Member Info for ManoleteCustomer

So the thing about the type of bank facility that Manolete have is that it’s probably asset based lending. That’s not the same as lending on the basis of an excellent business, for instance Marks & Spencer.

That means that the bank look objectively at what assets Manolete own, the covenant value of those and lend against that.

This will be reviewed on at least a monthly basis and the bank will know, probably better than Manolete do exactly who is up

To date with the blood sucking payment plan and who isn’t. Plenty won’t be because it’s punitive.

The bank have a crystal clear helicopter view of what’s coming into the account and from where.

In the case of Manolete the assets in question are the income stream from those people who were too scared to fight and folded. Those people signed an agreement to settle in ridiculous terms by way of a monthly figure and ostensibly that commitment is backed by the idea that the “customer” in question has assets tomgo at if they default.

In the case of asset backed lending the bank are concerned that the revenue stream would amortise the debt over a period of their choice, typically 24 - 36 months, plus there would be a margin on top of the required monthly amortisation figure, and additionally, some competent person should be “tied to the chair” to collect the munny. Hence the prior condition that Cooklin couldn’t sell up.

In a healthy thriving business therefore, where the receivables are getting better and better the revolving credit line should be being increased.

But it isn’t.

My position was, and still is that the bank would pull the rug if even a small number of potential customers said GFY and refused to settle.

Oops!

There’s something else that’s always made me laugh which is that Manolete was named after a bullfighter. But the bullfighter Manolete was killed bundle bull. Just saying… lol…

Good luck all!!!! Do your own research!!!!

Actually the bloke is a good laugh. We’re enjoying poking you tw£ts.

Not really, turnover is vanity, profit is sanity.

So the thing about the type of bank facility that Manolete have is that it’s probably asset based lending. That’s not the same as lending on the basis of an excellent business, for instance Marks & Spencer.

That means that the bank look objectively at what assets Manolete own, the covenant value of those and lend against that.

This will be reviewed on at least a monthly basis and the bank will know, probably better than Manolete do exactly who is up

To date with the blood sucking payment plan and who isn’t. Plenty won’t be because it’s punitive.

The bank have a crystal clear helicopter view of what’s coming into the account and from where.

In the case of Manolete the assets in question are the income stream from those people who were too scared to fight and folded. Those people signed an agreement to settle in ridiculous terms by way of a monthly figure and ostensibly that commitment is backed by the idea that the “customer” in question has assets tomgo at if they default.

In the case of asset backed lending the bank are concerned that the revenue stream would amortise the debt over a period of their choice, typically 24 - 36 months, plus there would be a margin on top of the required monthly amortisation figure, and additionally, some competent person should be “tied to the chair” to collect the munny. Hence the prior condition that Cooklin couldn’t sell up.

In a healthy thriving business therefore, where the receivables are getting better and better the revolving credit line should be being increased.

But it isn’t.

My position was, and still is that the bank would pull the rug if even a small number of potential customers said GFY and refused to settle.

Oops!

There’s something else that’s always made me laugh which is that Manolete was named after a bullfighter. But the bullfighter Manolete was killed bundle bull. Just saying… lol…

Good luck all!!!! Do your own research!!!!

Just another opportunity to average down … BUY BUY BUY,

DYOR - GLA!

Seriously though, and I hate being serious on a Saturday these guys blindly think that because the economy is tracking down it’s going to be good for them. But a huge part of their claims is often illegal dividends. If you pay yourself PAYE then there’s nothing to see. Because the tax advantages of dividends over paye have got a lot smaller, I think fewer directors are taking the risk. After our chat it seems that their claim against you is very low. Really, counterintuitivelly, I think they’re scraping the barrel looking for cases. The other thing, if you’re a director of a problematic company, you just wouldn’t liquidate it because doing so gives someone else a look at the books. A lot of directors are aware of this trap and just letting the beast die on the vine. Stop trading. Not paying anyone to look at it. Etc… interesting times

GLA DYOR!

What a day, down to £0.38, roll up roll up, buy buy buy, and get that average down so you can make out like a bandit, the only way is up! Just look at the pipeline, just look at the economy, this stock is gonna be mahusive….

DYOR .. GLA..!

They’re gonna be on Happy Shopper beans, not Prime Heinz…. lol… all time low today..!

They must be doing something right obviously, just wait a bit longer and average down a bit more perhaps..

I will speak to you in more detail about this but I defended in person and I understand exactly how it works and what you’ll have to demonstrate to overcome the “illegal dividend” argument.

It’s a process which is designed to bill the hours of dimwits at top money and then to leverage that with absurd interest charges.. This guy Leon Head etc… plus they have a judge on the payroll, but she’s super low end. And their barrister was also super low end.

If they don’t technically have you over a barrel, then you can probably win. There are also tactical moves to limit the downside.

Hey I’m on the balcony of a 5* hotel in the med scratching my balls and drinking remy…. But I can actually generate wealth, I don’t look to thieve it from others.

There will be on pushback here the weekend. I think all the commenters are 9-5 shills paid to keep the propaganda alive and try to prop up the share price and they’ve all gone home. Speak soon.

any yunnow, of all the things these morally bankrupt ******s could have invested in they choose some bottom feeding shysters that go after family homes when people who tried to make a £ get it wrong. and that’s all i did. you’d get promoted in the civil service for worse than i did. and these cvnts want to make money from it. they deserve a life of impotence and dog breath. which i expect most of them have.

your gut is right. it isn’t strong and relies entirely on the continuation of the revolving credit line which is being clipped back.

if the bank get bored with this chit and decide they want that facility amortized to zero then all this bull**** is over.

it’s when and not if. and the game is to run out the clock. i’ll speak to you personally about this.

@manoletecustomer2

always nice to see a friendly face in a sea of awnkers.

so their moa is a huge bullying campaign.

the propaganda is that they rigorously look at the assets of every potential case, but in my case they didn’t.

on the face of it, yes, i had a lot of property but it was leveraged, leasehold, and had a high cgt liability if crystallised. if manolete had properly have done their research then they’d have known the whole thing was touch and go. i actually think the knew but bet on me folding. i think they’re poker players and not much more.

low end cheap and nasty lawyers following a process of huge harassment. finding excuses to write to ex wives, all property owned, lateral pressure. it stinks really.

there was a huge cost to extending the leases and there was a huge cgt bill.

i think the whole model would collapse if everyone defended. more and more people will be forced to defend as the reality of losing isn’t much worse than the status quo which is what happens in a declining economy.

actually they weren’t relying on serious cash cover in the event of their win, what they actually rely on is emotional investment in a lifetime of work. pragmatically that’s the incorrect base for a business.

i wouldn’t doubt that a lot of cases, when push comes to shove, the candidate is actually bankrupt. i was.

i took the static approach to push it over and **** em.

i was better confronting the reality than i would have been in one of their payment plans.

i think, and this is just my guess is that the reality of the world is catching up with them. the payment plans are not going as they’d like and they probably never did which is why cooklin needed the cash of a load of dumb arse fools to prop the whole thing up so he could milk it.

just my thoughts .

dyor & good luck!

you can probably pm me. i’m happy compare notes. you’re probably be in a pretty dark place but they just bully really. the model is fairly **** and you can see from the share price the don’t really make any money, though it may be they have you over a barrel. feel free to reach out. they lost a load of money on me as i went into a single payment iva.

you deserve to suck it up.

of all the companies you could invest in you choose these ****s.

Yeah it’s cooked. And you lot deserve it…lol..

Ok so the guy who knows more about the business than anyone else has resigned and is selling his shares.

Right…. lol….

We just need a contract signed that results in revenues & profits. There’s nothing to talk about until that happens.

Suck it up. Of all the things you could have invested in you chose this. You need a loss to realign your moral compass.

We just need an actual deal to happen that makes actual profit drop to the bottom line.

After that we need for it to look like it will be scaleable and this will rock.