Member Info for WolfofWarks

Mooky doesn't get to decide. It's the creditors who vote on any deal while it's in chapter 11 code.

Sorry to disappoint but I've been at work all day.

Jeff - more common would be to use PE ratio which is earnings divided into the share price. Revenue would be a dangerous metric to use and Cineworld would be a classic example of why. Sales are vanity profit is sanity. After watching that lad last night my only advise to people would be to use quality newspapers and publications for your guidance rather than Internet forums and Pis on YouTube.

There is absolutely nothing fundamentally that would put Cineworld anywhere near a $10bn to $20bn valuation in the next ten years imo let alone at this point in time.

Elvis - if you conducted yourself like an adult and every post wasn’t laced with childish digs I would happily discuss with you. However you don’t, so you are worth neither my time or effort.

Are you like ten years old or something?

Vue is owned by private equity is it not. They have very deep pockets. It would be interesting to see if they can come up with a deal that would satisfy the debt holders.

Can anyone post the content of the times article?

Maybe they could tie it in with an IPO of Vue as I assume they would be looking at an exit strategy.

I stopped listening after he valued Cine at $10-20bn.

Oh and the C11 was because of a poor film slate, nowt to do with the debt, leases, COVID, etc.

I'm going back to my previous stance of ignoring you.

I think you might actually be crackers.

He’s got some balls that’s for sure

So Elvis - are you really suggesting here that items shouldn’t be provided for because they might have a negative impact of the company? I’ve heard it all now. Yet providing for an interest charge is ‘going-ho’.

There’s sections within the IFRS standards which govern how contingent liabilities are calculated and provided for. It’s been a while since I last looked at it but it’s something around analysing the likelihood to occur and whether they can be reliably estimated.

The classic example is the house builders who are currently providing for payouts relating to cladding regulations following grenfall tower. Or think of when the PPI scandals hit - they all started proving for billions even though the payouts at that time were relatively unknown.

Accountants by nature are prudent (sometimes too much) which is why I made my comments the other day around the going concern statement. The point you were not understanding is that I was not questioning the legitimacy of the GCS as a concept in itself but whether the CW board were correct in suggesting that the outcome from the appeal did not warrant consideration in making that judgement.

There’s always loads of information you cannot include until year end in all accounts. For example, an accurate stock take happened at year end. Impairments, valuations, etc, happen at year end.

Accruals though are another underlying concept with should be part of end the month end close process. Meat and two veg for management accountants.

The initial DIP framework was agreed at the outset of the C11. I haven’t read the detail of what was agreed on the 4th Nov but they would have known what interest was payable prior to then on at least an interim basis. It matters not one jot whether the accounts have been audited or not - management information is always provided on a monthly basis outside of statutory requirements because otherwise the management team would not be able to run the business with sufficient data.

The problem with you Elvis is you have turned up to the party late and are trying to fill in the gaps. Whereas Hexam and I along with others have been discussing this for months - without all the oneupmanship and *******ary as well.

Re the interest payment Hexam mentioned the other day that the loans are variable and tied to Libor (now Sonia) so the charges will be moving with the interest rate but also there has been currency volatility recently.

Cine have some hedging in place but to what extent they are covered I don’t know.

A company the size of CINE would be accruing every month in order to publish management accounts and information required for banks, lenders, creditors, etc.

It doesn’t matter whether or not the information has been audited.

It depends whether the information they have supplied to the courts is a cash flow statement or a set of monthly management accounts or quasi stat accounts.

The DIP interest should have been included as they would have had to accrue it if not paid.

ASOS and Ted Baker have been discounting for a while now. I don't shop at Boohoo so cannot really comment on how relative.

Many of these online companies will have too much stock. The time last year supply chain was a real issue after COVID and many businesses invested heavily to incorporate this year's planning as well. Then bang war, cost of living crisis, etc, etc, and too much stock on the shelf which now needs turning into cash.

"Wolffie, I’m still waiting for an answer of the LLG meeting that is happening today (I’ll put my pencil sharpener down for 24 hours) …"

I came to the conclusion that you are not worth the effort ... I'll debate with adult-like folk as much as they like, whether we agree or disagree.

Jeff - this is quite common place. There’s a whole market for corporate bonds. You’re thinking too much into it.

My assumption would be that they played the same role as HSBC and Barclays in underwriting the loan.

There’s no evidence from what I can see that any of them are current debt holders, or certainly not senior holders in the DIP consortium named in any of the presentations and dockets.

Hi Jeff - nice work - if you google it you can see the official press release at the time on a FT link.