Member Info for beechhurst

Would have been "unambiguous" if had said ....... all agreements ....... whereas says all ...... underlying material .... which is, in my mind, a qualification. Some might say semantics but nonetheless, in its truest sense, I read it that there are still things to complete. Little spanners and all that!!!!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/10/22/mike-ashley-snaps-stake-struggling-asos/

As scattergun as ever or part of a devious plan? Where does this lead to in respect of BWNG - anybody's guess!!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/10/13/boots-sales-boosted-new-own-brand-viagra-rival/

Interesting article - at least shows still plenty of demand, or things are on the rise!!! Mind you, with pharma you never know what is around the corner, so hope we don't get to the party (too) late.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/frasers-group-grabs-stake-in-fashion-retailer-00zxq0bc0

Interesting/intriguing!! Whilst retail has its challenges at the moment you would, in my opinion, hardly call BWNG a distressed business or a broken project so maybe an attempt to get into a "decent " underlying business at an opportunistically low price and use as a platform for his next venture. After all, with Ashley having himself stepped back from Frasers/Sports Direct, people like this don't then sit around twiddling their thumbs doing nothing.

On the other side, do the Alliance family really want cash at this time, remembering, if the theory is correct, part of the move to AIM was an Inheritance Tax manoeuvre, the 2 Year Qualifying Period not coming up until 23/12/2022. So can't see them wanting to liquidate now or indeed in the near future if trying to stave off filling the Exchequer's coffers unless have used other techniques to mitigate potential death tax liabilities.

One to watch, hopefully for the benefit of my pocket, also!!

Depends what is meant by .... "more security ....." or as the RNS says .." a preference for physical asset backed security". Under "financial assistance" as per The Companies Act a company's asset(s) (cash or property) CANNOT be used for or to back finance being raised for the acquisition of its own shares. Consequently, anything owned by Iron cannot be used by Grosvenor to in any way facilitate its equity injection, they must, therefore, provide some external security of their own to satisfy their proposed lenders. No wonder this deal is getting ever more complicated.

I have only held stock for the past 12/18 months and have only looked at more recent and immediate past history but, coming from a banking/finance background, I have often wondered why, if hold such a valuable mining asset, hadn't been able to organise own finance for extraction operations (maybe somebody with longer knowledge may care to elaborate). Equally, if, and after this length of time remains a big IF for me, Grosvenor could get finance to put money into Iron why not the company doing it directly itself!! Always seemed a bit of conundrum, to me.

With in ground mineral value and a smelting facility in hand surely have enough assets to sort out own finance, the question being would Grosvenor's (or alternative finance) £8M be enough. With £5M deferred over 10 years, needs before any sales monies come in would look like this :
£M
- initial outlay 0.75
- Refurb costs 3.20 (max)
- operating/extraction costs + working cap ?????
(8/9 months min/possibly 12 months to be safe)

If 9% of existing shareholders are convinced have a viable deal to proceed to operations, going down the equity raising/loan capital route would seem the most logical, so away with Grosvenor I would say - they have had their chance/maybe they were just used as a "stalking horse" in the first place!!! The only caveat is that ALL shareholders be given the opportunity to participate in any fundraising and not just a Placing with/for Mates. Any other thoughts?

Even in financially straitened times and with general economic pressures, EBITDA of say £85m FY 2023, positive cashflow, reducing debt Y on Y, bags of cash/facility capacity doesn't sound too bad, hardly striking one as a dummy business. Maybe doesn't have the buzz or supposed glitz of an ASOS or Boo (well that might have been the case until more recently!!) but staid could prove to be better longer term. Whatever your view, surely all can't be as bad as being portrayed by the market. And if one is concerned about peoples abilities to purchase product with tightened pockets, think on this - buyers with less spending power are more likely to move down the value chain and purchase more at the lower end(s) of the market than be able to continue to afford higher quality/cost goods which could be more an opportunity than a negative. Time will tell!!!

Should have had £1m put into a Non Refundable Escrow Account which would shown there was real intent/focused the mind and the pocket - poor negotiations!!!

This BB goes from bad to worse and has become like children in a kindergarten - all akin to throwing tantrums and "crying to Miss". 29 posts today and barely a stitch of substance or investment value spouted. Grow up the lot of you and for some less of the self gratification/adulation, it gets tedious. Informed information is what these platforms should be used for not the banality of late.

No wonder these Boards get inundated with unnecessary comments/messages when one reads some of yesterday's postings .........
1) "... So what is actually new today ? Surely the deal was already signed ...."
In this respect RNS 21 December says ....
" .... agreed subject to contract .... and "..... which if completed ...."
so perhaps being told, as per RNS 27 January, ...... "the Luge transaction ............. has now been finalised and signed." is a fundamental change for the better!!

2) ".... looks more likely deal will be signed ...." and " ....... I'm inclined think more probability of being signed off."
As per above did not yesterdays RNS say ...."now finalised and signed" ..... so what more do you think Iron have to do - to me nothing other than await payment.

Keep abreast chaps.

Looks like the rabbits are staring at the headlights again and being frightened to death!!! Yes, a nice earner for the provider but ask yourself would you lend somebody something if you didn't think you were going to get it back, assuming you intended to see the loan drawn against, in the first place. The wise don't wantonly throw money away especially when not asking others to share the risk.

Some strange maths here!!! re Luge, if £2.4M = 51%, 100% should be £4.705M and 23% of that is, to my mind, c£1.082M i.e residual value left within Iron (so far ascribed as zilch). And if, post completion with Grosvenor, with c1.9B shares in issue MC, if SP remains as currently, would be c£19M represented by cash of £8M, Luge shareholding at c£1.082M meaning the core asset is worth a little over £10M - sounds a steal!!!

Interesting to see GS transacted latest position 16th Nov, 2 days before CG withdraws from TO talks. Hmmmm, wonder what was in their minds!!!

Hedge Funds/PE only operate one way - buy or screw somebody for the cheapest price so they can maximise their ultimate sell out for top top dollar. For Carlyle to have been at the table should tell you they saw value in this business, and not for peanuts, so good on the BoD for not being intimidated to giving "a pot of gold away" for others to benefit. For those that followed the Woodford saga just cast your mind back to the number of holdings that were sold off at a pittance only to be turned very quickly for significant profit. The big boys are not dumb when can see making money is at their heart.

So much carping and childish exchanges particularly of late, if not forever. Those who are proper investors appreciate one often has to be patient whereas the "want to get rich quick" boys are just ****gers/punters looking for the next swift turn and get miffed and shout off if don't make a crust in short time. To them a company is but a name /just a vehicle for their supposed money making escapades without having much of an understanding of what underlies a business and, according to them, run by buffoons if the sp doesn't move to their liking - ever tried it lads!!! Chancers all. And the "regulars" with their banal commentaries make these Boards for wearisome reading. Comment needs to be few and far between but informed and insightful - some might like to give the principle a try. Don't get me wrong I invest for capital appreciation and am disappointed there hasn't been much mark up, if at all these past 12 months, but if dissatisfied one quite simple thing to do - sell up, put your money somewhere else and then go and mither the next load of unfortunates . Oh, BTW "for every sell, there must be a buy" so if there were 3.872M of sells yesterday and just 591K buys the balance (net cost £467K) must have been laid off or being held by the MM's believing there is a profit to be made down the line. Against that sort of volume you might have expected the sp to have "bombed" rather than just have fallen 0.5p so for those with a bit better judgement perhaps they see there is more underlying strength to this business than others might give it credit for.

Given an earlier comment a little clarification, as I understand it, being :

- shares vest, meaning only get access to/can first exercise in 3 years time i.e Oct 2024 - normally this means if have remained in the employ of YG throughout the whole period
- thereafter can exercise the options any time after vest (Oct 2024) providing do so within the 8 years oustand for, not at the very end of the option period of Oct 2029

In other words should be able to exercise any time between Oct 24 & Oct 29, if "the price is right" i.e in excess of the exercise price and beleive will stay above such a figure/thus make a profit.

There is, however, a caveat in that 500,000 shares vest immediately i.e can access straight away but must be exercised within 5 years i.e before Oct 2026 - whilst not clear one presumes will be allocated out of Tranche 1 i.e @ 4.74p but whether that is a collective figure or per party not specified - if the former would equate to a total exercise outlay of £23.7K or £71.1K with he latter. Furthermore, if collecctively would it be proportionate to each party's individual allocation or not. Hmmm - on this aspect, to me, poorly written or is it meant to be "cloudy". Maybe if note seen by BoD might offer some clarity.

Best Estimation of Disclosable/Disclosed Interests

PRE OPEN OFFER POST OPEN OFFER
Alliance Family/Concert
Party 44.83% 52.44%
Add recent JA Purchases 2.44%
54.88%

Schroeders 12.03% 12.01%
Norges Bank 3.01% 3.03%
Hargreaves Landsdown 5.67% 5.67% (*)

TOTAL 65.54% 75.59%

(*) In the absence of any post Open Offer notifications assumed to have remained unchanged.

Sources of Information : Prospectus/Subsequent Disclosures

The as yet unanswerable question is what was the source of JA's recent purchases, all 11,213,800 - would hardly have gone "shopping" for such a volume in the general market!!!

Clemoc - though it may not accord with your own definition, in recognising what I regard as a "serious investor" it stands to reason such informed people make learned comments as you put it, my gripe being the endless banal commentary and questions asked of things somebody who is investing should be aware of or understand before putting out their money. Otherwise, as Mickymix says, it just becomes a gambling pit which, sadly, many transactions today seem to emanate from.

When I go to a Board I am looking for insightful observations and analysis not a constant drone of fanciful notions, misplaced expectations and clearly a complete lack of understanding/ignorance of what a business is about, those of such spouting off then trying to sound knowledgeable and thinking they are the bees knees of information and judgement - from the basic questions asked here over past weeks it is not difficult to see the reality of the situation. Trying to shake the wheat from the chafe of the many messages posted is often a time consuming effort of looking for a needle in the haystack.

And to answer you personal question of me, yes, in my terms, I am more than a serious investor and will at least double my investment out of the OO, not just treading water as some are doing by selling existing holdings to finance their entitlement. Do you think I would be able to recite various references and passages from the Prospectus if I were not. I do ensure I am informed ar all levels before shelling out and making comments. Pity that cannot be said for many other keyboarders.

For people who risk their pockets I find it incredible that so many basic questions get asked on these forums when with a bit of energy could reasonably easily get the answers themselves. Given the fanciful comments and hyped up (and unquantified) forecasting often seen, probably all the result of those thinking they are the real deal at investing yet know nothing and are merely just puntimg their sweety pocket money of a few hundred £. Inthis context Mickymix's words towards the end of his earlier post also look quite apt. A serious investor (in my view those putting out 5 figs £) will be much more informed of all aspects of a proposed transaction and know or ensure he/she understands everything important, such as timeframes - for those with a pair of eyes and can read, Page 39 of the Prospectus is a useful place to go. And for those who think have until 23.59 tomorrow, good luck!!!

In order to make final decisions I have been trying to put some numerical perspective on the way the new shares will/might come to rest/what there might be for leftovers (Excess Applications), my analysis being :

1) CONCERT PARTY (Alliance Family & Associates) - 44.83% 78,302,791
2) OTHER DISCLOSABLE INTERESTS (Corporates etc.) - 20.71% 36,173,339 (*)
(*) includes 5.67% (9,973,431) held by Hargreaves Landsdown Asset Managment - whether on own account or at their Clients discretion not known
sub total 114,476,130

3) Remaining Shareholders (PI's etc) -34.46% 60.189,923

TOTAL NO. of NEW SHARES TO BE ISSUED 174,666,053

We know 1) are not going to be diluted so will be taking up their allocations; one could reasonably assume 2) will take a similar approach, leaving 3) with, in absolute/relative terms, not a great number for their dibs.

Assuming, for instance, 50% of 3) wanted to/were financially able to take up their allocations one could envisage a mere 30M of shares being available for Excess Allocs. - applying a sliding scale up/down on the % and each will be able to judge for themselves how many shares could likely end up on offer for extras. Realistically, not that many, would be my thought. And if that came to pass would it :

- mean there was unlikely to be a significant dumping of the new shares on becoming available for selling
- bring about greater demand from those unable to be fully satisfied via the OO/others, thereafter, wanting to join the fray

Time will tell soon enough!!!