Member Info for Jimzi

Slip is partially correct. I've seen posts with "I hope we get another payment whilst its signed", one saying its paid into an escrow so can we get the money?
RNS: payments on account.
See the little S on payments?
See the word account - you only have an account if you have a contract - not the final for reasons outlined in Bigears post of the 10% increase quibble over port charges that spills over to our final fee, but an interim. The payments are based on a calculation - which is outlined in a document - a contract.

From the RNS again: for work undertaken. What has an escrow account got to do with past work done? Its not conditional which is what an escrow is like innit?

Re tarrif charges, I'm placing my money on them being done prior to the 30 th Sept deadline of fully operational - gotta have your price list sorted by then - otherwise both the bosses look like ********s.
Biggest port on the continent - I'm sure 10% can be negotiated and everyone saves face - and face is what its all about.

If you look at the pricing, you can see the mms have directed this all day.

ATB - **** poor board today, yet again - almost as predicable as the SP.

Well the bid for quantity does point to them being real buys - but we all know the mms!

So your asking the bb, whats everyone's strategy [well non long term holders]. Nice one!
You probably won't get any replies and if you do, I wouldn't believe them

They have clearly had a load of e mails asking whats going on, are we being paid etc.
They answer in the affirmative and state what's outstanding and now peeps say there must be a reason for the timing of the RNS.
Why hold if your this skittish - and thats why its not up much - there's 3m of its good, its bad, a placing, we don't know the revenue etc changing their mind like the wind.
Its 9.5p - they can't issue at 9.5p - we have a new source of income - if you can't stomach this risk then give up.
GL

Hehe - ok Denning mentioned the case in another one in 1932!
At least I'm getting peeps interested in contract law!

Yep - put it in to shoiw off - can't remember at all what it was about - 35 years ago at law school!!
It was Denning though !

Quite right Sunny.

And legal classes.

Major renovation work on house over a year- estimate X subject to alterations, difficulties etc.
Pay builder on account throughout the year - then final account when finished.
There is a contract - final amount to be determined.
You don't pay people on account if there is no contractual basis. And the payment is in accordance with some agreed term - of a contract - call it interim, pre-fully open or whatever, its a contract
Check out Carlye smokeball company case - the bedrock of the laws of contract.

Really doesn't matter who said what.
Mike's right - without the final tariffs agreed by the owners, we are effectively on a default rate pending agreement of above. By being paid, there is an effective implied contract in law.
The good news is we have clarity, the delay is nothing to do with WSG, clearly they are happy with our work and the set up.
How many years is the key

The other reason is to ensure that the new expensive port implements and ensures continued adherence to the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code - which is mandatory..
Fair dos - I'm sure a lot of ports are not adhering in poorer countries - but the owners ain't spending $1.5b on a state of the art port to have to reply, when asked does it adhere to the International Ship and Port Facility Security (ISPS) Code, NO.

You don't take your brand new Bentley to your mates 17 year old trainee mechanic working in the back yard, for a service because its cheap.

Apology accepted.
My optimism is based upon the main reason as to why WSG are there..
To stop the previous large scale theft and pilfering [which would get bigger with the increase in size] that local operators allowed so the port has integrity and the gov gets its revenues.
Theft risk does not just occur during the training up and walk through period - its a permanent risk.

For a trade / bounce - they would have made a bit.
10% - do a sb and 40%.

Didn't say it was you.... but I'm beginning to be suspicious with that quick denial!!!

Anyway, there is nothing wrong with doing it - I'm just saying everyone having a tizzy over nothing as usual

Usual nonsense today.
Bet you its one holder who stuck in SXX for the bounce - jeez - there's no volume.
The trading here has no bearing on the chance of conversion

I'd ignore the names - quite often its the bottom mm whose active.
250k 1p below bid but 3p above ask - that's the order book

Buy and sell same at 28.3p

I never know why they do this

For all the group wailing and nashing of teeth, no bugger prepared to sell at 9p or lower.

Fair dos - I'm used to Hargreave Hale who always reported any disposal size.
Learned something today !

There are no threshold bar 3 and 29.99%.
Any sale/purchase in between these two must be reported - even if 1 share.

Sold 186k of client shares -
Did say, this is all PI trading - Miton out on day one effectively - ii nonsense a few posters smokescreen

Correct. Lombard sells are the same as any other pi. And Miton has been explained- yet peeps keep going on about ii still selling. There was only Miton. Check the website