-
11-06-2015, 07:16 PM
#2001
I have had a look at the charts and can see a bearish bat formation forming with exceptionally strong resistance at $3.99. This might be breached for a period of 39 days, but will then fall below $3.99 once again, for another 2 years at least
kidding
-
11-06-2015, 07:46 PM
#2002
Originally Posted by Xerof
I have had a look at the charts and can see a bearish bat formation forming with exceptionally strong resistance at $3.99. This might be breached for a period of 39 days, but will then fall below $3.99 once again, for another 2 years at least
kidding
Can you order spicy wedges with that bat???
-
11-06-2015, 08:27 PM
#2003
Originally Posted by percy
Can you order spicy wedges with that bat???
Just sent Russell an idea
Chicken wings coated in a black syrupy sauce deep fried are apparently known as bat wings ....serve them with your wedges .....will be a hit at Halloween time.
-
13-06-2015, 05:50 PM
#2004
Carls Jnr sales were pretty strong in the last quarter
Weekly sales per store were over $37.2k - previous quarter was $35.5k. The $37.2k was the best quarter for a while
Extrapolating the numbers out for the full year the existing 18 stores should do about $37m. Group sales up 85% without any new stores
Should add something to the bottom line
That $5 even closer now methinks
-
13-06-2015, 05:56 PM
#2005
Originally Posted by winner69
Carls Jnr sales were pretty strong in the last quarter
Weekly sales per store were over $37.2k - previous quarter was $35.5k. The $37.2k was the best quarter for a while
Extrapolating the numbers out for the full year the existing 18 stores should do about $37m. Group sales up 85% without any new stores
Should add something to the bottom line
That $5 even closer now methinks
I might have to go for a celebratory bucket of... whatever KFC sells... when it reaches $5
-
14-06-2015, 10:46 AM
#2006
Originally Posted by percy
Will "our Russell" get another $1mil if the price hits, and stays above $5.00....?
No doubt the next 'long term incentive' for the coming year will be negotiated behind closed doors straight after the annual general meeting, as this one apparently was last year.
You forgot to mention Percy that 'Our Russel' is spelt with a single 'l'. Think of all the printers ink that this has saved over the years! If he adopted a single 's' as well, he could be well on his was to his long term bonus of next year too.
The thing that I couldn't understand about note 27d was this.
If the payment of the $1m bonus was 'reasonably certain', why is the fair value of the liability only $0.3m? If Russel can oversee this kind of financial alchemy, no wonder he is worth every penny!
SNOOPY
Last edited by Snoopy; 14-06-2015 at 10:47 AM.
Watch out for the most persistent and dangerous version of Covid-19: B.S.24/7
-
14-06-2015, 11:48 AM
#2007
Apologies to "our RusseL'.
I should point out I am very much in favour of "real" incentives that are to "all" shareholders advantage.
Something an excellent CEO will achieve, while an ordinary CEO will miss.
I should make it clear too, that I think "our RusseL" has done an outstanding job on "making it happen" for shareholders.
-
14-06-2015, 12:29 PM
#2008
Originally Posted by Snoopy
No doubt the next 'long term incentive' for the coming year will be negotiated behind closed doors straight after the annual general meeting, as this one apparently was last year.
You forgot to mention Percy that 'Our Russel' is spelt with a single 'l'. Think of all the printers ink that this has saved over the years! If he adopted a single 's' as well, he could be well on his was to his long term bonus of next year too.
The thing that I couldn't understand about note 27d was this.
If the payment of the $1m bonus was 'reasonably certain', why is the fair value of the liability only $0.3m? If Russel can oversee this kind of financial alchemy, no wonder he is worth every penny!
SNOOPY
I would assume that this is to be paid sometime in FY16. To 'spread the cost take a bit now to the P&L (based on 'Reasonably certain' being not '100% certain' ) with the rest when paid.
Footnote: if a big market collapse and the share price goes sub $4 in next month or 2 and stays down for a year or 3 they can write that $300k back to profit ----- neat eh
Last edited by winner69; 14-06-2015 at 01:17 PM.
-
14-06-2015, 04:32 PM
#2009
Originally Posted by winner69
Carls Jnr sales were pretty strong in the last quarter
Weekly sales per store were over $37.2k - previous quarter was $35.5k. The $37.2k was the best quarter for a while
Extrapolating the numbers out for the full year the existing 18 stores should do about $37m. Group sales up 85% without any new stores
Should add something to the bottom line
That $5 even closer now methinks
The last year's accounts suggest that had the Forsgren stores been consolidated for the full year, the additional NPAT would be about $0.6m (they took up about $0.1m) - RBD paid about $10.4 million for the business which included $1.5m of goodwill. CJ's still had an EBIT loss of $2.5m in the result for the year.
There could be some 'economies of scale' with having 18 stores but there are also some additional costs as they try and bring together the two networks... looking at the Forsgren and RBD stores, there are some differences between the networks that will need to be addressed at some stage... that may take time and incur some costs.. ultimately if they do get to 50+ stores then I'm sure Russel will remember the sins of the past RBD management in the expansion programme... like building 100 Pizza Hut stores and nearly 50 Starbucks stores... before having to manage and close the unprofitable ones or go thru and flog off the regional Pizza Hut stores to owner operators...
-
14-06-2015, 04:44 PM
#2010
Last year's annual report was for the year ended 2 March 2015. The 2 year period commences on 25 July 2015 (i.e. the relevant period starts in about a month), it also assumes a continuous period of 40 trading days or a takeover at $4 or more - and it should be noted Russel must remain employed by the company for at least 6 months following the criteria being met.
The directors considered that the conditions were likely - note 27(d) does not say 'reasonably certain.' The $0.3m is a 'fair value' at balance date but there are still quite a few uncertainties that existed at that point and I hasten to note still remain... adverse events happen - that's why even in the absence of any level of certainty about an event, we still elect to purchase insurance.
Tags for this Thread
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules
|
|
Bookmarks