Member Info for Bennster

???

there's no caveats at all on your valuation posts. You post SP targets and £Million profit estimates with ZERO facts and figures of the downside.

The list of Pros you've posted below there are all personal judgement/opinion - there's no factual basis to any of it. To give a couple of examples:

"Much less dilution than others over the years" - WHO? what comparator have you used?

"Long term recurring contracts being secured" - only a pro if there is a proven profit, otherwise they are of no benefit.

"IP deals secured with some of the biggest companies in the world (paw patrol)." - when did Paw Patrol become one of the biggest companies in the world?

"Swing to a profit in 2023" - except we don't know that at all.

this just never ends mate. No direct evidence at all

My assertion stands - have a good evening

I agree you've posted some "home truths" about the comms and financing etc. and fair play for adding the odd comment - that wasn't what I asked though...

"Show us the balanced risk/opps calculations you've posted?"

Hint: you post often with SP estimates and £Millions profit estimates

I'm talking about the £millions of loss you calculate and the potential SP if we DON'T sell breakeven amounts of tickets? If we get results from Madrid and London like we got from Frankfurt - those are the balanced risk/opps I'm asking for - but we all know you never post those.

Let's get our heads together and calculate the dilution or worse that happens if O2 turns out to be a bit of a mess in terms of ticket sales.... especially as we're now in the hole for £1.6M debt repayment we didn't know about before share suspension.......

Really MB10?

Show us the balanced risk/opps calculations you've posted?

Jimmy - nothing wrong with MB10 offering an insight on the potential, except it is always posted as an expectation and never caveated with the risks. I don't believe 99% of the forum appreciate his posts - only 99% of the optimists.

It's not a surprise to me at all that people want to see positives - I do too - but my posts are all down because there's nothing genuinely positive about the performance as it stands.

I believe it's for LVCG to finally deliver something and until they do I will probably remain down on this investment - as down as the big red number in my portfolio....

In the mean time what's wrong with pointing out the deficiencies as often as others point out the potential - at least we all have our eyes open.

Knigel - trying to keep it real on a message board probably doesn't get me anywhere, but it is very helpful for neutrals trying to understand the share and get a view from all sides.

I will never support a boiler room approach where everyone only posts "happy times" in a backslapping festival to rope in more mugs.

If I see something I'm not happy with and another poster can actually explain/justify a positive view without resorting to troll comments and insults that's a win for us all.

I tried contacting the company once - got no reply.

Judging by the comms people claim to have had on here I doubt it is of any use anyway - they can't offer meaningful info outside of a formal RNS.

As a shareholder I would like to see positives too Knigel - I'm still waiting to see them in a calculated factual manner, all I see is fantasy and dreams. Prove me wrong and I'll genuinely thank you - LVCG need to do that though don't they?

Jimmy Stocks - does what you've just posted constitute a balanced view then?

I see no criticism of the "we're making millions" brigade?

I assume in your "balanced view" they are right and anybody "negative" is wrong then?

Knigel - calling the company so they can tell you what they want you to hear doesn't make for a balanced viewpoint so many of us rely on the RNS information and the financial results (or lack of both) to make a judgement.

The idea that anybody who is unhappy must be a troll is ageing very poorly now.

"Yet the history of acquisitions by live nation show that actually not just anybody can organise concert x."

I agree with you MB10 - LVCG's efforts have shown how difficult it is to do it well ;-)

Still can't see anybody forking out £50M for it, can you?

Tintin.

you do realise all the news on the O2 gig - including the big loan - all occurred AFTER suspension right? So nobody has a choice to sell or not, right?

In the mean time I look forward to your daily commentary on ticket sales ;-)

I could point out investing is about understanding all angles etc. but it would be wasted on you.

Tintin - thanks for the free financial advice....

Ludo - The thing to bear in mind is that LVCG don't have a monopoly on this kind of event. If it were to make money in the future a bigger player could simply start organising concerts instead. Why pay anybody £50M??

If you bought LVCG's KPOP division what would you actually be buying? There's no tangible assets or KPOP intellectual property and the organisation "expertise" leaves a lot to be desired.

Tintin - try again.

They haven't released lots of those solid grey lines you see by block.

My real fear (damn, sorry being a realist/negative again) is what happens if we sell LESS than the much vaunted 60% breakeven?

Nobody has mentioned that yet at all on here - the assumption seems to be we either sell between 60% breakeven, 80% or sell out completely.

but I believe we're now in the hole for £1.6M and somebody will want their cash at the end of the event. What happens to us small holders if we have sold less than 60% and major creditors are not happy? Now that's a scenario nobody here wants to look under the bonnet of.

Sadly for me I have.

We have no plan B here - if this doesn't make money we can't "offer 20% of the profits" because there isn't any. If we had any cash at all we'd not need to take the massive payday loan in the first place - so we default or "make an arrangement" with the creditors and we're diluted to oblivion to save the company.

If that were to transpire at least we'd find out who these private investors are......

I won't post again tonight - I assume there will be a legion of "positive thinkers" piling onto me tonight for daring to air what's bugging me. Sorry.

Well that's three of us.

Inlikeflyn - that's a perfectly reasonable view to hold

Simple - very good summary of why having a negative view on something isn't necessarily wrong or bad - or incompatible with holding a share and hoping for the best.

All we can do now is wait for the sales updates - I believe Thereshegoes if we do sell 80%+ and it'll be fine. If we fail to sell that much we have a different and difficult situation.

Thank you ThereSheGoes.

If the maths adds up as you say, then the key challenge becomes the if (IF) we sell anywhere near capacity.

As a skeptic (I wish I didn't have to be) I worry we'll get a Madrid style 60% capacity sale and break even after paying the finance costs.

I fear the worst on the basis of the late event details and ticket sales - also LVCG's track record over the last 12 months on positive projections followed by lower realisations.

All about opinions and you've articulated a case.

I went to the LVCG website Simple - the updated version is there under investor relations

Back to the matters in hand MB10.

You posted: "Any actual investors should look at the brokers note that was updated after Madrid"

I disagree - it's a non-independent opinion only.

Discuss

No I didn't - maybe that's libel on your part? Perhaps I should now report you to the admin.

I posted a very clear hypothetical situation labelled as a conspiracy theory - I even capitalled the point I wasn't accusing anyone of anything.

You can't read so you complained.

In the mean time you've just chosen to attack again - read this morning's posts - you have no case.

Your posts get removed when I complain MB10 - it's because they just shift anything that is whined about to avoid complaints. You should know this after yours were shifted.

In the mean time - how about you stop the attack attack attack policy which puts your views in a bad light and drops the key messages down the reading list.

If you can't beat the argument attack the poster seems to be your approach.

Inconvenient truth time - posted directly from the broker's note:

"DISCLAIMER: Non-independent research

This note has been issued by SP Angel Corporate Finance LLP (“SP Angel”) in order to promote its investment services and is a marketing communication for the purposes of the European Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID) and FCA’s Rules. It has not been prepared in accordance with the legal requirements designed to promote the independence or objectivity of investment research and is not subject to any prohibition on dealing ahead of its dissemination.

SP Angel considers this note to be an acceptable minor non-monetary benefit as defined by the FCA which may be received without charge. In summary, this is because the content is either considered to be commissioned by SP Angel’s clients as part our advisory services to them or is short-term market commentary."

In summary - I choose not to accept every claim and projection as a fact. This wasn't issued in an RNS, despite many wanting it to be if you recall.

I’ve got no issue with anyone posting their opinion , but I do have an issue with those that post false and misleading information. I believe repeatedly assuring everyone of £millions of profit not yet materialised falls into that category.

If you are absolutely fixated that we're going to make millions that's fine but you should caveat your own posts.