Member Info for guntoncliff

There is a Naval Overseer in each yard, with a team of inspectors. They sign off all Certificates.These form the authorisation process for Stage Payment Certificates. I have had little direct day-to-day experience in the yards recently but the days of Captains/ Hydrographers of the Navy/ Admirals/etc ordering changes directly to the builder are things of the past. Design change at the level of TPG should be their "financial friend"!

I see no reason for present management to now accept a price significantly below 1000, given previous rejection in 2015/16. A recommended deal @ even c.750 therefore seems far from certain, particularly given the lack of other bidders

I am invested here and have been for some time. Like others I was concerned at what has happened to the share price over the past 9mths, but this was not simply political. PNN were undoutedly at fault in their original letting of the WTE contract to Interserve and more generally there have been contracting issues. We should also never forget that the utilities were given specific dowries at privatisation (eg. for further FGD plants in power gen) and, in the cae of water, for infrastructure. This supposed boom time for contractors never happened as the money was diverted to shareholders. So it a bit more balance in comments on profits v investments would not come amiss

Like others I am please to see messrs Siko and Tibbs back on the board. I do, however, wonder about the effect of the court case (and related) on the share price versus what appears to an outsider, to be a generally deteriorating political and economic situation in the country (if press reporting is in any way accurate). If this is indeed true, and given our one trick pony position presently, this may be the bigger influence on sentiment and hence valuation. Substantive progress on developing their other prospects in Africa would be at the very least helpful to us. I wonder if Siko and Tibbs could comment

If anyone believes that the sums now provided on the WTE projects will be sufficient then they know nothing about the nature of such contracts. The uncertainties on both cost to complete and client claims remain and will be material, albeit unquantifiable at this time. This is not a share to hold unless you are Mystic Meg

As others have mentioned, I think the Irish market, though small, is a good counter-balance for the enlarged business. I also think that IF you wish to enter this market you need credible/knowledgeable local management, otherwise you will fail. So overall a good addition at the price for me

as a business always counts. If you have started from a base of small, technically simple, contracts you cannot successfully become a deliverer of large construction projects UNLESS you merge your business with someone who has done it before. Interserve were never an engineering-led business. They had aspirations well above their management and, more importantly technical/project management, capabilities. What is shameful is that people who are looking after peoples investments are surprised at the current position at Interserve

The value of PNN's claim will include consequentials; hence the huge number. As i have said before on thjis site, Interserve grew rapidly over the past 15+yrs - far too rapidly to be contractually competent, given their background / starting point. Shareholders are bedazzled by growth in order back-log, but it is a worthless statistic in itself. They should simply never have been considered for this project technically, and they will have won it with a very sharp price, in the hope of making something on variations. A recipe for disaster. To the extent that PNN's assessment procedure allowed this work to be placed with a company with a lack of credible track record, they are also commercially culpable - hence my questions about whether heads actually rolled in PNN?? Given the quantum of claim there is zero probability of this being settled this side of the the doors of the court. The outcome is then in the lap of the gods - or the English judicial system - neither of which are nags I have ever bet on!

Whilst there are encouraging signs, margins remain poor for a tech business, and hence is an area of management focus. An unaged order book is a poor guide to either future profitability or the loading of assets/ resources. If MoD project over-spends continue UK defence budget priorities cannot be taken as a given. It will therefore be imperative for TPG to secure more export work.Instinctively I think the business has much export potential, but time will tell. The main positives I take are that they appear to be considered in their judgements and capable of delivering projects successfully.

Some bought in originally at 28p!!

The claim equates to the value of Interserve but weeks ago. Given their dire straights I would not assume a settlement on this anytime soon. Whilst Interserve were ill-qualified to take on this contract in the first place, these sorts of over-spend are not the result of one party alone. PNN need to sharpen up their contracting skills - I am assuming that this has happened?????

I see this as a risk across the specific market segment for all of the players, not simply ISAT. The positives for me are early mover advantage and the comparative cost of the ISAT offering v the competion. I also think that Deutsche Telekom is a credible partner from a European perspective.

I was surprised that no direct reference was made to the on-going court case in the A/cs. Was there any info from questions raised at the meeting / conference call that anybody can add to this board???

Has anybody worked a number through in detail? My back of fag packet suggests a net 6.5-7.0p??

I would think, given the nature of their supply and the need for continuity of their deliveries to maintain project programmes, BREE's exposure should have been minimal. IE. if Carillion played their usual tricks of delaying payment they would have simply stopped supply and the knock-on impact on the site is huge. Further the ability of Carillion to claim some contractual variation in BREE's supply is also minimal. So overall I have never thought that there was a significant credit risk around this business

Let us accept that some of this sell off is political. The facts remain that this is a UK registered business, that is regarded in the industry as well run. It is not a pure water play. Re-nationalisation will be at least 5+ years away and in the meantime this should continue to offer a yield of 6%. In terms of on-going cash costs to the economy I would think that the early close-out of PFI projects should be a much higher priority for Corbyn. I bought into this just short of the peak and am nursing large losses, but I still think the sell-off is crazy and there are many worse businesses out there...............

The positive to take out of this claim by the appellant is that Inmarsat have quite clearly achieved a cost advantage over the competition and a reversal in OFCOM's decision would thus increase overall costs in the market.

I am at a loss to understand why this has gone into free-fall. Are the big sales today instiutions bailing out?? This cannot just be a Corbyn effect

Too small financially and too far down the feeding chain to warrant inclusion. Most likely - and best for them - to be a sub contractor to all bidding consortia

Are we saying that they have no first mover advantage in any part of the airline segment??