Member Info for Foxhill

27th - you’ll see that everything in the brackets is a question - not an assertion.
6th - can’t be Rsed to look at the context. Don’t think it directly relates to our disagreement.
8th - Ditto.

WSG - it doesn’t matter which one I go for. The point is it can be either. There is no detail on when it was drafted either.
IF you are going to conclude that WSG confirm material developments - and that this is one - and assuming (dangerous I know) that they are consistent with that policy - then you’d also have to conclude that of all the anonyMoU’s - this is the only one at draft contract stage. Else we’d have been told of others. No?

I didn’t suggest it was. And they first made the suggestion of “at least” back in 2017 I believe.

You’d bloody hope they’d have a draft contract 16 months or so later.

Or did folk here potter into Christmas expecting one or perhaps two converted MoU’s on which they might not have drafted contracts for yet?!! Give me a break!!

Just because Peter & Tony flew together doesn’t confer any sort of ‘advanced status’ - another word I shouldn’t focus on!!

“Contracts drafted could mean anything from first version to final version ready for signing.”

Absolutely - so it tells us nothing.

So does Peter.

Any new airport would be transformational for WSG - that always been the case and stating the bleeding obvious.

Converting an MoU, any MoU, would be a revelation.

Quite why Pete and Tony’s draft contract is given any weight here is beyond me - and the wider market, evidently. If that draft contract is included in an RNS because it’s considered a “material development” as opposed to just being Christmas decorations in an otherwise pointless communiqué (IMO) - then it follows, surely, that none of the other MoU’s in Pete’s plethora of ‘opportunities’ have reached draft contract stage - else they’d have said so (because it’s deemed material) - despite years of progress/flight/transformational promise.

The prospect of a cash call, whether imminent or mid term, is what should put the BoD’s failure to dispose of our ”impressive flagship” under sharp focus. 18 months to sell a boat!! C’mon!!

That’s just showing off. Sierra Queen has been in SL for more years than she’s ever seen passengers. She has since proven to be less saleable than she was ‘sailable’.

Would probably provide a more significant SP lift than any ‘update’.

There’s been one in six plus years. A bit like MoU conversion.

Is a freak. Yes they say there are more in hand - but like the MoU’s - until they start materialising with some regularity - the market won’t attribute much value. IMO.

6 buys v 8 sells. No exactly an exodus is it?

Unfortunately I suspect that the appointment of a new Nomad, a situation forced on STAR, will probably be the only material news beyond that published in the last RNS.

Except the SP, with the bid sitting at about 1/3 of the price it was when we started our historically stronger H2. Some performance!!

Even if they get it up - it’ll probably fire blanks. Good job that we’re not “solely reliant” on the SPV...

Ironic eh. Switch out E.U. from that statement and go again. It works.

And, according to the last RNS, “everything is in place for the contract to start.”

I must have missed that bit?

Well, they are halfway through a three year agreement. I gather it’s complicated - which could mean anything. Tech show after tech show pass - and nowt. Well Gateway.

The difference is that SL wanted us. There was motivation, which in contrast is seemingly missing in most of our other ‘opportunities’

Hopefully we’ve found another client that wants to get on with it rather than just making the right noises.

No ‘at least’ predictions for ‘19, i note. An update on the ‘at least’ quota might be fun.

SL - and that’s when we knew sweet diddly about airport security.

I’m beginning to think, will come nowt.