Member Info for paul30661

The interim results are due at the end of November.
Prior to that there will presumably be a closed period.
With some shorts closing having made their profit, the price is at a tipping point
All the directors have to do is put their money where their mouth is and put in some reasonable buys before the closed period.
This will start the stampede to close the 13%+ of shorts and return the share price to a more reasonable place.

IMHO the comments on here about cutting or suspending the dividend - for whatever reason - would be commercial suicide for this company. The smell of blood and lack of investor confidence means that they would spiral out of business quicker than conviviality, house of fraser, maplin, et, etc, put together.

They need to reinforce that the dividend is here to stay to stop the price eroding more. Remember the cost of the dividend is the same as it was, it is the yield that is higher but only because the price is now (much) lower.

declaration. I have a position here avg price just under 130. Happy to hold for recovery or a takeover.

....for the drop today. I think it's because I bought my first thin slice of PETS this morning and inevitably when I do that, the damn thing falls.

I agree. There's no business reason why Murdoch would need to pay more, and there are no other bidders. I presume (hope!) that the drift in the pricing is because of a feared delay in getting clearance because of the MayDUP farce and the start of a new parliament, or else the fear of a referral to the CMA which will prolong the wait and increase the risk of something (else) going wrong in the Murdoch machine. If the bid is blocked I can see the shares falling to something beginning with £ 8-- but Sky is still a sound business (and had a good dividend) so should recover to more than £ 10.75 in a year or so in any case. The current gap is almost 12% which suggests that the market thinks this isn't going to go forward. a further 12% down from here would be £ 8.45 and if it got there I cannot see it staying there for long. In summary, possibly /hopefully more upside than downside from here on a 12 month view. I have positions in both but I currently have more skin in ITV than in Sky as I expected more action in ITV in a quicker time frame - I may have got that wrong :-(

'I intend to write to the Solicitors' Careful M1k3Y - that could put another £ 1 million on the legal bill :-)

Me too. The last I received from the group (last weekend) was an email that said that they have decided to accept the offer on behalf of the members. At no point was I asked whether I was in agreement with this - fair enough there are allegedly 9,000 members. I now read in the press that they are still negotiating and apparently (if the press reports are to be believed), a significant number of people wish to hold out for more money or, I suspect more the case, want it to continue to court regardless. Mind you, perhaps they didn't ask my opinion after the email I sent them a few weeks ago stating that if they continued to court 'on principle' then there is a risk that they themselves might be sued by group members for being negligent. For others on here who've not got a response to emails to the group, I did get a reply a day or so later saying that 'my comments are noted'. This latest twist just reinforces my earlier comments that the organisers of the group are somewhat mickey mouse You can see how the legal team have racked up £20m+ in fees - they were probably rubbing their hands when they saw the directors of the group :-)

I'm slightly confused. If this last group (of which I am a member) gets twice the settlement figure of the other groups but still only receives just over 50% of the settlement, that implies that the other groups either had far, far cheaper costs, or ended up with nothing? I thought that we had legal expenses cover, but presumably from my reading of the email from the group the settlement of those is not on top of the settlement sum, they are included within the settlement. For my part I paid the first, and I think second, request for funds, but I stopped after that as I felt that the communication and set up of the group was becoming more and more mickey mouse and like others on here was conscious of throwing away more money.

In addition to the post below and more as a guide to all who purchase shares in their employers business, you really shouldn't put all of your eggs in one basket. I recall many years ago with the disaster that was the collapse of Railtrack, a lot of employees had their entire life savings in Railtrack stock because 'it felt like it was their company' but when things went wrong they lost their jobs and their savings. I appreciate that some employers offer very generous terms for employees to purchase stock in the company but I really wouldn't keep it tied to the firm that you work for, for longer than you have to. diversify, diversify, diversify

I wasn't being nasty about it (and my apologies if you felt that I was). You mailed it when you said that you hoped the money from the shares would provide a comfortable retirement. I am in the same position in that I would like the monies from a settlement to help fund my retirement, and I was pointing out that if the trial continues there is absolutely no guarantee of success or financial recompense or legal expenses cover which the shareholder group have benefited from to date. Someone will no doubt write a book about it in due course, may be even a film, but now is the (long overdue) time for financial recompense for their (IMO) fraud.

****ey, I agree, it might be nice to know what actually went on, but like the vast majority of others, I don't want to pay for it, not be liable for £ 100 million legal bill if it fails. You sue Mr Goodwin if you like but if you and your ilk wish to burn through millions of £'s just for the sake of vanity, I would put you in the same camp as Mr Goodwin ! Will those petty shareholders who wish to continue provide an indemnity to the rest of us who wish to see a financial settlement, and have they got the assets or insurance to back it up ? otherwise i can see a new action group taking on the existing action group for mishandling their claim and so on and so on .... :-) The Government weren't interested in publicising what really went on, hence no parliamentary enquiry, the police weren't interested in publicising what really went on, hence no criminal charges, so what on earth makes you feel that this case going to court would make any difference? Take the money and move on.

In my opinion going through with the court case is a waste of breath and a waste of money. As anyone with experience knows, justice is not always served correctly by the courts so there is a very real risk that shareholders who lost out first time around could lose out again. If individuals or groups of disgruntled shareholders wish to have a day in court with Mr Goodwin take him to court on your own, don't use my money or the money of the people who are underwriting the costs of the current case. If those backers back out it would be interesting to see how many shareholders are willing to pay more money themselves just to get their day in court and a couple of headlines. I suspect the vast, vast majority would not. For those members who wish to send communication to the shareholder group there is an email message service on the website. I sent one last week stating that I would much prefer a settlement rather than continue to court.

I think that's correct. There is a 6 year limit to start a claim and that 6 years is obviously now passed. I don't believe that the shareholder action group is accepting new entrants at this stage. There used to be a section on their website (rbosaction.org) about it but I can't just see it now. I hope that the group (of which I am a member) do settle rather than pursuing a show trial. A trial would ultimately just be personal vengeance and principal. I would much rather financial recompense for their alleged fraud at the time of the rights issue. In 5 years time no one will care about a court case, but at least my SIPP/ ISA will be reimbursed for their (IMHO) fraud.

Absolutely. My understanding is that they can buy in the market as much as they like up to their offer level - once their offer is made public. But also, presumably the movement in the £ has meant that it will cost them even less. I suspect (hope) that the board are just playing hard to get - as will the people who bought at float price- but ultimately with a 23% head start, this has to be a deal done and will I suspect be the first of many such European and US raids on UK assets.

GVC shares have recommence trading again this morning and currently up at 276p. if my reading is right then the terms of one of the options for SBT shareholders is 44.8p cash and 0.435 GVC shares which in total equates to 56.8 p per SBT share. Alternatively SBT shareholders can elect for more GVC shares and less cash (or I believe a further alternative of all cash). The increase in GVC SP is what is currently driving the SBT SP I guess, although a rival bid would not be unhelpful, even at this stage.

Its about time. the buyers are getting a bargain at this level. Although perhaps the buys are just parties positioning themselves to collect good value GVC shares (or WHill) ? if its a rival bid, then you're going to be a long time coming in 25,000 blocks

I've been having the same thoughts as the other more recent posts, i.e. does the possibility of perhaps a rival bid (there is a fair degree of consolidation going on in the online betting world at present) or possible potential upside from taking GVC shares outweigh having the funds tied up for the remainder of the process (always assuming of course that it goes through - which I strongly believe it will as Will Hill and GVC are picking this up for a song). SBT is quite a slug of my present portfolio and I was minded to return to calmer waters of FTSE companies such as SBRY, TSCO and VOD which I think have been looking particularly oversold of late, although perhaps less so now. I would have thought that another bidder would have now had time to see how W.Hill and GVC are getting around the unlicenced countries difficulties to extract the crown jewels and that there would have been rumours at least of a counter offer, if one were coming. Alternatively, perhaps lawyers take longer to get going after the New Year than others?

Thanks for that. Any idea of the possible timescale on the deal going through and GVC shares being requoted ?

We either wait for a higher bid (surely there have been enough people who thought that this approach was buying SBT on the cheap?) or will this price be a relatively cheap way of buying into GVC and the prospects if they are successful in picking off SBT ?