Member Info for MoneyP1t

Again....so short it if you are so sure.

As Bonkers said - why wait to buy when you can short it right now, being as certain as you are, it's a sure thing right? Hey, you could even make some of that money back that you lost when you sold at 78, and it's pretty much a guaranteed right, because you said so..?

Not putting your money where your mouth is? We (LTHs) have.

Covid has been a lot quieter recently in the news, at least I've not seen as many big sensationalised headlines as I did back in the spring/early to mid summer - and at the same time vaccine (booster jab) take up isn't what it should be - some might think that these headlines might be the kick up the backside people need to go out and get it..

I think there was another point that we made in opening but didn't really seem to press too much on in the witness/evidence part of the trial (that I remember). But I am sure I remember our guy making a big deal about them not being allowed to reallocate funds that were already budgeted for in different pots, so the money for project A couldn't be moved to something else (say managing their debt) without CW permission. That ring a bell for anybody or did I just dream that?

Just to point out that every weekend this month has brought in more than $100m, that is three weekends on the bounce. We haven't even done two weekends on the bounce before this month in 2021, so if we can keep that going (and it is a stretch as FI said, but totally possible) then what a great way to kick of Q4 and say with confidence that cinema is back!

Yeah I agree, I think we brought in $70m and $50m in the 2 weeks after Shang Chi, and that was pretty much the only big movie at the time, with only Free Guy (which did very well too) a couple of weeks before it - so I think $100m is definitely possible for the last two weeks with what we have out right now. Dune is just a bit of an unknown for me though, not sure how it will perform....which might be why I am being a little conservative.

If Dune performs really well I'll agree with you FI but personally I think $700m might be on the optimistic side. Happy to be wrong on this one though, but my conservative side is saying closer to c$600m....but c$650m is realistic. But I guess it all comes down to Dune now and how well that performs, that could be the one to take us that final step to the c$700m mark.....which will be 90% for the month.

Overall I'm happy with how the month has gone: Venom really surprised me, bond did well (but maybe not as well as my over excited mind had hoped), Halloween seems to be doing brilliantly, the last duel hasn't made the best start but there is a lot of tough competition out right now (which is a really good place to be in), and it might just be a slow burner.

I don't think Mookie will be complaining by the end of the month either way - a very good start to the quarter.

Apologies if this has already been asked and answered.....but is there a link for todays court session?

The one I have with them all doesn't show one for today..?

JG - CP have argued that, but not sure they have proved it. But no, Cine can't use Covid as a reason, and they haven't because it wasn't in the contract to allow environmental/acts of God as a get out....a mistake I doubt that they'll repeat in future agreements.

JG - if there was a covenant around environmental/acts if god factors then yes, but that wasn't specified in the agreement, therefore the environmental factor risks fell to Cineworld as the buyer.

And also as KickThePuss mentioned - Cineworld are also arguing those other points in addition. I suppose the main question from those two points he mentioned is (although not sure about the legality of it) - is the business the same as what it was when Cineworld agreed to purchase it? For me that is a no, but that is for the judge to decide.

This comes into what we were discussing yesterday, and this is my understanding...

There is no specific covenant around them deferring their payments, that falls under the 'ordinary course' covenant in that they increased the date of payables, so they did not to breach the $725m debt facility. The debt covenant is specific to the $800m debt facility and has nothing to do with pushing payable back.

So the argument is from both views:

Cineplex argue: They increased the date of payables as a response to the Covid-19 outbreak, and not so they could push back the debt and not breach the $725m covenant. And because there wasn't a specific covenant around accruing debt by pushing out date payables, that risk falls on Cineworld as the buyer (which is the part the KPMG guy agreed with - if it didn't fall under the 'ordinary course' covenant).

Cineworld argue: They increased their date payables in order to not breach the $725 covenant, and it had nothing to do with Covid-19 - and so this didn't follow 'ordinary course', and thus breaches that covenant. They have shown by the date that Cineplex started planning to not pay landlords/studios - which was before they were concerned about covid-19.

Both Venom LBC (#2) and Bond NTtD (#6) are in the top 10 opening weekends for the month of October in the US BO.

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/chart/release_top_opn_wkd_in_month/?in_occasion=october&ref_=bo_rl_rr

BC, I totally get it and do not hold it against anybody trying to maximise their profits, in fact I wish every private investor the best of luck in earning money how they see fit, I genuinely mean that - day trader, lth, shorter (although I wish them less luck on the shares I am invested in) - it makes little difference to me, I hope they all earn money.

I just don't like shouting 'hold' and 'it will be XXp by the end of the day' like advice but doing something different yourself - it feels duplicitous to me, regardless of if you still hold shares.

Come out and say 'I think it might drop later, so going to offload some shares on the hope to get back in lower' then I would applaud you for your bravery - but that just isn't the message you give.

ST - he did say that deferring payments wasn't ordinary course for a business, I mean that by doing that, it falls under a breach of the 'ordinary course' covenant and that there is no specific covenant for doing that in itself. Which the KPMG guy accepted (as well as a number of other things) - but by doing so implied (by my understanding) that it didn't fall under the $725m covenant which is there in the agreement.

I'm not disputing if it was in the 'ordinary course' or not, I am saying I hope that the judge sees that it isn't in the ordinary course despite covid. I don't know enough legally to say if it would or wouldn't.

But I think we still have a good argument on that because of when they decided to stop payments (early March), so I hope the judge sees it the same way.

I genuinely hope you are right HNS, this is the first time during the case that I actually thought we didn't have the better argument by the end of questioning, but if my understanding is right - it's a pretty big one!

I dunno, I might have totally misunderstood (so please correct me if I am wrong) but I think that we might have took a bit of hit there with KPMG.

Given they were saying there was nothing specific in the agreement to say anything about delaying payments (or their cash management levels), so therefore it falls under the 'ordinary course' covenant and not the $725m debt limit - and which they are arguing it wasn't ordinary times.

So because there wasn't a specific covenant for it, then it became the buyers risk, and even if it costs them more that isn't cause to get out of the contract.

I don't know how ordinary course is decided but I am hoping it is in our favour.

Again, please correct me if I'm wrong but that was my understanding of what their guy was getting at..

Oh great, and I thought the SP was going to be the worst part of my week..

Anybody wanting to follow BC's lead - remember that you have to sell within 5 minutes of him shouting 'HOLD HOLD HOLD'.

I for one was guilty of getting carried away with predictions (hopes) for Bond, probably as a result of reading this board tbh, so I felt a little deflated seeing the actual numbers for this weekend. Should have looked into it more myself, so my own fault really.

Although, I guess there is an argument to be had to say that it might be a slower burner than normal. If the audience is usually older - they might be waiting for it to quiet down a little, being more cautious - so will be watching out of interest.

That said - $300m might be a tad much to expect, Spectre only brought in $200m in the US.

If we get somewhere in the region of $170m by the end of the month, then I think it will be considered a massive success. $176m is how much Spectre brought in during it's first 24 days which would take us to the end of the month, but 90% of that would give us $158m - so I wouldn't scoff at that either right now.....time will tell I guess.

One thing is for sure though, we need more from the US, we are doing our bit at this side of the pond.

Next week (8.10-14.10)- should be the first time in 2021 that we will actually beat the comparable week in 2019 at the US BO...Shang Chi week came close at 90%, but so far no week in 2021 has been better than it's 2019 equivalent.

I expect us to finish this week (week 40) somewhere around the $150m mark ($139m already at the US BO, and there are still 2 days to add to that figure). It might be a little more or a little less, but that is vs $216m (week 40) 2019.....so it will be about the 70% mark.

The 2019 week 41 is at $202m, and with Bond out in the US from tomorrow, and Venom in it's 2nd week....I can't see any reason why we can't beat that $202m 2019 level.....not only beat, but totally smash!

To be clear that in itself isn't going to fix all our problems - but it will be the first of what we will need to see more of in this final quarter if we are to get up to that 90% mark by year end.