Member Info for Dingodog1

Was .55. We should get back here and then well beyond given the resource is now identified to be substantially bigger

Pre JOE turnover of over £100k isnt too bad, considering is was £2.5k to 31 December.

So, existing operations (GSN, TLE etc) has generated about £105k. And only GSN was "live" for the whole period. Not too bad. I was fearing £10k!

I posted only yesterday that the loan conversion opened up the potential for ICON to own around 13/14% in JOE. This has since been removed... literally the next day... someone reading the board and remembered the clause... quickly revoke it... (tin hats and all that!)

What do we get in exchange? An extra £15k per month, £180k per year.

What is better? Right now, probably the £180k per year. However, if JOE becomes the behemouth JQ thinks it can then we wont benefit from this anymore.

We do still have the 25% of profits, but this is based on certain unknown revenue and profit targets being met. If these targets are unobtainable then it doesnt mean much.

I dont feel that, long term, the adjustments will benefit us as a company. I supposed £180k in perpetuity isnt bad, and we will be getting £1m cash repaid within the next 21 months or so.

Thanks for the info tucky,

Assuming a forex rate of 1.14 £/€, €10,500,00 would equate to £9,210,000

If ICON were to convert the loan to equity then the entire £1m would become equity. At a 20% discount the investment would effectively be £1,250,000 - 20% discount on this would be the £1,000,000 investment.

So, £1,250,000 of a total cost of £9,210,000 would give ICON an equity stake of 13.5%

We also have £1.2m per year, plus a "bonus" of 25% of all profits provided revenue and profits of £x are met.

Seems like this could be a very lucrative arrangement for ICON, provided JOE is as succsssful as they think it can be. The arrangement with the sports venture will only boost revenues for JOE, plus there is the ICON-generated £150k from earlier in the year and £750k recently. All for JOE, of course, but hopefully this will be of tangible benefit to ICON.

I can only imagine that they wouldnt convert the loan to equity too soon as they need to ascertain whether ICON as a business will require the cashflow that repaying the loan would bring. Hopefully they wont need the cash from the loan, certainly when considering JQ's optimism of profitability by November

Hi, there are some very knowledgable posters on here and some have been very helpful to the uninitiated (such as myself!). I have some questions that i would be grateful if you could clear up for me:

We "know" we have oil at WN, but the general concerns surround whether it will flow commercially. I am probably very nieve with my initial views, but:

If oil is there can't it just be pumped to the surface? Or, Is it potentially too thick for pumping/using a nodding donkey?

Will there be a pool of oil sat in a cavern of sorts, or will it be saturating a mesh of rock and mud?

My questions are probably very amateur but i would appreciate some responses on this. Thanks in advance

Very good point oilnovice. Although, for me, i am interested on the revenues to June 2020 as it will show the impact of the existing ventures, including GSN, TLE and the "supermarket deal", which were owned and in use for a number of months prior to the accounting year end or June 2020.

If revenue from these sources is poor it will be a sign that JOE is the big hitter, with little else at this moment. So, hopefully revenues to June 2020 show some headway having been made by the other avenues. 6 monthly revenue to December 2019 was only £2,500, with total liabilities of £2.3m. At this moment we weren't really able to judge ICON from a performance perspective as the new business had only just started.

When the June 2020 results are released i will be looking for a substantial increase in revenue (albeit no profit) and a significant dent to the total liabilities. If the business has made positive progress in both camps then i will be quietly pleased.

The financing of the company has come at the expense of shareholders with the insane dilution. The only positive of this is that ICON should not have much in the way of debt. My original investment is pretty much worthless. It stings, of course, but i have followed the ICON story and if there are shoots of recovery i will happily average down, but the JOE conversion and June 2020 results will be big indicators to me

In the interview from July when the JOE media deal was announced JQ states that the profit share is where ICON see the true potential value, not the £100k per month (£1.2m over a year). This suggests to me they are confident they can make JOE profitable and then reap the rewards.

They have already aqcuired additional JOE contracts close to £1m, which is a 10% growth on the historic JOE revenues of £10m. Assuming the original revenue's are reoccuring then the business is seeing substantial growth after only 3 months under ICON's guidance. Of course, the management fee to ICON adds costs of £1.2m per year, but hopefully since the takeover JOE has been stripped down cost wise, allowing for a leaner business. With the growth in revenue and expected reduced costs, ICON seem likely to have covered their own cost to JOE already. Anything from this point onwards should see an increment to the bottom line of JOE.

In the same interview from July JQ stated he expects ICON to be profitable within 3 months. I assume he means that by November he expects monthly revenue to exceed monthly costs, as opposed to ICON generating a profit for the year

The financial statements, when released, won't show a profit, but ICON's turnover will be key. If the equity stake in JOE comes to fruition then there will be a significant boost to the prospects of the company, imo

I posted a few days ago with a degree of scepticism over the JOE deal, specifically the £1m loan to help greencastle aquire JOE. However, i have re-read the RNS concerning the loan and i have extracted the following:

"As part of negotiating the management services agreement, the Company has entered into a £1 million loan agreement with Greencastle Capital. The loan is repayable within one year, or can, at the sole discretion and election of the Company, be converted into equity in the JOE media Business using a valuation which is a 20% discount to the enterprise value of the JOE media Business as acquired by Greencastle Capital."

So, it looks as if we CAN convert the loan into JOE equity. It also looks as if ICON can decide to convert it. I didnt see this originally. This is promising news. It also looks as if ICON's ownership % would be based on the original purchase price of JOE. So, for example, if greencastle bought JOE for £10m then our £1m would equate to an approx 12 % equity stake (when factoring in the 20% discount). This is good news as no matter how large JOE becomes up until conversion date, our equity share is based on acquisition value, not current market value.

The lower greencastle acquired JOE for, the better for ICON as it means the equity share is higher. For me, the BOD need to convert the loan. An equity stake in a growing JOE brand is better than £1m cash repaid.

I have a feeling the conversion is likely, and thus ICON have issued RNS re the promotion of deals for JOE as they will actually benefit us if we convert. If we convert then the "25% above a revenue/profit target" will have a lot less relevance as we will be entitled to a given % of ANY profit courtesy of our equity stake.

I now feel a lot more optimistic about the JOE set up than i did. I welcome any counter arguements in case i have missed anything

It is 25% of profits depending on whether revenue and profit targets are met. I am pretty sure we dont have an equity stake in JOE, but we did loan greencastle the money to buy JOE. Why couldnt we just buy £1m of equity in JOE? That would have been great. Instead, we are waiting for the loan repayment and are then relying on a contractual profit share, when it could have been an equity profit share.

Our management charge is also going to dent the profits in JOE meaning JOE needs to be even more profitable. It all just seems a little odd to me. No directors buying in. DS pulling strings - who actually does own greencastle, and thus JOE

Hi, have been invested since the WDC days. My investment is so low now it isnt worth selling, but i am waiting for the opportunity to average down.

The contract news for JOE, like before, doesnt mean too much to ICON without knowing what the mystery profit target is.

We get £100k per month. Not to be sniffed at. But, if we only get a 25% share of profits if they are above, say, £10m (or something ridiculous like that) then it doesnt really mean much to ICON. I do not know why they have never disclosed the profit share terms. Without knowing them we cant really see the benefit of additional contracts for JOE.

Now, if ICON won a £750k contract for ICON, or GSN or one of the other brands that we own, then i would be topping up now. Clearly there is commercial interest in JOE, i just hope it translates to the p&l and bal sheet of ICON. If not, then these contract wins mean nothing to us

Interesting. GB confirmed we now have an office/facility in Japan, following MWG takeover, and this is the type of event that could show what the BT was capable of. It would be interesting to know whether GB has considered this application already

Long term holder (circa 1.4p days of Feb 2019), newly registered to LSE. I am long and strong with DVRG but i like to consider myself a balanced person :-)

My hopes for the breathaliser is that it is taken up by governments (NHS and the like). If it is sold as a gadget of sorts to the public then it will cost a lot to advertise and spread the word. In addition, if sold over a website to Joe public, how will users be able to use the health pass? "Hi, ive got this code that says i dont have covid... can i come in?"

I assume GB has considered the same, so hopefully we will target the BT to authorities long before marketing to the public as a whole. It needs to be an approved and validated health pass accepted and recognised by all

This same principle applies to any country (i know UK isnt the main target for DVRG)

Defect on a heat shield (or something like that) that occured years before astronauts even chosen (another regular visitor, first poster!)