Member Info for redkite4

Looks like Sage was on the slide when Flattery parachuted out, and is also now in a fight for survival.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2019/02/11/inside-britains-biggest-tech-company-fight-survive-brutal-year/amp/

If that was the plan, I don't think GT would have waited to sell his last holdings as a penny share.
As Handofjohnson points out, this was on the cards at the time BF was appointed, and he has spent 2 years doing nothing to rectify the situation. There was an opportunity to take extreme steps, manage the 2 year transition from payment on contract to go live, and come out with a platform for growth.
Instead, it seems that he came in believing his own publicity, but never got to grips with the business. And if the local rag's reporting is accurate, to confirm at the weekend that staff would be paid for February, then close the doors on Wednesday is, as horsetrader2 puts it, obscene.

The questions about revenue recognition at Enterprise were known for some time. There was always more value in the *profit making* EIC business than was recognised, even by current management. Quite ironic that that's where the remaining value is, although with the loss of customers and key staff over the past two years, it's not what it was.

I agree that it might be what's best for the company, but any proposal would most likely lead to massive dilution of already next-to-worthless shares. The banks hold all the cards and have no interest in existing shareholders.

Very kind of you to say so. Something else to consider is that for all the criticism of GT, he built the business up and would not want to see it collapse. Which makes this particularly interesting: Utilitywise founder Geoff Thompson makes bid to rescue the business https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/business/business-news/geoff-thompson-utilitywise-rescue-bid-15820397?utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=sharebar
This might not be the best result for existing shareholders and the management team that have overseen the decline in the last 2 years, but might be a hint of optimism for employees.

The difference between recognised revenue and cash has been long debated on this board.
When a is recognised as revenue, it does not give you the cash to pay salaries until it is paid by suppliers. The question whether recognised revenue will eventually materialise as cash has caused numerous debates about the fair value of this business.
We know that the business took cash advances from suppliers, based on expected future consumption at an agreed commission. The three challenges listed in the RNS are that:
Some of these contracts under-consumed leading to restatement of revenue, and repayment of cash.
Some contracts terminated early (industry processes exploited by competitors).
Suppliers are limiting the level of commission.
We know from the RNS that there is a £25m debt facility that needs to be refinanced in April.
We know the banks won't refinance without further investment.
We know existing equity holders have no appetite.
We know from the Sept trading update that debt was £17.5m, that order books were down and that management were blaming last year's failure to publish accounts and resulting suspension for affecting 2018 H2 sales – “The operational and commercial impact was greater and more far-reaching than the Board had expected”
Has this impact continued into 2019 H1? How will this year’s suspension affect 2019 H2?
If you were a supplier, would you be keen to pay cash advances for new business? Would you be concerned that under-consumption and early termination of existing contracts might require you to claw-back cash?
There’s a lot we don’t know, but based on what we do, in the absence of significant investment which existing investors are unwilling to provide, the business needs to find £17.5m (+- change since July) that the banks are no longer willing to finance, by mid-April.
You’re right, people are jumping to conclusions that the company’s failure to confirm that salaries will be paid in March means that they won’t, and there is no information that supports this assertion.
April, however, is a different matter entirely.

You can't pay salaries from recognised revenue.

Even Chris Grayling wouldn't have made such a mess. For staff to be told that BF is in constant negotiations with the banks is a bad sign. They have told him they need new investment, so BF is only trying to keep the business on life support. He should be seeking new investors (unlikely) or trying to salvage some value from the business. EIC should be worth more than the market cap. While claiming that H2 trading was affected by last year's share suspension is most likely just an excuse, the longer this uncertainty continues, bigger consumers who read the trade press are unlikely to sign or renew, and what value is left is being destroyed.

To miss one deadline to file accounts could be seen as misfortune, to miss two looks like carelessness.
BF hasn't just failed to get things back on track, but after 2.5 years he still appears to have less of a grip on what's going on than most of the contributors to this board.

"A disgraced tycoon ... who snapped up Beckingham Palace for £11.5 million"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2581969/Beckingham-Palace-sold-insurance-tycoon-11-5m-got-Aston-Martin-two-Jags-thrown-in.html

I sometimes think there are parallels between Flattery and Mourinho - this sums it up: "their real problem is that they don't have 20 years' experience but merely repeat themselves every year for 20 years." https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47010477

I could've written boggyclouds' first post myself. Flattery accepted the role nearly 3 years ago (prior to announcement in April 2016 that Thompson would step down). Everything he describes as "unexpected challenges and legacy issues" should had been clear to him had he listened and understood.
The strategy announced in the RNS is nothing new, but the opportunity to implement it has gone. IoT is a difficult sell that they have repeatedly announced for years. If he gets £10m would he spend it more wisely than his other initiatives?
In any case, the bank won't refinance unless other investment is forthcoming, Existing equity holders have refused, and to issue £10m at the current share price would dilute current shareholders 10-fold.
He was appointed based on a reputation that was clearly undeserved. He, and the team he brought in, have overseen incredible value destruction. To have reached this point - literally a penny share - was not inevitable, but I see nothing in the RNS except old ideas and excuses.