Member Info for chilston

So 2 articles from motley in 2 days.

One says buy. The other says it might go to zero and dont buy.

Their company name perfectly describes themselves.

I just hate how these companies make money for such complete incompetence and lack of balanced opinions.

One for the amateurs. Dont trust tabloids lol

https://www.fool.co.uk/2021/12/29/cineworlds-share-price-is-dirt-cheap-should-i-buy-in/

Motley fool think cine could go to 0p. Even the shorters weren't that optimistic. I think the shorters went from 20p to 2p currently.

I wonder whst the fools motives are? When i started investing I used to listen to motley. 18 months later. I realised something. Cost me though.

@we dream, i fell asleep after your first paragraph. You're clearly a novice on behalf of your company. Its not cool, but i get it.

Get another lse account, learn. And come back with another approach that i might admire from the other side of the fence.

You're already targeted as tge novice pen pushing servant of the shorters.

Tell them from me.... you need to do better guys

and a perfect example of a shorter. not seeing enough sell orders on the books. you see people - that is the beauty of working with (not against) the shorters. sometimes they give us little bits of gold.

book looks low on sells then?!

@we-dream: thats classic haha! good grief - indirectly trying to make pi's nervous of cineworld and put a sell order in?! so that you can see it!!

haha! that - is.... beautiful x

@ohcantana - they are probably looking over my history. what ive invested in, what stocks ive nose dived and what stocks i single handedly drove up. did it with the AA once. cant do that with cineworld.

ive been quiet for about 18 months - i kninda hibernated during lockdown as i had a massacre with my own companies and had to address a number of things, including: who am i , wtf am i doing, where am i going. with an unfortuanate splashing of 'no passion no point' sprinkled on top.

weve all had our stories. ive entered back into investing only im avoiding aim like a plague. ive seen those ceo's - ive learned nothing from them at all. i learned that being in control of things myself was actually the best - however i do like investing in companies and i have people around me to do the analytical stuff. i cant read reports very well.

one thing i have learnt though is to embrace de-rampers/shorters, they look for the weaknesses which we have to evaluate. i once was part of the attack them club, but thats no longer my stance or desire, instead i like to embrace them and probe the logic and sometimes they do actually show the risks, and there is nothing is wrong with that.

everyone has an agenda, biased or un-biased. with experience, you get to use everything to your advantage, when you get to that level, there is no anger, no bad mouthing, no kids spitting in a playground. everyone becomes an asset in different ways.

took me 7 years to learn that.

I forgot to mention. Someone yesterday mentioned that there had been no tr1s of investors reducing their stakes. This was actually a very significant post by whoever posted it.

I felt slightly caught out by that.

Anyway... the de-rampers... i have no bad taste towards you, we all serve a purpose, yet i feel your about to meet the bear pit.

@ohcantana. What's your profession? Im intrigued

@metom. Cineplex just chanced their luck. With a contract under canadian law. In a canadian court of law. With a judge who has no idea what she was doing, and just awarded the full amount. Whilst deciding what to buy her grandchildren for xmas.

Damages awarded for more than your net worth? Yeah ok.

Cineplex ceo is quite right to feel smug, yet that might be his biggest downfall.

Im not in the slighest concerned about that court case at all. It just gave me an opportunity to buy in 40% cheaper than i already planned on doing

The debt was high before the court ruling. And what was the SP before that court ruling?

What was the sp at its highest with the debt?

Shove another $1.2billion on and the market drops it 40%

Love it

Thanks, thats the one im looking at. Plus my accountants. Who will look at the annual report.

First impressions on the H1 2022 is wow. Ive asked my management accountants to look at it as well. They often invest off the back of me in return fir guidance.

Bottom line... bust? I dont think so

Put a smile mojo and it came up as ?? Forgot lse doesnt do emoji

Perfect, thanks ??

I wanted to take a deeper look at the debt, but thought instead of spending a few hours on it, some of you informed LTHs can help detail this out which will also help other PIs. Im not being lazy but no point looking if you've already crunched the numbers!

What im looking for is:
1.) What debts need paying in what timeframe
2.) What are the interest rates
3.) Do we know what the current interest amount is per month
4.) What debts are deferred later down the line

Im thinking theres a few accountants on this thread and so i will be keen to see the facts. Or should i just assume $8billion at 5% interest per month! (thats a joke btw)

@mountain - that's also what im hoping, as you day, he is the biggest holder. i understand why he's quiet atm, he's alot on his plate and future decisions will clearly have to be made very carefully and so PI's expecting some guidance right now should realise that key decisions that are needed right now, need careful consideration and clear guidance from advisors who i am sure are helping to engineer an appropriate path through all of this.

expand a business and then get hit by a tidal wave like this which knocks you out is always difficult, but definately not impossible to navigate out of.

as i said previous, demand is there, appetite is there from the publlic, the world of cinema is/has evolved. streaming should not really enter the equation. its a different product for a different audience.

it will be interesting to see what the nect move is.

@dreamachine - boohoo. ive seen you on there. that MCAP .... looks..... HIGH

CW won't pay anything for years over the court case (probably), it's only just begun. So having taken a closer look at this all morning, it all comes down to the debt restructuring and how they plan do do that. Their will be multiple options, some not favourable to shareholders, other options will be.

demand for cinema is obvious, demand for an 'experience' is there. This isnt a failed business model, the joe public have demonstrated their support for cinemas and so that bit is fine. as for streaming, i dont see it as 'competiton' to cinemas, radical thought i know, yet at the end of the day, from a user experience perspective they offer different things. 1 is for people who dont wanna get off the sofa (me) and the other is for people who want to 'go out' and have an experience, and so i dont see a threat.

scaling a business when all of a sudden a once in a 100 year event hits you in the balls (twice) is bad luck, ive suffered similar.

so - im bored of hearing about the debt, we all know its there. the only question is how is it going to be restructured. rampers/de-rampers will not have an idea about that - none of us. the question is, when it comes...

will it hurt you, or will the SP rise. and that's how the cookie crumbles folks. investing sometimes ends up a 50/50 play.

cine is a 50/50 play.

thanks, based on that assessment, i note that the firm involved in structuring this takeover deal should be fired, i would also say that this was complacent behaviour from the board of CW. why on earth did they put together an agreement based on canadian law when they are the ones coming up with the takeover plans.

no wonder CP are laughing. all this means is a complicated legal case, (which means more costs, and more money to lawyers).

thanks for the information. impresses though? nope

Expecting cineworld to win that battle in a canadian court of law, with a canadian company bringing the court case to the table is laughable. infact its beyond laughable. of course they were going to lose.

i am no lawyer, yet i would be intrigued to know under what state of law the contract/terms were declared under. If the terms were goverened under canadian state law, then first of all i would sack the lawers that wrote it.

however - just because canada - that massive power house declares cineworld owe cineplex $1billion, i think i would just roll my eyes at that as the ceo of cineworld.

but again - im curious as to what state of law this was agreed under. i cannot beleive for a minute it was sanctioned under the canadian laws.

anyone have the answer?

"I just think sentiment has now swung rather heavily since that last hammer blow of the court case was delivered."

One of the reasons why i've started investing.