London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
I have just seen this comment on the LinkedIn post by Arun
Andrew Jameson Global Head of Decommissioning and Closure @ Worley
And yet you firmly rejected utilising the facility to become the UKs premier offshore and ship recycling yard!
Generation of income and employment declined!!
Complete nonsense
I am not sure about what is stated in this comment but I suspect thaat if there was any rejection it would be because it would restrict the use of Belfast for shipbuilding and renewables.
Exactly Stocey, That wasn't very Christian of Andrew Jameson was it.
Hey TDF, unless there is a mimic out there, you're easy to spot on LinkedIn.
The important part of Aruns LinkedIn post was his comment about annualised EBITDA breakeven by end 2024. That should totally blow away the critics that the company is about to fail.
Hi Lottie123 I totally agree with your comments & a formal trading update would undermine those who are sceptical about the Company. In addition there must be a plan B for finance which would allow H&W to continue trading if no £200m finance deal currently awaited is forthcoming.
Sadly the important part is he has doctored the comments and removed any questions he didn’t like or indeed criticism
If you’re happy using social media to procrastinate then you should accept the response (bearing in mind posting rules). Pulling posts is not appropriate; people are not stupid, they see it and make their own minds up
True that, our beloved TDF has either removed his posts or someone removed them for him....interesting to know who the man behind the mask is now. 😎
Arun is prob reacting to criticism and communicating in the only way he currently can at the moment via linked in. For me; the important part on it is the remark to double the workforce over 24 months to 3000 Not sure the no. of apprenticeships this would include though. i.m.o. this is a far more realistic growth projection figure to achieve a Rev. of a very approx. 400m in two years,thereby not over promising on targets and a more controlled expansion. I would expect to see revised realistic Rev forecast in the forthcoming accounts and trading updates that we may actually think are achievable. Do other shareholders actually believe that 500m was achievable so soon?. just wondering..
LinkedIn is a professional networking tool. I'm not surprised he deleted troll comments attacking the company because they have an open short. Those comments belong on ADVFN.
I added 2 + 2 and got 4 !
I have little in common with BT but I respected his privacy and going forward I don't believe no matter how much certain posters just don't get on with others,I believe there should be a line drawn on personal matters and just get on with arguing about company fundamentals as much as possible. I hope you can do this?
It is impossible to ascertain if Arun removed several comments or not. I think it is highly likely that numerous people reported a very personal attack on AR & JW.
Even the use of the word doctored is inappropriate , that is used usually in court with regards to documents that have been tampered with in order to deceive.
It’s actually very easy to see if a post has been removed on LinkedIn and it’s been done before and you knew that
What is interesting is the level of bitterness that exists here with anyone who questions things or disagrees, that they’ll turn a blind eye to raw abuse of privacy
A very different matter when it happens to them?
Thank you I don’t need you selecting my language - it was doctored to present a false impression, been done by JW and now Arun and it’s not a helpful trait in either position which is one of trust and leadership
X - you really need to get that paranoia dealt with! He also removed posts from two posters here that were attacking no one and neither has a short to my knowledge
I have absolutely no idea and do not know how to tell if a post on linkedin has been removed by the account holder or the administrator . I have never written a post on linkedin in, I make comments and use for research.
I am aware of the Isle of Scilly SG 's position and don't view it as a showstopper , Harl merely have to not comingle funds and the 15mm loan with Riverstone has to remain In place or a different commercial loan with charges against the two new companies. Totally separate to anything guaranteed by the govt .
So why present it as a statement of fact: "It is impossible to ascertain if Arun removed several comments or not."... when in fact: I have absolutely no idea and do not know how to tell if a post on linkedin has been removed by?
Your comment on funding may prove to be the case [now] but as it stands its the same debt charged to Harl Holdings. Also you're suggesting the total debt goes up to £200 million + $15 million? T
So Arun or someone else have got a leach comment removed-big deal! who really cares; and why try to make another drawn out debate about someone removing someone else's post? lets face,it you have got removed a couple of mine on here recently l.o.l. pot/kettle Keep it going Arun..
Scaffman,
John 4.20
Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.
I think the poster in questions past is very relevant here. It both sheds light on the hypocritical actions and lights up there true character.
Scaffman ref 06.00 post The only issue I have with this is the exposure that HARL has to a claim for breach of Article 10 ECHR.
Is it as simple as not commingling funds? The monies will used to upgrade yards and upskill workers who will then be working on the ferry contracts. I can’t help but think that as a competitor you’d be a bit miffed with the gov funding this.
BC re 7:14 I prefer more modern parables, like, keep your friends close and your enemies closer. lol
At the moment, the work on the new ferry is being done by someone else, in their yard. Any future work done that relates to the ferry business in an upgraded H&W yard by H&W employees, upskilled or not, would be billed to the ferry business just like any other customers. I would imagine.
Bridgedogg1 ref 08.34 post But the government is not funding the ferry business. As the guarantee is coming from an export agency as I said last week while it can be used for general working capital that must be related to helping win export orders.
I think what is concerning a lot of people (myself included) is that despite having ‘ring fenced’ a separate company on paper, how do you in any meaningful way decouple the two businesses if one is reliant on the other. Is the ferry business going to continue trading if HARL folds? No. Therefore, ring fenced or not, the ferry business is reliant on UKEF funding. There’s been a lot of bravado and bluster on this board, but no one has adequately addressed that question and presumably that’s one of the reasons why treasury is getting itchy.
On the guarantee being for ‘general working capital that must be related to helping win export orders’ I think the proposal was to use it to pay back riverstone? To me that is stretching the definition, although UKEF being a Govt agency they might turn a blind eye to this.
You are making the false assumption that HARL needs the UKEF guarantee to continue trading. It doesn't. There are alternative financing options should this fail, as much as that thought must disappoint you.
As for your second point, no we don't owe Riverstone £200m. Try doing a bit research first, it helps. It is closer to $100m (£78m) plus interest. I believe this question was also asked in parliament last year but I can't find it - there are no restrictions on what the guaranteed money can be used for.
This also ignores the point about whether a UKEF guarantee is even a subsidy. The definition of the word "subsidy" is:
"a sum of money granted by the state or a public body to help an industry or business keep the price of a commodity or service low."
And yet the government are not the lender here, so to call a UKEF guarantee a subsidy is a bit of a stretch. UKEF are offering support in the form of a loan guarantee, not a subsidy.
What are the alternative funding options?, please don't say "JW and AR said there was other options".... be specific as opposed anecdotal, which is what 99.9% of this board is...