Member Info for Fevertreeman

Yes I did. Why? Because I still believe there is the making of a cutting edge auto-engineering business hidden up there in Liverpool. Btw, I gave Maddocks the benefit of the account until December, as she was inheriting a mess. But the utter fiasco around the trading update, the revised figs, and then the emergency funding, had her fingerprints all over things as much as Johnson's. That she did , as you noted, sign off on the £23m, thereby backing Johnson's fantasy narrative, does not speak well of either her judgment or backbone. And the fact that she has barely backed the emergency funding despite being a board member (in contrast to Easton) really does tell a story doesn't it.....the absolute key appointment is the Chair, and imo it should be an outsider (not current board), and it should be an exzecutie role, as Johnson is too compromised as CEO having lost the trust of s/holders.

Not a surprise given share price couldn't hold 15p level, and the fact that retail s/holders remain very wary of Newland's relentless hype. Newland's confident assertion that "management remains confident in delivering strong growth in 2024 in line with current market expectations", looks suspect. A 30pc range for H1 revenues of £1m- £1.3m hardly adds to

the sense of confidence that Newland can deliver £5m+ in 2H to achieve consensus of £6.45m revenues. To do that he will need to have deals already in pipeline, or very much close to it, to close them out before Dec 31st. And we are entering the summer months when sod all happens.

£6.54m current year forecast is

Hi Damay,

Broadly concur with your comments, but management is always, always the key differentiator whatever company whatever sector, and we have been sorely let down by Bundred, the board and of course Johnson. I dont buy the 'naive' tag, as Johnson has been CEo of a listed company for too long to claim naivety. He is clearly utterly clueless about CEO responsibilities to shareholders and what is required in the role. Disingenuous absolutely, and there's a very strong case to support the view that he very deliberately suppressed the truth if not downright lied - scrappage rates not revealed; scrappage never mentioned as a major issue alongside single points of failure; £23m stubbornly defended until it became indefensible; no need to raise more till emergency raise. And on the subject of Humility, that has been totally absent from both Bundred, who astonishingly spent his time whingeing about his shareholding, and Johnson who simply refused to apologise, and mumbled some s*** about being too optimistic. Hard to believe on the display shown by Johnson that he actually feels any sense of shame or responsibility for what has happened - and that is hugely concerning.

Most of us are deep underwater, having supported the company thro thick n thin. Trust has been decimated, in the leadership,. It can be rebuilt, it needs to be rebuilt for the co. to have any hope of returning to growth. That starts with the new chair and will imo will require a properly engaged board, more management reform, greater allround professionalism, unambiguous communications, greater shareholder engagement and Johnson (if he is to remain

CEO) starting to behave responsibly. This can be turned around, but the Board and Johnson in particular need to prove they can run the business better than they have to date, and consistently meet/exceed targets.

The presentation is the reason why there is such anger toward Bundred, Holly Johnson, and Haddocks. All of them failed to make a strong cash for the business,, failed to acknowledge their absolute hand in the napalming if the share price, and in Johnson's case mumbled about being "too optimistic".....The only one of the team with any shred of credibility left is Easton.

And as regards the share raise, it points to a craven board, very poor advisory team, and a CFO who is clearly bitterly regretting joining as she is up to her neck in it now and probably desperately casting around for a new gig.

Scrappage rates were absolutely a key KPI...Johnson and Bundred effectively misled the market by not revealing that for every disc they were producing last year they were having to scrap another one..this is absolutely central to the investment case and a reason why Johnson has to be moved away from CEO role, as he cannot be trusted

Couldnt agree more...reasons

1. Arrogant and incompetent chair (and pretty useless board who were so far off the ball in terms of asking the right questions and being on top of the issues that they might have well been on another planet)

2. Out of his depth CEO, who doesn't understand financial markets, lacks the operating management skills, dispalys huge antipathy to outsiders esp his own shareholders, and exhibits extraordinary levels of paranoia around transparency

3. The fact that they raised at 1p speaks of the sheer level of chaos, panic, and unworldliness that Johnson has sat atop. No wonder the previous CEO jumped ship!

On the face of it this looks exactly what shareholders have been waiting for i.e. a complementary, synergistic eps enhancing acquisition of an established business with strong recurring revenues that can be easily bolted on/absorbed into the bigger group. We have waited a long time for some positive news from the Abdullahs, and it's good to see that we have finally got a deal through. Was very surprised about the costs associated with the deal tho - seem very high.

Am surprised that sp has taken a hit but I suppose the outlook statement was cautious and Rail now doesn't look like it will recover till the earliest 2025, and there is the added complication of a probable Labour administration with the uncwertainty that implies for the transport sector.

Given the share price is stuck below 15p and you can buy at around 14.8p, it tends to suggest that retail has finally wised up to Newland's abysmal record of hyping news, missing forecasts, and burning thru cash. I am not supporting the 15p offer because I topped up today.

Wont happen unless the two biggest shareholders are in agreements. Check the share register

Absolutely right. Add to that the Board needs to be asking the following questions:

1. Why were s/holders unaware of the size of Amey's existing contract and the fact that it has been a cornerstone of the firm's revenue for years?

2. Why was this not even hinted at with the results?

3. What does this mean for revenues and margins going forward. Bear in mind they sold off a big chunk of revenues with the Abird sale

4. Why wa sthRNS tilted contract update when there had been no previous RNs about this pending renegotiation

2.

To be fair they have spent last 3 years refocusing the business around digitalisation & reducing fixed costs by moving branches into merchants which seems to be working well… but this is a big set back for the reputation of the management team. And it isn’t helpful that the CFO announced he’s leaving.

CEO and management have a lot of explaining to do! Even the headline is bloody misleading - Co tract Update…as if s/holders had been informed about this before. Really really poor. Shareholders likely to be unimpressed with the poor news management - shareholders here surprises and this is that!

So they’ve sold the ABird and Apex hire businesses and lost the revenues from these business whilst reducing gearing. I wonder whether these were related to Amey’s decision…

Revs of £349m means a £35m hit ; 7pc off EBITA £24m means a £1.7m hit…

I agree. Given the size of this contract, why was this never covered in previous updates. Among the plethora of stats in the annual report, shareholders have never been informed upfront about contractual risks like this! Very poor from the management team - and the CFO is leaving

I agree - its stagnating thro lack of interest. Only thing that moves these small cap phama/biotech specialist co's is positive (and consistent) commercial newsflow. Sadly that isn't 100pc in Barrington's hands. I take comfort from that fact that they got the funding away, so cash runway out to 2026, and that Barrington expects to accelerate roll-out of Tutivia and expand revenue base, and that she seems confident that there is growing momentum in the business.

Mate, if you have worked in, close to, or as a contractor/supplier (and I have), you will know that the contracts Newland has trumpetted are genuinely tiny, and nopthing out of teh ordinary for intl pharma that dispenses such largesse on weekly basis

you have made very point about the cost savings, which after all the hoopla from nero and griffiths turn out to be negligible. as you say eye-watering £2m a month cash burn.....where has it all been going? one has to ask whether griffiths really is on top of the finances....in the same way that he confidently said no need for cash before q2'25 and here we are a full year earlier.

those institutions that haven't bailed, and god knows they aren't top-flight, should be mightily concerned about the lengths to which nero & griffths go to gild the lily on every bloody announcement. the big holders will have picked up on griffth's unsubtle change of tone about hitting break even on a monthly basis - paving the way for another likely cash call. no wonder no one believes them any more.

as for the ci=urrent year consensus being £6.45 m,i t should be a huge matter of board concern that newland continues to, quite patently and consistently, mislead investors with seemingly the board neither calling him out or forcing him behave more responsibly. his unanchored forecast produced on camera at the private investor conf in february is among the most egregious example of newland's 'hype n hope' management style that has so ****ed off serious institutional investors, and led to a rapid exit from the share register.

-

Wonder whether a/o lightening holding - certainly feels thy way

I think the issue is we have little in the way of free float; two huge holders one of which is a PE house with no clear exit.

To be fair, I think that HSS has a decent strategy, business has £350m of revs & EBITDa c£65m, plus the exec team has reimagined the business over the last three years to create a much more focused digital-enabled business. Despite reinvestment in the business ROCE is still c17%. They've endured a succession of hits -you know what they are: covid, cost of living, RMI downturn etc....but they seem confident enough about the strategy to continue to invest behind it which inevitably dampens profitability.