Member Info for Timmit

Hi Jace86

To address your questions.

I don't claim to have any specialisms where Blockchain is concerned but I can see that not all Blockchain specialists make a beeline for Iceland. For instance Argo Blockchain have a state of the art facility in Canada and are expanding capacity fast so they must have commercial reasons to prefer Canada over Iceland. The rates quoted for Serbia were certainly a good deal cheaper typically than the Western European countries I've seen power quotes for and sometimes it's how long the contract can be agreed for which is also important.

You maintain that if the Mediapolis appeal is lost then it's a complete write off. Don't follow your reasoning here. If the appeal is lost then the price agreed at auction is paid (which is already in the accounts). There are still the villas to be sold and the bulk of the proceeds are deu to CLP.

The insolvency proceedings which you think may put the Fortune Cookie settlement at risk would involve WPP Plc putting Fortune Cookie Ltd into liquidation to avoid an agreement made in court. Do you think the directors of WPP / Fortune Cookie Ltd would want an insolvency practitioner picking over their conduct as directors to avoid a preferred debt? If so why waste legal fees on their part defending the claim?

The revenue from the latest investment? Don't know. But the RNS stated that in the first quarter is where the company is looking to roll out its new service offerings and the management mentioned seem to have relevant experience both with the sector and the scale.

Worth noting that FG is taking shares for his remuneration at a 38.5% premium to the current price.

Issue of Shares to Director

The board of Clear Leisure (AIM: CLP) announces that, in accordance with the terms of his employment , 3,076,923 ordinary shares of 0.25p each (“Ordinary Shares”) in the Company have been allotted and issued to Francesco Gardin at a price per share of 0.975p in settlement of that part of his 2017 remuneration payable through the issue of Ordinary Shares.

Following the issue of the new Ordinary Shares, Mr Gardin will hold 8,437,078 Ordinary Shares representing an interest of 1.4 % in the Company.

Application will be made for the new Ordinary Shares to be admitted to trading on AIM with admission expected to occur on or around 7 January 2019. The new Ordinary Shares will rank pari passu with the existing Ordinary Shares.

Following admission, the Company's enlarged issued share capital will comprise 604,152,600 Ordinary Shares. This figure may be used by shareholders in the Company as the denominator for the calculations by which they will determine if they are required to notify their interest in, or a change in their interest in, the share capital of the Company under the FCA's Disclosure and Transparency Rules.

What I would hope to see is a business update RNS in what has been a busy few months with more news still awaited. There was one issued last December but earlier in the month. So, even if Ondaland and others are nudged into 2019, we could still be given an idea of where we are with the legal actions, other Mediapolis assets, any approaches that might have been made by external investors etc. I think that then would be a useful line to draw under 2018...

Hi LA, I think you’ve misread the Fortune Cookie action at least in terms of negotiation skill. The RNS of 2/5/18 stated: “Claim for breach of share purchase agreement The Company has issued a claim in the High Court against a media company incorporated in England and Wales and its founder arising from a breach of a share purchase agreement entered into in 2012. Pending disclosure from the defendants, the Company estimates that the value of its claim is between approximately GBP700,000 and GBP5m. Details of the claim will be disclosed when the Particulars of Claim become public in the coming weeks.” This was an unusual action with unusual parameters. How many other actions have you seen that ranged from £700K to £5M?? This wasn’t like the usual legal action when most of the knowns are known (Donald Rumsfeld eat your heart out!). They didn’t know how much Fortune Cookie had been sold for but the prevailing deals entered into by WPP at the time led the directors to believe that the profit due to CLP could be anything within that range hence the wide band. I’m inclined to believe that they didn’t take a big haircut in lieu of a £5M payout - we’ll probably never know the exact amount involved or whether there was any discount in settlement. But it would be against the run of play for FG to give up 80% of what’s due when he has previously extracted that sort of discount from creditors. I suspect (but can’t prove) that CLP got what they were owed or close to it as the judge had ruled FC/WPP had a case to answer and some costs to pay, courts take a dim view where a defendant has acted dishonestly in hiding what they had contractually agreed to pay in the event of a takeover etc...My point is that the original amounts were such a movable feast that could only be nailed once discovery had taken place. Also FG’s bonus of 10% was directly related to the settlement realised so there was a personal angle for the negotiator as well that makes me doubt he gave up 80%...

I agree with you Spary1 on the value of hearing alternative views. But a non-holder will post for the very same reasons a holder will - to justify their stance at that moment in time - “news is coming” means I’m a holder, “not convinced” means I’m not a holder. Taking a step back (and playing devil’s advocate for a moment) the only things we could state as facts are the 1st charge on Mediapolis is due to CLP 2017 (which is already in the accounts) and a significant proportion of the other Mediapolis assets when sold (which is not in the accounts). We have a court victory against Fortune Cookie and a bond conversion, both of which will come through as profits and improve the balance sheet accordingly. We have an investment in an Italian data firm which, in the absence of any trading data, may or may not be a good investment. The bitcoin mining hasn’t contributed significantly yet to the value of the company and all other historic investments are reflected in the accounts. So there is ample room for scepticism without being a shorter. Those of us who believe CLP will go higher have something less tangible - belief. Belief in the management to join the dots, that they will realise assets from the court cases being fought, that the structure of their remuneration aligns well with shareholder interests (no overpaid directors here just bonuses on realised assets), evidence of good negotiations done in the past with Mediapolis debt even though much of that benefit didn’t feed through due to the winding up action. Some here have met the directors and asked them the questions needed. Some have maintained a dialogue with the PR people to get clarification and offer suggestions/feedback when appropriate. So I don’t have a problem with any scepticism shown by LA and others. It actually surprises me that some more recently invested posters have just taken the story and run with it. For me part of my “belief” that CLP is worth me investing in is the track record of the directors with Pan European Terminals Plc where they achieved a result for shareholders despite Russia Mafia and, having been invested here for over 10 years, the sense that this phase of the company feels very different - as in it doesn’t feel like a headless chicken being run by a blind pilot it seems to have a direction of travel...

A more relevant character from Greek mythology is Narcissus. He found his own view so enchanting he wouldn’t entertain any others. For all the positive views on CLP (mine among them) there are enough sellers out there who don’t but the story, the volumes are not big so this is not a great concerted effort to suppress the share price. I’ve waited in other shares (eqt among others) until the point where I’ve finally lost faith in the story, sold up and put the money elsewhere (usually in CLP). I haven’t seen any proof this isn’t the case with CLP. So take a sanguine view of the questions asked and if you can deal with them intellectually you’ve made your own holding case stronger. If you just resort to shooting the messenger who disagrees with you that’s just plain lazy...

CC - all traders make errors (eventually). All posters on this CLP thread think they’re right or they would change their stance accordingly. In that LA is no different to anyone else here...and before the nozzle gets turned on me yet again I hold a substantial amount, go to the GM and AGM when I can and hope this goes up substantially. Shouldn’t have to provide that information yet again but some on here seem to think that if you don’t join the conspiracy theorists you must be part of the plot!

https://www.lseg.com/sites/default/files/content/documents/aim/2018/January/AIM_Rules_for_Companies_January_2018.pdf page 14&15 give the reasons for precautionary suspension as: 40. The Exchange may suspend the trading of AIM securities where: — trading in those securities is not being conducted in an orderly manner; — it considers that an AIM company has failed to comply with these rules; — the protection of investors so requires; or — the integrity and reputation of the market has been or may be impaired by dealings in those securities. Suspensions are effected by a dealing notice. Not sure that suspension would be warranted under those reasons as the threshold must be quite high. There are loads of shares (especially recently) that have been sold into any rally. CLP never shows up on the shorting register and that would have flagged up any significant overall shorting positions so it’s likely a combination of traders or existing holders selling that this frustrating selling comes from...

Hopefully Sipiem has more than 0.5% stake in Ondaland! You started early Rusty? :-)

LA, the Fortune Cookie action was an interesting one - as the value achieved with the sale of FC wasn’t in the public domain FG and his team presumably had to estimate what price WPP paid for it (compared with similar deals at the time where the values were in there public domain) and calculate the drag along rights due on that. As part of the discovery it may have been revealed that, based on the price achieved, CLP were not due as much as the higher estimate showed but were due a lesser amount. I wouldn’t be quick to assume that CLP accepted a big haircut in this case it may have been revised when the facts were laid out...

Sorry *dealings not details

I prefer the idea of CLP getting control of Ondaland directly rather than via Sipiem as it would limit further details with a certain Alfredo Villa who is, I believe, still one of the appointed officers at Sipiem and I personally wouldn’t trust him to run a tap let alone a company I was invested in!

Yup, voted over a week ago electronically! If I’d been in the country I would have gone...

Hopefully if you’re flying into London from Glasgow the pilot will come in smoothly on da landing.....

No worries! :-) Maths goggles!

Diane Abbott, the celebrated east London mathematician? ;-)

Hey LA watch your maths! 1000 million shares at 7p to 10p would imply a market cap of £70M to £100M - yes please but unlikely! ;-)

Hi LA, believe it or not both are right. FC will pay both instalments in full as per RNS without stopping legal fees. CLP will have some legal fees to pay but we don’t know how much they have already accounted for in H1 this year. This should be clarified in due course, possibly not by RNS.

Also LA, there is mileage in buying at this level if you are a bondholder as, until they convert their bonds into shares, they could still be under the notifiable limit knowing their conversion would raise the NAV upon conversion and would reduce the loss on their conversion.