OTIUM ENTERTAINMENT GROUP LIMITED - new document (1 Viewer)

[Jack Griffin]

Available at companies house.

On 20 Dec 2011 you requested that we monitor the company OTIUM ENTERTAINMENT GROUP LIMITED for changes.

The following changes have been detected:18 May 2014

New Company Document Available Form: AR01 - Annual Return - A Full List of Directors and Shareholders, Does NOT Include the Company Accounts
21/04/14 FULL LIST

 

---

[Ian1779]

What does that mean?

 

[limoncello]

What does that mean?

Just 'like' it anyway. Don't ask questions.

 

[crowsnest]

It shows who owns the shares, including the 676, 000 issued in the last few weeks.

 

[lordsummerisle]

It shows who owns the shares, including the 676, 000 issued in the last few weeks.

Jacks post actually shows Jack Shit though.

 

[Otis]

Jacks post actually shows Jack Shit though.

It does?

Is he the chairman or just one of the directors?

 

[Astute]

I just want them to explain why they use the word entertainment in their name.

 

[Otis]

Maybe for the same reason Lenny Henry's tag reads ' Lenny Henry, comedian.'

 

[Astute]

Maybe for the same reason Lenny Henry's tag reads ' Lenny Henry, comedian.'

At least on the rare occasion he can make you laugh.......

 

[Otis]

At least on the rare occasion he can make you laugh.......

When was this then, 1983?

 

[skybluelee]

At least on the rare occasion he can make you laugh.......

No. Not once. Ever.

 

[tisza]

It shows who owns the shares, including the 676, 000 issued in the last few weeks.

Who owns them?
Is this part of the ARVO debt for equity swap?

 

[SimonGilbert]

Mr Labovitch informed me the new shares are a way of injecting cash into the business to cover costs.

Other experts suggested it's pretty standard practice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[paulw]

This started as a 'whodunnit' mystery and ended like a UKIP party political broadcast. - UKIP over there and I'll kip over here -

 

[henry the wasp]

No. Not once. Ever.

I liked him as Algernon Razzamatazz.
OOOKAYYYY!

 

[paulw]

Lenny Henry? Great on Tiswas but the premier ruined him like so many up and coming talents.

 

[savosdad]

Similar to Carlton Palmer ( footballer ) ha ha

 

[Otis]

Lenny Henry? Great on Tiswas but the premier ruined him like so many up and coming talents.

Also he was not so good in and around the box, hence why Dawn French dumped him.

 

[Astute]

Mr Labovitch informed me the new shares are a way of injecting cash into the business to cover costs.

Other experts suggested it's pretty standard practice.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Would you say it is to pay for losses or do you think it is so we have enough of a budget to put a good enough squad together?

 

[ajsccfc]

I used to like Chef. It wasn't hilarious, but it was nicely shot.

 

[Otis]

I used to like Chef. It wasn't hilarious, but it was nicely shot.

I wish Lenny Henry was nicely shot.

 

[Houchens Head]

I met Lenny Henry once back in the 70's when he was just starting out. He was a real big-headed smug git back then and hasn't changed one bit! Unfunny as well!
(How did we get on to Lenny Henry anyway? :thinking about

 

[Otis]

I met Lenny Henry once back in the 70's when he was just starting out. He was a real big-headed smug git back then and hasn't changed one bit! Unfunny as well!
(How did we get on to Lenny Henry anyway? :thinking about

Been asking myself the very same question for Dawn French.

'Winch' is my best guess.

 

[James Smith]

When was this then, 1983?

I find his Premier Inn commercials very funny.

Have seen him do Shakespear "Comedy of Errors"* and he was very good in that.

*Interesting title

 

[duffer]

Would you say it is to pay for losses or do you think it is so we have enough of a budget to put a good enough squad together?

If we're not offering Murphy a new contract, then I suspect funding a successful squad isn't really at the top of the owner's priorities. I could probably live with that, if we weren't throwing millions down the drain simply to distress our former landlord...

In fairness it's early days yet - for all I know we'll sign Ronaldo in the close season, but signs point towards an even younger, weaker squad next year - imho.

 

[wingy]

Would you say it is to pay for losses or do you think it is so we have enough of a budget to put a good enough squad together?

Possibly that figure plus expected turnover gives the budget, then 60% of that

 

[oldskyblue58]

The form filed is the Annual Return for 2014. All companies have to file this form annually. It lists the statutory details of the company (registered office, Directors, Secretary etc) It also shows the details of the share holders. These are as follows

Ordinary shares in issue 1000 (split 901 to SBS&L and 99 ARVO)
Non voting ordinary share 500,000 (all to ARVO)
Preference share 1,650,000 (all to ARVO)

The preference shares are ranked before the ordinary shares when it comes to dividends or capital distributions but have no voting rights.

Shares have been issued recently to get to the figures above. All to ARVO. I would guess this is because issue of new shares count towards the FFP calculation and that needed to be balanced out. As has been said elsewhere this is quite normal in order to put money in to a company but in the case of a football club it counts in other calculations too. Because of the losses accumulated the company cannot pay a dividend legally and there is no interest chargeable on shares.

 

[sky blue john]

How much was each share Osb ?
Would this give us an indication of how much money they have recently injected.

 

[oldskyblue58]

£1 per share sbj ...... total £2,151,000

 

[tisza]

OSB - do we have to wait until the next set of accounts to see whether the shares were a conversion of loans into equity or fresh investment?

 

[sky blue john]

£1 per share sbj ...... total £2,151,000

Thanks Osb.

 

[Jack Griffin]

OSB - do we have to wait until the next set of accounts to see whether the shares were a conversion of loans into equity or fresh investment?

Almost certainly will be new money IMHO, surely it it costs more to run the club at Northampton than income received.
I reckon it would have been possible to run it at break even in the Ricoh.

 

[torchomatic]

Shows how shit things are then as even if we were back at the Ricoh then we'd struggle break even.

Almost certainly will be new money IMHO, surely it it costs more to run the club at Northampton than income received.
I reckon it would have been possible to run it at break even in the Ricoh.

 

[Jack Griffin]

Shows how shit things are then as even if we were back at the Ricoh then we'd struggle break even.

Losing £7M last year is terrible money management.

 

[duffer]

Shows how shit things are then as even if we were back at the Ricoh then we'd struggle break even.

Absolutely. In fairness even back at the Ricoh on a deal which saw (say) a low rent and a decent share of the income for the whole site we'll struggle - OSB's excellent analysis elsewhere* suggested that if you completely merged ACL and CCFC the whole thing would still likely run at a loss.

Regardless of owners we are in a place where we can't afford big wages anymore, at least without big crowds (imho). So, do you speculate to accumulate, or do you just settle for that and hope to build slowly and steadily?

*Edit: Assuming that I read it right, I'm sure OSB will correct me if required. (oo-eer missus).