Member Info for RS2002

Tom Cruise really is a saviour of cinema. The movie looks incredible and it will play in cinemas July 2023.

If the rumours of a 120 day window for Top Gun Maverick are true, we should be hopeful Cruise negotiates with Paramount and Sundance to keep a long, theatrical exclusive window as well.

I imagine this trailer will play ahead of Top Gun Maverick.

Source: https://youtu.be/2m1drlOZSDw

Many have praised Paramounts Sonic sequel doing well at the US domestic box office but the great news is Sony’s Uncharted movie has done remarkably well for a new IP. The movie will almost certainly gain a franchise status and cinemas can expect to play plenty more of the movies over the years.

Tom Rothman, CEO of Sony Columbia Pictures has publicly spoken about his desire to continue to prioritise and support theatrical release and then look at ancillary releases like digital and streaming so this should also influence rival studios as Sony have done well to navigate the mess Streaming is in at the moment.

For me and other investors, these are not just one off or anecdotal news pieces, they represent a theme that studios see continued life in theatrical exhibition thus reaffirming the business model Cineworld operate.

I am also pleased many long term holders are not wasting their time responding to derampers talking about debt (which has been answered hundreds of times and most recently to Yuri and his “crew”, yesterday).

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2022/05/22/box-office-uncharted-passes-400-million-as-sonic-the-hedgehog-2-tops-375-million-and-lost-city-nears-100-million/

Thanks for posting, Tegop. From that legal analysis, this resonated the most and reaffirms my belief that Cineworld’s current debt load is indeed a blessing in disguise.

“ Cineworld is arguing that any synergies would belong exclusively to the purchaser; Cineplex was not contractually entitled to synergies, and so they are an improper measure of expectation damages. Also, failure to discount the purchase price DEBT that Cineworld would have IMPOSED ON Cineplex after closing puts Cineplex in a better position than if the contract had been performed.”

Cineworld’s appeal process is a great three prong attack:

1. Dispute the debt covenants that Cineplex breached by way of out of ordinary business practice

2. Synergies were to be realised by the acquirer not the acquiree

3. The debt burden on Cineplex was not accounted for as part of any synergies which is a great point should points 1 and 2 be deemed unsuccessful

I believe before October, both groups will return to cash positive earnings as the movie slate matured and admissions show confidence of a return to pre-covid at which point an out of court settlement will be reached.

Current net debt (pre-IRFS 16) is in fact $5bn (this excludes future lease liabilities) as opposed to the often $8bn (post-IRFS 16) that is usually touted by the press.

The current debt makeup is 68% acquisition from 2018 Regal takeover ($3.4bn), so a lot more than the 40% mentions earlier by one of the posters.

With regards to a potential fire sale and liquidating of assets like property - well the said property is in fact non-existent. Cineworld completed the sale of its 35 owned venues acquired through Regal back in 2019 and then leased it back “in line with our leasehold operating model” as Mooky was quoted. Mooky has a very good relationship with EPR Properties the principal landlord for Cineworld in the US.

With a current market cap of £320m, Cineworlds only tangible assets are popcorn machines, laser projectors and some signage. The rest of their value is derived from their business model which, pre covid was profitable every year. So in summary, let the threats of liquidation, debt for equity come. They won’t even touch the sides and as such are non viable avenues of raising capital. For Cineplex who currently have an unenforceable judgement which is due an appeal hearing in October, have nothing but a worthless piece of paper. This is why Cineplex share price doesn’t reflect a cash injection of $1bn CAD.

The current debt pile is indeed saving Cineworld and will see that lenders with even the slightest sense of business acumen will support Cineworld and stick it through with them, else they get nothing and a large commercial property landlord is left with an empty estate and no rivals like AMC, Cinemark coming to take them any time soon.

Cineworld shareholders can sit back and continue to wait this recovery out. Shorters can continue worrying about getting sufficient stock to close their positions. Imagine the news once Top Gun sees cross-demographics turn up in huge numbers? MCU is already getting the teenagers and young adults back, the movie slate for this summer and the coming seasons should cement regular movie going for a more diverse demographic mix and when this happens, it is going to be a very nerve-racking time for the funds. Don’t you think, Yuri?

Source: https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/222052/cineworld-inks-us270mln-sale-leaseback-deal-for-us-screens-special-divi-due-in-july-222052.html

Thank you, HNS for your work. It is stellar and the email reads very well. I echo the sentiments of others which is not to suggest corruption or leverage other cases where a questionable judgment was given. The email you have sent draws on familial ties which could introduce bias and a lack of impartiality. The ball is in the court of CINEs legal team and investor relations.

Well done and thank you again.

It is a block listing review. An audit process of some sort. A non-event.

This is great investigative work, HNS/Mountainous.

Thank you for compiling this and sharing it with the CINE legal team/investor relations.

As others have stated, I am hopeful that CINEs legal team have done their due diligence and are aware of these findings but nothing can be taken for granted following the absurd judgement awarded in favour of loss synergies for Cineplex that would never exist.

*taken as a positive

I can also attest to Parsnip being a chronic whiner. I am invested in Tui with a 300p average and currently down som 30%. Do I whine about it? No. For the aforementioned reasons, this dilution was necessary to pay back the bailout to the German government and reducing the debt, something Parsnip likes to drum on and on about over on the Cineworld board should be taken as a patriot.

Short term pain. Long term gain.

Sadly, Parsnip you aren’t man enough to admit you’re a day trader like many here who come and ask for discussion amongst LTH knowing full well their investment strategy differs from yours. This isn’t exclusive to Tui or Cine. It is sadly amongst so many BBs on the LSE chat platform that it is beginning to grow tiring and why I have posted a lot less.

Also worth noting that Disney are masking their churn rate. Their increase in subscriptions for Disney plus have mostly been on India. Where customers pay 63 cents or 99 rupees a month. Their growth is misleading and it will be reflected at next earnings.

The Chinese (and potential buyer of EUA) are highly motivated to acquire as much mental resources to support battery technologies. So much so the industry is coining its as the “new oil”

Source: https://www.scmp.com/tech/tech-war/article/3169116/chinese-electric-vehicle-battery-king-urges-beijing-speed-lithium

Thanks for reporting back, Bonkers.

We will not know the reason it was not formally disclosed.

I can only hypothesise that a decision delivered between now and Q1 2023 could suggest an out of court settlement. That said I appreciate your stance was about the lack of communication.

It has been 24 hours and 3rd parties and intermediaries are likely involved in the proposed asset sale.

I don’t buy the faux pearl clutching as you feign outrage. This is a lazy attempt to drum up FUD.

Investors remain patient and will await an update. Keep in mind the insiders hold a lot more of the shares than retail investors.

I recall reading that Netflix originally proposed a 45 day window for Irishman but Cineworld and AMC wanted 60 days. Mooky is reciprocal to 45 days and the reality is movies make 80% of their take in the first 30 days. Spider-Man NWH with 88 days helped it achieve an incredible take so let us see what comes forth.

I remain optimistic that Netflix will come to an agreement. Their churn rate is high and they need to offset production costs rather than pass them to subscribers.

A pretty incredible achievement from Tom Cruise.

He is currently engaged with Paramount to ensure a long window is achieved with the new MI 7 and 8 movies. Earlier reports of 45 days were deemed “day date” and Tom Cruise rejected this.

Let us hope he achieves this. He really is a saviour of cinema and I still recall his visit to watch Tenet in 2020 when cinemas were really hurting during the pandemic.

For now, I have my tickets to watch Top Gun Maverick opening night at my local Cineworld and with a 120 day run this could encourage more movies and studios to revert back to a 90 day window or something in between.

Source: https://www.gq.com/story/tom-cruise-top-gun-maverick-reviews

Then pray tell, what brings you to this board, Albumphoto?

Good post. This does corroborate.

Bonkers I believe the reason Cineworld did not announce this is because it is not concrete just yet.

Whilst Hollywood Reporter announced it from an “earning announcement” which was possibly verbal and followed a formal written statement from Cineplex

Can you see this statement about the appeal being heard in October from the formal statement?

Source: https://mediafiles.cineplex.com/press-releases/Q1%202022%20Press%20Release_20220512235127_0.pdf

I cannot.

What I did see however was the following from Cineplex which means these are “forward statements” which cannot be taken as absolute.

“Certain material factors or assumptions are applied in making forward-looking statements and actual results may DIFFER materially from those expressed or implied in such statements. Cineplex cautions readers NOT to place undue reliance on these statements, as a number of important factors, many of which are beyond Cineplex's control, could cause actual results to DIFFER materially from the beliefs, plans, objectives, expectations, anticipations, estimates and intentions expressed in such forward-looking statements. These factors include, but are not limited to, the duration and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on Cineplex, the movie exhibition industry and the economy in general, as well as Cineplex's RESPONSR to the COVID-19 pandemic as related to the closure or capacity restrictions of its theatres and LBE venues, employee reductions and other cost-cutting initiatives, and increased expenses relating to safety measures taken at its facilities to protect the health and well-being of customers and employees; Cineplex's expectations with respect to liquidity and capital expenditures, including its ability to meet its ongoing capital, operating and other obligations, and anticipated needs for, and sources of, funds; Cineplex's ability to execute cost-cutting and revenue enhancement initiatives in response to the COVID-19 pandemic; risks generally encountered in the relevant industry, competition, customer, legal, taxation and accounting matters; THE OUTCOME OF THE LITIGATION SURROUNDING THE TERMINATION of the Cineworld transaction; and diversion of management time on litigation related to the Cineworld transaction.

The foregoing list of factors that may affect future results is not exhaustive. When reviewing Cineplex's forward-looking statements, readers should carefully consider the foregoing factors and other uncertainties and potential events. Additional information about factors that may cause actual results to DIFFER materially from expectations and about material factors or assumptions applied in making forward-looking statements may be found in the "Risks and Uncertainties" section of Cineplex's MD&A.”

It reads that Cineplex are uncertain about particular details regarding the litigation so I am not concerned.

Would you really need to advertise 1 when it was not formally stated earlier?

I see only one plausible update. Sale of assets and a binding contract great with terms defined.

I too believe the buyer as Chinese. The EV race between the West and East is intensifying the need for battery materials.

Source: https://www.scmp.com/tech/tech-war/article/3169116/chinese-electric-vehicle-battery-king-urges-beijing-speed-lithium