Rainbow Rare Earths Phalaborwa project shaping up to be one of the lowest cost producers globally. Watch the video here.
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.
Is there anything preventing a hostile takeover at 75p?
Why not 101+p?
- considering that a 100p takeover was refused for being too low in February (?) 2021.
The board is the first barrier - although it could be overruled if enough shareholders join forces.
Any takeover will consider the JV with Carlsberg where Marstons must retain at least 50% of Pubs as owned at the date of the JV agreement. Carlsberg have the company in a Headlock. Sahreholders do not know he fine print of the Lease agreement with Brains. Considering Brains pressed for lease payments up front ( Brains were literally drowning) it is pure speculation, but would be surprising if conditions within the Leases are to be overcome. Another shackle to be considered.
The offer from Platinum was 107p, ordinary shareholders were not informed until Platinnum had made a 3rd Offer. I believed at the time a higher offer could have been achieved, however RF was so obsessed to help his mate at Brains, we were never properly consulted.
Any predator now will be very wary of the obstacles.
Shareholders have one man to blame for the mess left in his wake.
Fairdealer20 - what is your source regarding that requirement that MARS be forced to remain the owner (Vs just operator) of 50% of the pub estate according to the JV wIth Carlsberg please?
Personally would prefer for the recovery to continue and the company to prosper rather than someone else take the spoils.
That depends on what your average price is!
A takeover at 115p per share, I’d be very happy.
Lejib, suggest you read the JV documents which will help you enormously. As any serious and experienced investor knows., essential to fully understand the history and financials of an investment.
Where are they please? I could not find them.
Suggest as a bona fide shareholder you contact the Company Secretary and request the full details of the JV referred too in 8th June 2020 circular.
Have you seen the Charge documents recorded at Companies House on 4th May? That may give you further insight into the finances of the Company?
You appear to try throwing at me inaccurate or vague info to divert people from the fact you cannot substantiate your claims.
1- The place to ask for documents is the online investor info form. It's not a company secretary's job to respond to shareholder and investor enquiries.
https://www.marstonspubs.co.uk/contact/
2- There is no charge recorded on 4 May, only ones on 3rd and 2nd may May. Even giving you the benefit of the doubt and that you simply confused the date by one day, what exactly look odd / outstanding about that 3rd May charge?
For everyone else's info: a "charge" is effectively a collateral placed a company's assets in exchange for a debt. This is normal for any business needing to borrow large amounts of money as part of its operations. Marston's debt figures are well publicised.
https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/00031461/charges/BFJsRyJaCj3xJAOmdgMvQr-feDg
"You appear to try throwing at me inaccurate or vague info to divert people from the fact you cannot substantiate your claims."
NO sir it is you who are trying to airbrush history.
Your knowledge of Corporate responsiblity is completely incorrect. It is a Company Secretary's role to respond to and provide information to Shareholders. Is that clear enough for you?
Correct the Charge record is 3rd May. Did you see the previous Charge (2nd May), both linked to Barclays the New Funders ( HSBC/BNP Paribas were not prepared to increase their exposure).
Have you read the Charge documents fully? Yes it is usual for a funder to record charges on Companies House. I have seen 100's of Charge Notices over time and rarely seen ones that are so clearly set out regarding Interest Arrears, possible Liquidation etc. These are powerful statements that reflect the previous performance on failed Loan repayments.
Rather than attempting to delete the history others remind new investors about, you would be better to THOROUGHLY examine and research past events, financial and organisational.
There are many who pick up shares that are at an almost all time low and then pump to make a quick profit. Those investors need to ask why is the stock so low? It can be a variety of factors, sector out of favour, economic issues, company miss management, over-borrowed and unable to grow as planned. Marstons have over-borrowed, missed an opportunity to reduce debt 3 years ago, when the likes of MAB and Whitbread raised equity. In the case of MAB their debt was significantly reduced, Whitbread did not need the raise, but did so to create a War-chest.
Lejjb, I could go on but you clearly dispise those with knowledge.
Best of luck with your investments