Member Info for roleybirkin

Primary Bid turned the company down suggesting too small an issue.

In addition to the above, as part of the Subscription, Mobile Streams plc has agreed to subscribe for 20,000,000 New Ordinary Shares at the Issue Price. The Directors intend to have discussions with Mobile Streams plc about future commercial arrangements that benefit both parties.

Taken from the Gfinity RNS just released.

MM's are
- bidding for 1,250,000 at 1.061 and 1,750,000 at 1.0502
- offering 1,250,000 at 1.0875 and 1,750,000 at 1.099

Looking like it's been a great Q1 for BRSD.
Multiple new clients signed and two key cornerstone clients secured may well take ARR through the $6m level.
It is certainly close and a 14% plus increase on the end of December bodes well for the coming year.

32 trades today - 32 buys
Not a single share sold and 8,641,929 shares bought
Surprised the MM's allowed so many shares to be bought and only moving 0.05 on the offer.

I have not seen the guidance at £24m. I thought it was a bit lower, but am very pleased to see a record Q1 for Modern Water.
Would be good to understand the Skin side of the business and how traction is building for that side of the company?
Overall, it seems to me that a significant business is being quietly built.

Bidstack are a middleware platform provider...

I thought I suggested 2p yesterday?
I was correctly challenged in that the company would clearly like to get a raise away at 2p and given the warrant's attached that may seem a fair price.
I gather meeting happening today and a price will be set.

Thanks for your thoughts sajy.
They concur with my understanding.

I think the placing price may have been agreed prior to today's announcement - so I am going 2p given each new share will presumably also get the kicker of a warrant at 2p.

Valuation at £14m after the fall of 46% in share price….

Revenue £3.3m - positive but below expectations
Loss reduced to just £0.4m - positive
Esports live events took time coming back and motorsports consolidated to one season - negative
GDM revenues grew 62% - positive
GDM revenue per user grew to 23.3p - positive
GDM revenues grew 260% in 20 months - positive
Operating expenses cut by £0.2m to £2.2m - positive
Cash grew to £1.5m from £1.4m - positive
Raise announced - negative and unexpected
Directors backing raise - somewhat positive
Raise of £1m - bearable as 4% of last night’s closing valuation

Overall - all rather disappointing but my view is £14m valuation too low but fair given management have delivered this so badly.

It will show a loss as Clarke has suggested 2023 to be EBITDA positive

The closing cross traded 2.857m shares at 16.90p
And set off five more prints at that level with a buyer reloading and trading a further 2.857m shares a second time.
Hmmmmm

Shares across the board have fallen significantly as retail investors panic sell and couple that with high net worth clients not being able to cover margin calls is spiralling further selling.
Share prices have lost and correlation to company performance and RGO is no different.
Numbers due soon to Dec 2021.
Fingers crossed they have performed as well as their 1st half.

In summary,

I am amazed at how poorly structured the 5 points have been delivered and I have to decide finally how I wish to vote but the way in which they have been written suggests they have set themselves up to fail in three of the 5 resolutions.

I am also a little suspicious at the timing but that may have been out of there control given the suggestion that these points were raised in December. It certainly could have been better timed given the full listing.

Overall, I do think the company is in better shape today than 12 months ago and even four months ago and maybe just maybe the group of shareholders may have been better served staying close to the board and working through each of these issues in private as few companies progress in the months that issues of this nature overhang.

So, I think it may be fair to say I am frustrated at where we have ended but understand the shareholders have the right to call this EGM and I will be looking to attend in person if that is allowed?

5 THAT the Company be operated such that it becomes self-sufficient based on its current income. All marketing spend to be halted.

Again, two differing questions being asked to vote upon in one resolution.
I do wonder what was behind drafting in such a way as again I have to vote no when if asked as two resolutions I would vote Yes to part one and an obvious no to part two.

So, part one asks us to vote on the company being operated in a self sufficient manner on current revenues. odd question as any company having £4.3m of revenue in it's previous reporting year should surely be managed in a way to drive growth and thus it could be understood that forecasting a loss could be acceptable.
That said, the resolution should and could have been worded far better in maybe asking shareholders to vote on the company being operated on a break even basis at cost of sales level?

Part two asks for shareholders to vote on Zero marketing spend going forward.
I cannot agree to this but I would like to see the board agree maybe 20% maximum spend in this area going forwrad and any significant individual spend (say 7.5% or revenue) having to be approved by shareholders.

It is clear for me that the company must spend some funds on Marketing, Sponsorship and PR. It would be churlish to think otherwise. A clear No from me.

4 THAT a review of recent financial history of the Company be conducted to determine use of capital of the Company

I do not think shareholders can vote agst this review taking place and given where the company sits today I would vote Yes to this resolution.

One comment I would make is that all contracts and transactions would surely have been reviewed by the senior management, agreed by the board and documented through to the Nomad prior to any RNS's being delivered. That is accepted practise and I would be disappointed if that proved to be incorrect.

The one area of concern I have (and I have raised it with AM) would be that marketing spend of £6.3m - being 146% of the annual revenue number seems ridiculously high and it would be good to see the board approval of said spend and the justification. I have never seen a spend so high and I would argue 10-50% of revenues would be more normal depending on a companies ambition and stage of growth.

The numbers to end Dec are due to be announced any day and to date the company have said very little.
Broker range seems to be between £3m through £3.9m.
Gfinity Digital Media seems to continue it's progress with a number of announcements stating monthly highs across the GDM portfolio.
StockInformer was bedded in Q4 and JC stated that highs of £15k to £17k per day had been hit on occasions.
The guidance still sits at £9.3m for the year ending June 22 so a valuation of £26m is starting to look cheap.

Hi SamBar,
I am not sorry either as I think pushback and challenge can be good.
I do think the timing of this whole situation could have been better, especially as I would think that the owners of the near 10% could surely have waited until the full listing?
To issue the legal letter prior almost seems to smack of wishing to disrupt the listing, but maybe I am looking at this too cynically.
The daft thing is I felt some of the concerns raised were fair end of last year, but the progress announced this last three months has given me a feeling that some serious progress can be made across 2022 -
- cash in the bank
- UFC product close to being agreed
- AJ commitment to assist in the marketing efforts
- Ebay sales
- Amazon sales increasing
- Deliveroo sales
- ECargo Asian sales confirmed
- November announced as a solid month
- Two new high calibre NED's have joined one ex UFC so hopefully influential on the UFC partnership

And then we get de-stabilised again...

3. THAT a strategic review of the Company be undertaken and that the Company to be put up for sale or a search is launched for a strategic partner;

The more I read these resolutions the more I am getting concerned that something not positive is happening here.
Why do I say that.
Again, the resolution is asking two distinctly different questions so it makes it hard to vote for or against.

First question - A strategic review of the company be undertaken - I would argue yes, I agree - nothing wrong with shareholders seeing the company revised/latest strategy and what the board want to achieve in the coming year to three years.

Second question - That the company be put up for sale OR a search is launched for a strategic partner...
This is ridiculous and I sense the dissenting shareholders may know this to be the case. Obviously, my opinion but ridiculous timing to suggest the company seeks a buyer given the significant positive news delivered of late.
I would have to vote No to this question but of course you cannot vote No given the resolution is asking shareholders to vote on two completely differing questions with one resolution.

Hmmmmm indeed?