Tue, Sep 16, 2014, 6:14 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

BB Liquidating Inc. Message Board

mplecas7 22 posts  |  Last Activity: Sep 6, 2014 5:32 AM Member since: May 7, 2010
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • If Blockbuster had no assets and truly sold all to Dish they would've easily concluded ch.7 liquidation long ago and no longer exist, yet they still do exist and continue to trade shares.
    It's pretty obvious that BB liquidating has the valuable assets safely placed outside of the reach of creditors, and surely didn't sell to Dish, if they had Dish would never have issued a statement which a one point states that "we will continue to license Blockbuster on demand and their content library".

  • mplecas7 mplecas7 Aug 1, 2014 3:59 AM Flag

    Redbox was truly the slayer of Blockbuster, the first time I saw a redbox kiosk outside of a McDonald's I said to my wife," this is going to destroy Blockbuster."
    This is the true story, once seemingly overnight Redbox kiosks were at (originally) every McDonald's around and were renting all titles for just $1 a night, all this value without the hassle, although at one time quit fun and an actual event in and of itself to go to Blockbuster to rent a movie, but as we've all steadily moved toward more and more convenience the kiosk was amazing allowing one to skip the whole movie store rental production as well as allow for the illumination of having to actually interact with another person which many times is an annoyance in and of itself which is a major reason behind the success of self checkout lanes.
    Netflix has never truly even operated within the same market as Blockbuster, even during it's disc my mail days it was a subscription service, but it wasn't long before Netflix began their push into digital delivery of what originally amounted to the dollar movie theatre of premium channels available through one's pay TV provider, as they would obtain primarily the content which went to Starz on a 3-6 month delay, yet providing the huge differentiator of allowing access to a subscription for a fair price around $8 which allowed subs the ability for the first time ever to gain access to a premium movie channel without first having to have a pay TV service.

  • Reply to

    Good Read .. Carl

    by reggiesinner Jul 28, 2014 1:07 PM
    mplecas7 mplecas7 Jul 30, 2014 3:16 AM Flag

    Good read, sounds remarkably similar and parallel to the experience at Blockbuster.

  • Reply to

    so many bashers &....

    by jerrynewburger May 23, 2014 9:06 AM
    mplecas7 mplecas7 Jul 27, 2014 11:43 PM Flag

    I guess the really strange thing is the fact that a grown man would spend his time, a man who is obviously interested in investing in stocks, that he would spend hours daily agruing and mocking those on the MB who are here because they actually did invest in this company whether shares or bonds, yet for a sane person who is into invested to consume his days arguing and mocking investors on a message board of a company in which he would never invest in, to the contrary as his interactions here are in the form of anti Blockbuster redirect.
    . Makes no sense whatsoever, their isn't a single person alive who would spend hours every day.for months and many for years without any vested interest through an investment or even entertaining the slightest consideration in potentially investing in the company without being compensated for it.
    Based on basher justification, despite being clearly shown to be bogus based on the ugliness of their interactions on this site, are usually related to claims of being here to protect those who may wonder onto the board from being mislead into believing that this is a good investment.
    This would be like me going onto Apple's board to say how #$%$ they and their products realm are and how Microsoft is going to continue to built in all directions, especially strongly in smartphones hence taking it straight to Apple and coming out with chunks of Apple market share. This is something that I do in fact believe, yet no way would I use the little time that I have available for checking out potential investment plays. And I for some strange reason I did feel the need to feel Apple investors in I surely wouldn't do so in an obnoxious and confrontational manner.

  • Defiantly no chance he sells it independent of Dish as a whole, but truly the only chance I see of either scenario happening is out of desperation/necessity due to time running out while no legitimate plan has managed to hatch.
    Personally I don't see it being too difficult for Ergen and company to pull something great off, something very innovative and unique as he's consistently shown an ability to both get things done, or better put get his agenda through as well as to see pretty clearly the reality of the industry he operates in thus already showing signs of his understanding and intentions of transforming Dish, adapting this company to the trending direction for the future of media which is in a gradual transition to an ala carte type of pay TV offering delivering via internet, much as we've seen to be so successful with Netflix's move here, delivering for the first time the ability to subscribe to a premium channel such as HBO or Showtime without pay TV being a prerequisite, thus allowing for the direct subscription to a single service.

  • Reply to

    small screen

    by jerrynewburger Jul 25, 2014 10:49 AM
    mplecas7 mplecas7 Jul 27, 2014 6:02 AM Flag

    Talk of somehow issuing an IPO at some point just doesn't seem logical, to me it seems that this would for one mean that original Blockbuster would have to cease existence at least temporarily which doesn't seem to work well with the fact that they continue to maintain ownership and control of the prime trust protected assets, second I would think that this would do something in the way of negatively effecting the NOL's and possibly voiding them and finally it just seems far simpler if the plan is for every stakeholder currently involved to reap a return than this would be best accomplished by simply allowing shareholders to keep their shares which will increase in value, either pay the notes or exchange for equity and rather than raising money or compensation for the spectrum holdings and network through cash raised in an IPO why not simple exchange several hundred thousand newly issued shares of the same Blockbuster that there has always been, shares which will increase massively in value due to this exchange.

  • Reply to

    small screen

    by jerrynewburger Jul 25, 2014 10:49 AM
    mplecas7 mplecas7 Jul 27, 2014 5:54 AM Flag

    Even the so called shell itself is not really a shell, merely a shell as far as bk and ch.7 liquidation are concerned due to the lack of any further assets to liquidate, yet if BB liquidating is able to somehow emerge from bk then they will be able to access revenue streams through bankruptcy remote trusts holding their IP and trademarks which are clearly the companies most valuable assets, simply through licensing of the Blockbuster brand the company could be quit profitable, yet clearly this is not what has been planned for why in the world would a corps. like Dish position themselves in a way in which they could not simply license the brand but actually partake in it's comeback through new share issuances which could be utilized as a means for not only delivering to note holders what they truly want and what is of the greatest value even compared to full face value payback, but also utilize the additional shares as a means of payment to Dish for their spectrum holdings and infrastructure deployment to such a degree that they become the majority holders while instantly monetizing their spectrum which Dish claims to be worth 8-9 billion, yet is also potentially worthless without a means by which to monetize it, through this shares for spectrum exchange Dish gains both controlling interest in BB as well as shares which immediately increase dramatically in value due to the gaining of massive spectrum holdings and the ability to provide mobile 4g data delivery through their own network, thus delivering a win win across the board as those longtime insiders like Icahn who set this whole opportunity up through their multiyear manipulation and systematic structuring of the entire BB structuring to provide for an excellent post bk resurgence opportunity, designed strategically to guarantee his as well as some others inclusion in the ownership and future success of Blockbuster.
    Seems to me that this would be the best method for recapping Blockbuster.

  • mplecas7 mplecas7 Jul 27, 2014 5:26 AM Flag

    "why didn't the 2012 bonds get paid yet?"
    Well it doesn't take a genius to understand this, no one is getting paid until Blockbuster resuscitation takes place and that iconic brand and logo return in all their glory.
    2014's not getting paid, whether in cash or shares, same with 2012's and current shareholders, along with probably either Dish and likely Ergen independently for any spectrum he personally purchased. None of these entities get compensated until Blockbuster's glorious return to their thrown, sitting once aging as the crowned king of home video as they quickly spread across the globe as the only real name in home video through Blockbuster on demand supporting UV, serving as the key needed in order to unlock the whole UltraViolet movement.
    When this day comes all parties will be compensated to a degree which is universally acceptable and likely more than fair since the inside players will be the one's to enjoy the bulk of this compensation through their ownership of these various stakeholder classes.
    How they deliver this is not something I can really saw as I know little of what possibilities there are, one clearly available would be the issuance of the maximum amount of additional shares allowed for under pre bk Blockbuster guidelines which would insure the preservation of the NOL's as well as seem to me as the simplest approach as it simply maintains the original BB's existence as well as current shareholder's stake will providing a means for an exchange of debt for equity to bondholders as well as the ability to compensate the appropriate parties for their spectrum and any other contributions, which could likely result in Dish becoming the majority owner of the company based on their 50+% share holdings.

  • Reply to

    it might be like

    by jerrynewburger Jul 17, 2014 10:09 AM
    mplecas7 mplecas7 Jul 24, 2014 2:06 PM Flag

    I feel that you're on the right track, the basic concepts of your post sound pretty reasonable, of course there is always room for some variation, but overall I'd have to agree that once all the ducks are in place, particullarily in terms of infrastructure, we will see a beautiful plan come together.
    Of course this process will take some time which is actually good in my opinion as it allows for more time for UV and all the major DECE partners to continue perfecting the internet VOD platform, particularily with regards to deploying full 4k content delivery in a manner which can consistently reach the consumer without major slowdowns and buffering due do overloading the internet providers pipes. Of course this would be yet another great advantage held by the emerging BB on demand as the service would have massive amounts of spectrum for the needs of the VOD service as well as Dish's tv everywhere.
    Truly, the primary focus of UV and the DECE team is and will continue to be spreading consumer awareness, for as we stand UV has just recently reached 17 million members which % wise is continuing to show great year over year growth as is also seen within the VOD format as a whole, yet in reality neither is anywhere near reaching even a 50/50 point with physical content, and more so with UV they are very far from mainstream adaption or even awareness of their existence.
    Just ask around your work as I have done and with friends and family and you will get the idea. To be honest I have yet to meet even one other person who knows what UV is or has really even heard of it beyond maybe someone being like " oh yeh, I've seen something about that, yeh ok I've seen that logo on the new BLu ray discs for sale, so what is it, like you get a digital copy along with your disc purchase or something?'
    Of course this is why BB is so valuable as it's the only force in that market powerful enough to put things simply just through their name and logo.

  • mplecas7 mplecas7 Jul 23, 2014 12:01 PM Flag

    The silent cooperation and apparent approval of any deal always appeared as a positive as did the various multi million dollar face value bond transactions while they traded in the pennies, someone knew just as they do about the shares that they will someday receive a payout.

  • mplecas7 mplecas7 Jul 15, 2014 4:07 PM Flag

    The studios have already demonstrated their determination to develop internet VOD storefronts as the dominant platform for home media consumption, doing so through the development and continued devotion to the UV enterprise as well as showing a willingness to do whatever is necessary and anything at their disposal to utilize in the achieving of this agenda, such as their movement of the traditional release window structure to the point we are at now in which it is very commonplace for studios to release titles 2-3 weeks earlier through digital storefronts prior to physical release.
    As of now pay TV's VOD dominates the segment due to nothing more than it's perceived greater degree of simplicity, despite all of the efforts on the part of the studios and UV as well as the iVOD providers such as Vudu these % ratios remain roughly the same as they were 5 years ago, and this is all despite the vastly superior offering produced through the internet VOD stores over the highly inferior experience and capabilities offered through pay TV VOD service.
    So it becomes clear that the no matter how much greater value IVOD services offered they will only gain widespread appeal by addressing and overcoming the perception of being complicated, the format must be able to deliver the message of simplicity to the general public and we all know what the most effective possible way to deliver this message is for consumers in the US as well as across the globe.

  • Taking fredfremont's advice I looked up the 2013 statistics from DEG's report, and yes digital rentals do bring in much more revenue than digital movie sales. Despite this the info made available by the DEG's 2013 report showed physical home video to continue it's hold of the lion's share of overall home video revenues.
    For movie sales digital accounted for $1.189 billion in revenue, where physical disc sales brought in $7.779 billion.
    As for rentals, digital revenue came in at $2.108 billion, and again that figure is for digital video rentals, subscription services do not rent or sell videos. Physical disc rental revenue was $3.978 billion, with kiosks leading the way with $1.918, Brick & Mortar with $1.042 billion and by mail with $1.018 billion.
    So in a way Fred was right, digital rentals did produce the greatest amount of revenue on a rental method breakdown basis which did surprise me, as the growing digital format across the board reached & broke over the tipping point against the declining physical format w/ VOD rentals moving up to surpass a declining physical format lead by kiosks.
    The point which I was particularly interested in however was the area of the VOD market in which a resurgent BB on demand would operate in, the so called iVOD, or internet VOD as opposed to the pay TV VOD offerings which continue to dominate with 2012 data showing iVOD to hold a mere 12% share of the overall VOD rental market. I didn't find the 2013 #'s, but they will be very similar, as this dynamic has been the norm for years with the pay TV providers taking the vast majority of VOD's overall revenues.
    In other words, I'm focused on the arena of the VOD market which UltraViolet was designed to build, the market which is clearly the focus of the studios, thus the inevitable future of the overall home media market & dominant platform ensured by whatever means.

  • mplecas7 mplecas7 Jul 15, 2014 1:34 PM Flag

    Why in the world are we "talking subscription," this is the means by which you are attempting to misleadingly give a bogus perception of the digital adoption landscape.
    Blockbuster, at their peak, was the single largest source of revenue for the studios, accomplishing this by rentals and maybe some sales. Blockbuster has never been involved in the subscription market, subscription services do not compete in the same market as Blockbuster yet Netflix has been utilized by so many sources for the purpose of bashing and degrading Blockbuster, being used repeatedly in bogus articles, or better put casted by these bogus PR authors as the necessary arch rival which destroyed the oblivious, hubris blinded giant.
    Over and over we have seen the press make Netflix in it's modern form, a form which no longer truly competes or even really operates within the same market as Blockbuster, yet ever since BB began approaching BK Netflix has been credited with the slaying of the once mighty Blockbuster, along with the occasional brief mention of Redbox which is actually the strongest force of negatively impacting Blockbuster as their Kiosk system was an innovative force that did in fact directly compete within the same market as Blockbuster.
    It is ridiculous to include subscription services in any way when discussing Blockbuster and the market which they operate in. If it was relevant than we should be including HBO, Stars, Showtime and Epix and so on in discussions related to Blockbuster. This is the market in which Netflix is operating, Netflix is misleadingly used to play a specific role in the media's theatrical, agenda driven story of BB due to their name, as the name Netflix still resonates with many as a direct competitor to Blockbuster due to their initial entrance to the home entertainment market as a by mail disc service, yet for years have operated in the HBO type of market, popular due to their innovative model which allows one to obtain the service w/out a pay-tv sub.

  • So just to make it clear, regarding movie sales electronic sell through, or movies sold through digital storefronts improved 43% over 2013 Q1, largely thanks to the often used method of studios making titles available through digital storefronts 2-3 weeks prior to their release on disc, so yes the landscape is clearly moving in the right direction, but not even close at this point to fredfremont's claims.
    $330.25 million generated through EST sales and a decline in disc sales from 2013 A1 generating $1.82 billion.
    Rentals is terrible, not doing well across the board, but clearly illustrating the room still to go on the digital front as even the remaining brick and murder movie rental stores generated more than VOD, bringing in $175.5 million, kiosks again leading the way despite a decline from a year ago, bringing in $469.5 million. VOD $ amounts for rentals were not listed where I was looking, only stated to have generated less than the remaining B&M stores.

  • mplecas7 mplecas7 Jul 13, 2014 8:59 PM Flag

    First off when streaming is included in the numbers it immediately eliminates any true comparison, we are discussing BB's area of the market, if you want to talk about streaming numbers go to the Netflix board.
    Secondly, allow I seriously doubt that w/ streaming taken out and just transactional VOD numbers are given we would still see physical rentals and purchases leading, but beyound that if u look at the transactional VOD #'s u will clearly see the vast majority of the revenues, transactions coming through the pay tv providers while the digital storefronts account for a very small portion of that VOD pie.
    So when UV touts recently reaching17 million members, many of which likely came about simply as a means for consumers to recieve everything that they are in titled to from their Blu Ray disc purchase, not due to utilizing the digital storefronts

  • Blockbuster full fledged comeback appears to still be quit a ways off, as their return is based upon developments under way and which have been underway for years. Specifically the successful transitioning of home video consumers to the digital platform.
    As we are seeing this may take awhile as Ultraviolet has been under way for years and multiple VOD storefronts have been out for years as well, yet even today if you were to ask people in the general public like co workers and such you'd be lucky to find better than 1 in 10 of them that really have any clue as to what UV is all about or what any of the many VOD services are, the best chance would be someone having some concept of Vudu merely through shopping at Walmart.
    Until the stage is set we will not see Blockbuster's glorious return to the global stage.

  • Reply to

    Can anyone list what assets Dish didn't buy?

    by u_bet_on_dis Jul 8, 2014 1:26 PM
    mplecas7 mplecas7 Jul 12, 2014 4:23 AM Flag

    Dish purchased Blockbuster's physical assets through the 363 auction. There entire inventory of DVD and bluray discs, the stores that were in operation at that time, and everything related to the by mail service.
    Dish proceeded to license the use of the Blockbuster branding for use in their Blockbuster @ home service. Dish later formed Dish Digital which continues currently to license the use of the Blockbuster on demand branding as well as the use of Blockbuster's digital content which they acquired through their purchase of Movie link.

  • mplecas7 mplecas7 Jul 3, 2014 4:36 PM Flag

    Well I'm pretty sure that someone is working on the Blockbuster on Demand service since it's been developed in a manner which includes both Android and IOS apps in addition to the accessibility through either windows pcs or mac computers, plus a few other sources such as the Roku box.
    I didn't say anything that represented my post and inquiry to mean " any thoughts on why BB on Demand, you know the one that was controlled by BB liquidating, why it's not aligned with UV", I think it's pretty obvious that when someone mentions BB on demand at the present that they are referring to the one that is actually open for business. Yes, the one which is currently under Dish's control through Dish Digital, the high quality streaming only service which only rents titles, doesn't sell them although those of us who own titles we purchased in the past through BB on demand are able to access and view anything from that library through this site.
    I am well aware that BB liquidating has essentially no assets left to sell and no IP to license, these crown jewels of the company are kept safe from having to be sold or liquidated through a trust set-up well before the bk filling, and yes I'm also well aware that Dish is currently continuing to license the use of the Blockbuster on Demand branded digital storefront.

  • mplecas7 by mplecas7 Jul 3, 2014 12:44 AM Flag

    Any thoughts on this determination of content providers to provide this content through streaming as opposed to the much more convenient and user friendly experience deployed initially with the original BB on Demand smartphone offering which was actually first available on an HTC phone, but gained widespread awareness and promotion through Verizon, particularly so with the launch of the Droid X which was the first mobile device from Verizon to feature this one of a kind service and capability.
    I still don't really have any really sensible theory as to why this VOD market leading service was never properly promoted in terms.of clarifying for the consumers as to the capabilities of this service, as.to the many benefits over tradition discs such as the capability for up to 5 different account members to share access to all of the content stored in this digital library from completely different locations and through a wide range if devices of up to either 5 or maybe it was 7, not to mention an end to scratched discs, forgetting discs or the limitations of device playback of discs, as well as the beautiful capability at that time to download the content and from then on be capable of viewing it offline.

  • Not only have the they remained outside of UV but also have maintained a limited offering which is rental only, not yet have movie purchases been provided as an option through BB on demand as it exists today.
    My feelings on this are that for one, at this point in the long ongoing efforts by basically everyone in this market to transition the world's population off of physical format dependency, moving them to the point ultimately in which digital accessing of media is the go to format, to such a degree that it would be akin to what took place in the move from cassettes to CDs.
    So, at the point where this process is at Blockbuster on demand really has nothing to gain by joining in with the multitude of VOD storefronts and sites which are synced to UV, thus allowing for their account members to access their entire UV compatible digital libraries from various VOD sites to be accessed through their VOD site as well as allowing for the access if any content obtained by their members through their site to be accessed through any other UV aligned VOD site.
    This does nothing for BB, for one thing BB on demand has to a degree a bit of an Itunes type of advantage going for them mainly from there days of being strongly features on top end non Apple smartphones as well as enjoying the privilege of being to one and only VOD storefront available and capable to deliver titles directly to one's smartphone, while it was oddly unprompted to the point of seeming as if it was being hidden but nonetheless purchases made through the BB on demand mobile platform were available on numerous other devices which easily delivered the ability for full home tv viewing on up to 5 different devices.
    So, BB is one of the few VOD providers in the business in which there are a fair amount of members which developed some level of.a digital library through, thus are being restricted to the use of BB on demand in order to access this content, I too am in this boat.

BLIAQ
0.0140.000(0.00%)Sep 16 2:15 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.