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.
RBBe,
I am assuming the following to achieve a £300m market cap....
1. Successful App launch 4Q21
2. Indication of 1H21 Napster numbers end Sept, and some commentary on business outlook
3. New Telco and B2B announcements
From this we may be able to make assumptions on revenue outlook
From that make an assumption on a proper market cap, perhaps in the region £300m+
But in the fullness of time it should be 10x that, IMO...
Just my thoughts...
Not sure I agree Djp57 re dilution. In order for the sp to go to 10p the cap. val, presently at something just over £36M would have to go to around £300M. Quite a jump. If there were fewer shares , with a c.v.of £300M, the sp would be higher.
HorsesGob
There is plenty of information coming out over the last few months and even today B2B deals etc VR was just ahead of its time until now so 2022 should kick start it along with Napsters other income deals and business the future is bright
https://indianexpress.com/article/technology/tech-news-technology/facebook-will-launch-its-first-smart-glasses-with-ray-ban-heres-what-we-know-7429790/
Chew chew all aboard tickets pleaseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee GLA
I hope so, history will show if you are right. GL
HorsesGob i dont mind being the tea boy if it makes us money lol
so come on put the white flag down now, its ok really it is, we have good things to come from Napster
remember CHEW CHEW :)
lol the Croydonboys is AM sidekick
HorsesGob why don't you stand outside the AGM waving the white flag and tell the rest of the Investors you have given up with NAPSTER youve tried waving the flag on here, its just like a broken record now AM OUT AM OUT blah blah blah
we are bored with this now, but still laugh when i see it oh really
BUT we are still buying shares some big buys went in this week :) :) wonder who was buying big ummmmm
not tooo late for you to jump back on the napster train "chew chew"
If we all send out written response. "AM not to be re-elected" it would fall on deaf ears. The only way this could be done is by sending a recorded partition with every shareholders details and holdings. We need to get this scammer out of the company.
I totally disagree. There is no agenda to get rid of private investors
IMO this is exactly what AM is doing
Agree with both of your responses. It's about choosing where we challenge and I think this topic raises a fair and big enough question for us to expect a reasonable answer - either directly through the AGM or via a written response.
I think shareholders are going to be in for a surprise if you think we are just going to be able to have a conversation with management at the AGM - we are not. Zoom won't be two way communication. Selective questions will be answered and they will go through the motions of the resolutions, but that's it. Any tough questions will simply be ignored.
Fair enough ORLM, I do agree it's right to test management. The point I would like to reinforce is the need for £18m may never happen, but its there if required, if passed for the board to use. They run the company day to day. I guess to obtain a definitive answer one must corner the decision makers and hear what they have to say. Whatever way that happens...
Hi DJP,
You're very welcome to disagree in your opinion. I believe there are significant risks that need to be explored with deeper questioning. Not much more to say really. I don't believe any facts have been stretched whatsoever in expressing a concern. As for previous Zoom attendance, let's not ignore the fact they wouldn't let many of us into the previous AGM call having waited patiently. It's never been as easy as you seem to express....arguably selective if you look at what happened last time.
Do you know why £18m is needed for the next stage of 'progress'? Me neither. Hence the need for greater transparency and caution before making blind decisions on such a high level of dilution.
I'm not against future find raises, but there are certain things that don't sit right with me at this particular point in time.
All the best!
Orlm,
Para 1... there is nothing unusual about this resolution. It is the same % stock that can POTENTIALLY be issued, its just there are more shares on issue today.
Para 2. A delay would impede any necessary funding if required, and slow progress. If new shares are offered in proportion to one's holding, all shareholders are treated equally. There is no discrimination to large or small holders in that case. Or did you mean in the event of a placing? The usual reason for a placing is speed, as a rights issue to all shareholders takes months, requires a prospectus, and is expensive. The laws relating to rights issues and placings are very clear and designed to protect shareholders.
Para 3. I totally disagree. There is no agenda to get rid of private investors. That has not been my experience with Napster now, or in the past. You see shadows where there aren't any. Previous placings have always come with a sound reason. No one subscribes for a placement without good reason.
Para 4. You are stretching g the facts here. Previous AGMs have been held in the City. That option is not available due to Covid this year. The company isn't making life difficult, they are making common sense safety decisions. They are providing electronic alternatives, via Zoom, and the ability to submit questions. They did this last year. I was on Zoom, I submitted questions, and received a response.
Par 5. Why do you assume a placing, if it takes place would be lower than the last one? These resolutions are there to allow an issue should it become necessary. It is the same every year. Where do you think funding can come from? Money isn't free, and especially where risk is involved, the cost, whether an interest rate, a claim over assets, or dilution always appears costly. But this is the risk in a growth company.
Just my opinion. GLA.
Resolutions here for those who haven't seen it:
https://napster.group/public-documents/
I expect some will turn a blind eye to it and accept it as part of the continued 'build' process but I'm more sceptical this time around. If I'm reading that right, they need approval to issue more shares up to the value of £18m which is around half of the MCAP (or an extra 1.4bn shares at the current price of 1.3p - which will probably go lower again for the placing). Can't say I'm best pleased at management's desire for more placings and mega dilution. Takes the **** again after the business claims to be suitably funded with a further option to draw support from a loan facility. Also feel it's a little premature without being able to better demonstrate the value of a new platform. However, it was hinted as a possibility in the admission doc given their use of ambiguous language on what may come after the initial budget was consumed.
I personally feel a vote should be delayed on resolutions 10 and 11 until next summer after more platform info is released. There should be more upfront accountability from Napster Directors on why that level of funding is needed and how the money will be spent. It also implies new shares will be offered to shareholders in proportion to their existing holdings, meaning the big guns will be prioritised, getting an even bigger slice of the pie, pushing PIs further down the pecking order.
I definitely have some concerns. If they can provide transparency with guarantees on a productive intended use of extra funds, it could be an easier pill to swallow but it seems to be shaping up in support of Horse's idea that this is the start of a strategy to get more PI's out of the picture. The timing and phrasing of those resolutions have been cleverly positioned to put 50%+ more shares in the hands of big players.
PI's are possibly going to put themselves to the sword without realising if those in attendance vote in favour of this without probing deeper into the reasons. Not to mention that Directors are trying to make it as difficult as possible for shareholders to attend anyway with evidence of both a negative PCR test and proof of double vaccination being required. Huge indoor events don't even face those levels of safety protocols.
Questions need to be asked. I feel it would be risky for PI's to just accept this without thinking about the longer term impact that it could have, especially if we don't get the same opportunities to subscribe and benefit from cheaper placing prices.
Mikeox.
These resolutions have been there every year. They provide the opportunity for financing if needed. Nothing new, different, or unusual in that for a company like this.
what do we think about resolutions 10 and 11?