say? If an investor contacted them about the RCF they wouldn’t say ‘oh yes, we paid it off don’t worry’. Furthermore, IR doesn’t actually SAY that the company is considering those two options, it just simply states that an RNS would be required if either of those two things happened, it may be that they are just listing to us the criteria that would warrant an RNS to be published since the sender of the email asked about why no RNS has been released (if I remember correctly).
If they manage to pay it down within that 90 day period no test will take place Hexam
Hi mountainous,
If they had paid it down by 30th June then there would be no need to seek a waiver, as the test would not be applied, or to refinance (as they would have the full amount of the RCF to draw upon again after 30th June.
The fact they are saying they are looking at doing either one of these things can only mean they are both still in play - which they would not be had they paid down the RCF to below 35%.
I don't see what the delay is for the dissenting shareholders as the money has been set aside for them in an escrow account, its a matter of releasing it to them and then an rns to confirm its settled.
Its not as if we can take it back for increasing our liquidity using it or whether we need it considering the revenue coming in over the last 6 months?
Am I missing something?
@Hexam, good morning.
IR have made no comment on the paying down of the RCF? How do we know whether they have paid it or not?
We do not have 90 days to pay it down. That day was June 30th and the IR response confirms this. They are seeking a waiver or refinancing - they are no longer talking about reducing the RCF amount drawn to below 35% i.e. they haven't done it already or are thinking of doing it.
I'm struggling to see why they are struggling to obtain a waiver as would have thought the business moving into profitability would make lenders more relaxed (in spite of the court case) so very hopeful this will be obtained (or refinancing) but reducing the RCF is off the table now - according to IR.
@LTHcine, I think it is 90 days to seek a waiver?
@shazabo, I actually forgot about that bit. You are correct.
Maybe I should unfilter a few so I can see the sh**te they're spouting.
It is comical as has been said they come and go depending on the colour of the sp.
Surely by now they know most of the LTH's will not be selling, but I would like to thank them for helping me with MY money.
On the dissenting shareholders bit don't we already hold the funds payable to them via escrow account as so is available to them once both parties have agreed to have it settled? It's not more money we have to find??
Mountainous - plus we have 90 days to pay it down, if we didnt have enough cash already, minions and Thor will see us past the line
@TheMadStork, how do you know whether or not they have paid the waiver down to below 35%? Are you Nisan Cohen in disguise??
The response from IR is clear, we would only receive an RNS if the RCF is refinanced or a waiver is obtained, otherwise we will receive an update at the interim results. It could be the case that CINE have already reduced it to below 35%, hence no need for an RNS at this time.
The dissenting payment has already waived any event of default in case we can’t pay them.
Only a "fiasco" in your view stork.
What no RNS does clearly show is none required.
I suggest by that then neither the dissenting shareholders or this particular lender are desperate to close business down as you and some others are.
Sorry for your disappointment.
Wouldn't be all like to know Madshorts lol.. Patience.
I have given up trying anticipate an rns for news. What will be will be, what we do know for definite is that they announced it just a few weeks ago that there will be results announced in September.
Can things turn around in weeks to suggest all will fail now? Don't think so personally
I dont think they do a very good job of convincing anyone even on these days, hope they arent paid by post, total waste of money