Ann: Half Year Report and Accounts - 31 December 2017, page-69

I think your logic will break down and the regulators won't buy it.

The 4Cs are about cash receipts not revenue. The money was being forwarded by FC to BIG before a customer made a purchasing decision. Not by customers. They were not cash receipts. They were loans.

The customers had yet to accept the purchase. In fact hardly any did. Remember the whole swap customers out game. That's a deal between BIG and FC to avoid incurring penalties on BIGs loan. It should only have ever been considered revenue once a customer signed a binding deal.

In my opinion none of the FC money should ever have showed up on cash receipts in the 4Cs as money was never received from customers.

Then in the accounts just released there's a line where it says that BIG previously recognised revenue over 12 months from the Sponsorship money. Again no point did a customer have to accept the video for the loan from FC to be recognised by BIG as revenue. Wow.

Now for the regulators to accept this is in line with the previous standard is a massive call.

The advances should have been labelled under the 4Cs as borrowings and the nature of the deal with FCC should have been disclosed.

I don't believe it can be claimed it was confidential because contracts were being forwarded to potential video customers. So it was not internal strategy that would be detrimental to the company if the market was aware. Another strike.

If the regulators accept this I think they'll face legal action from share holders. I would never have invested if the accounts were presented in the way they have been. I'm sure the 4Cs will change format too if they are revised.

Did the regulators or the company let us down. Someone did. Buyer beware doesn't come close to explaining this one.

This won't relist. Look at revenue vs debt. I'm surprised it hasn't closed it's doors yet.