Member Info for Kando

For what reason Bob?

Perhaps you ought worry about your own mental state post-employment. It was clear that Wood Group and Ken lived - and unfortunately continue to live - rent-free in your head, even 6 weeks after you left. You need less vitriol Bob.

The rest of us are here, as before, patiently awaiting the resumption of trading that the conclusion of the audit will hopefully bring and beyond that, the takeover for 30p or more.

As has been pointed out before, your own and Ice's short positions are still cooked, no matter your mental gymnastics or your limited attempts at wit. You'll not prevent Wood being sold. You'll not get your "Plan B" of equity wipeout for shareholders.

Ken's sticking around long enough to haunt your short positions. He's here until the vote.

I'm sure we'll get to hear you all cry more about it with your typical vulgar language calling for his lynching.

Bob182071 9 Oct 2025 10:31: "Offer 4: Ken Gilmartin and Roy Franklin to be slung up outside Sir Ian Wood House"

But no, no need to arrange a search party for anybody, I posted here yesterday, I'm posting here today and I'll call you all turkeys again tomorrow if you like.

I would recommend reading the RNS.

"it has become apparent that when the Company publishes its audited accounts for the financial year ended 31 December 2024, the Company's borrowings will exceed the borrowing limit

...

A breach of the borrowing limit would have serious and adverse implications for the day-to-day use of the Company's existing debt facilities and the debt facilities

...

It would amount to an event of default and, separately, the Company would be unable to draw on its existing debt facilities without breaching its articles of association and without further lender consents.

...

That would have a significantly adverse effect on the Company's liquidity position. It would also materially risk jeopardising the Acquisition, which remains critical to the Company's future, or any other potential transaction where shareholders would receive any value for their shares. It is therefore imperative that the borrowing limit is disapplied prior to publication of the Audited Accounts."

---

So vote no if you want the company to default and be unable to afford continued operations. Vote yes to maintain any value for your shareholdings.

It's fairly simple this one.

"For myself all is clear , reject offers 1 to 5. Accept offer 6."

Exactly. The passengers of the Titanic famously turned away 5 rescue ships before the survivors were plucked out of the freezing Atlantic by the 6th. They too wanted to maximize the value of the tickets they'd paid for.

"That’s completely BS, Kando you are obsessed with equity wipeout."

It's you who is obsessed with equity wipeout.

The rest of us accept that a takeover is the only non-dilutive way of saving the business. No one but you is taking about a Plan B that the company has said will leave no value for shareholders.

"Plan B is still very much in play regardless"

Sorry this is incorrect.

There is Plan A and then there is equity wipeout, if you want to call that Plan B.

If it's "in play" then you ought to be concerned.

"they can invoke those conditions to walk away"

You misspoke then. They can not invoke those conditions. Those conditions are out of their control.

If the conditions are met then the bid will not lapse and Sidara can do nothing to simply walk away from the commitment they have made, with a mere timeout, as you claimed. They would be in breach of contract and can be held liable for what they have bid.

"Under takeover rules, they can invoke those conditions to walk away, but if they do, they’re frozen out from making another bid for a set period."

They can't "invoke" those conditions, none of the conditions set out in the Bid are within Sidara's control. They have no say whether they are met or not.

It's also far more than being frozen out. Cineworld tried to claim "contract breaches" by Cineplex to nix its own takeover in mid 2020 - a takeover which obviously became unaffordable because of the COVID pandemic destroying cinema. Unfortunately for them their acquisition contract explicitly excluded "outbreaks of illness or other acts of God" from what would be considered a material adverse effect. So they were successfully sued for $1.24 billion for the offer they made and then walked away from.

Sidara have made a cash acquisition offer for Wood Group. They cannot simply walk away with a timeout. There are no provisions in the bid for them to walk away. See: Sidara Commitment Letter, Sidara Interim Funding Agreement both signed 29th August.

Sorry Glowacki, you're just wrong.

What a mental take.

Being presented more news that the company is almost insolvent somehow justifies 4-5x higher price... how?

Glowacki, they have not reserved the right to walk away. You seem to be operating under some misunderstanding. Per the takeover code they would become liable for much of what they have now offered and other costs incurred from the takeover, if they were to walk away at this stage without consent.

They have formally made a cash acquisition offer to Wood, they indeed had the right to walk away prior to this, when it was merely a proposal to bid, but no longer.

The bid only lapses if conditions on Wood's side (auditors/lenders) are not met and those are outside of Sidara's control.

The mechanisms of a takeover are designed to punish frivolous takeover attempts. Sidara are now committed with no reserved right to walk away, as you claim. See: Cineworld successfully sued for $1.24 bn for walking away from it's acquisition of Cineplex.

The bid has already been made Glowacki, there is no provision in the acquisition documents to lower the offer price from here.

There is only conditions to be met on the side of Wood, the auditors and its lenders, absent which the bid would automatically lapse unless waived or extended by Sidara.

Otherwise, they have committed to pay that price if the conditionality is met and the takeover approved by shareholders.

"You are obviously a green, a lefty and a bonifide Labour supporter. Not quite sure why you are invested in Wood?! Unless you are not invested in Wood, and you are just here to stand on your soap box and preach your grren and left credentials! I don't waste my time debating greens and lefts. No point - most of them are fanatics, not realists. As a Labour supporter you must be very pleased with Farmer Starmer's recognising Palestine as a soveriegn state and rewarding Hamas after their invasion etc of Israel...nothing like rewarding the actions of terrorists and extremists!

BTW I am not a boomer...you are wrong again. Lol"

Try again Boomer, more populist waffle from a self-confessed Reform sheep. What's Palestine to do with the economics of energy?

I'm none of your epithets, I don't treat politics like a team sport like you do. I vote for the best policy platform/least odious come election time. It doesn't matter the party, I've voted for them all but for the deluded NIMBY/scrap trident/all air travel Greens. But otherwise yes, by your standards I am totally Green. I know something about energy finance. I believe the future of global energy will be electric, built on some combination of solar/wind/hydro/nuclear/BESS. In every country. From bottom up to top down, even impoverished developing countries are choosing this energy mix - because it's cheaper and makes you more self-sufficient. There will be a diminishing place for fossil fuels in tomorrow's world. Oil demand will peak somewhere between 2029-2031, this is just reality, and gas will peak somewhere in the next 20 years. You ask why I'm invested in Wood? Wood do more than just service aging and spent North Sea assets. I believed someone would want to buy Wood. The world will need a LOT of energy in an everything electric world, plus the demands of AI. We need engineers in the energy sector more than ever. Wood have engineers who can build critical infrastructure. Sidara know this, maybe other interested parties might recognize this too. If you're invested in Wood because you believe the North Sea isn't depleted, then you invested for the wrong reasons, but you might luck out all the same.

"The fact is that UK Govt is taxing oil and gas companies who operate in the North Sea at 78% and has stopped new issuing drill licences for the North Sea to appease green and left voters. This is economic sabbatage on the UK economy and the oil and gas industry as a whole. Result: Higher energy prices for UK businesses and consumers. Hopefully Reform will be voted in and change policy overnight i.e. reduce corporate tax to a more reasonable level and issue new drill licenses rather than watch the North Sea turn to a waste of natural resources."

No thanks. The North Sea O&G industry already receives more in subsidy from the UK government than it receives in tax revenue. All the economical reserves have been extracted from the UK sectors, hence why UK North Sea oil has the highest cost per barrel extraction costs in the world. You can't magic the North Sea productive again, you can issue licences like candy and you would only accelerate what has already been a terminal decline in output.

"Result: Higher energy prices for UK businesses and consumers."

And again, Oil and Gas are priced globally, not domestically. You could quadruple UK production overnight and it would hardly move the needle on total global supply, so prices wouldn't move more than a couple of cents. On electricity prices, the Natural Gas price sets the UK wholesale electricity price 98.3% of the time. You don't make bills cheaper by being MORE dependent on gas, MORE dependent on a MORE expensive fuel. This should be obvious, but apparently it isn't. You live in a fantasy land. Thankfully the national system operator (NESO), the National Grid and the current and most recent governments understand this better than you do.

"Hopefully Reform will be voted in and change policy overnight"

If you think cheerful Nige and his merry band of feckless grifters are going to improve the country and not use the power to enrich themselves at everyone else's expense, then I've got a bridge to sell you. But vote away boomer. Maybe you could put your claims on the side of a bus to sell it to the rest of us?

That's a lot of populist waffle to avoid acknowledging that natural gas sets the UK's wholesale electricity price 98.3% of the time, and that's why your energy bills are high. You opened this by railing against wind turbines and how high your energy bills had gotten in your dotage "since renewable energy was started on a major scale".

Magically refilling the depleted North Sea reserves and dropping taxes to zero still wouldn't change that solar/wind/bess plus strategic reserve are cheaper than coal/ccgt gas/peaker gas. The price of NG is set by the global market, not how much we produce domestically, which is always going to be a tiny fraction of global supply.

Anyway, you're free to carry on booming with your Daily Mail economics, the age of expensive energy from finite fossil fuels is coming to an end, the age of cheap abundance in energy is about to begin. Nothing you say will halt it.

"In any case, I must have mis-read my energy bills since renewable energy was started on a major scale in the UK. Seems my energy bills have gone through the roof since then to date. Whoever is benefiting from the 'cheaper levelized cost', it does not appear to be businesses or consumers. Maybe I have to wait until the very end of my lifetime (maybe the last couple of weeks) to recieve a 'reduction' in my energy bills. Lol"

I think you must have misread them, and I suppose you also must have also missed the Ukraine war and the pursuant dash for gas crisis.

In the UK the wholesale price of electricity is currently set by gas 98.3% of the time because of marginal pricing. You ought to be livid at natural gas for your bills, but instead you're upset at the 7.4% of your bill that go towards green levies, which includes the warm home discount to keep pensioners and the disabled warm. Very little of your bills goes to your bete noire. For whatever reason you're not upset with the other 92.4% of your bill spent on everything else, mostly expensive natural gas.

Once renewables penetration is higher, gas will be progressively displaced as the de facto marginal pricing mechanism in the UK. By 2030 that 98.3% of the time will be as low as 15% of hours. Then you will see your cheaper bills, even a boomer like you might live to see that and you'll have the privilege of getting to eat your words. Don't be a lacky for a defunct fossil fuel industry, oil is not the future, and gas is an expensive transition fuel. It is not the path to cheap energy. The future is electric.

"@Kandos While Labour continue to tax companies with operations in the North Sea at a ridiculous 78% tax (!!!) very little will happen in the North Sea. It is a wasted resource that has virtually been taxed to extinction. You have not addressed whether or not other alternative energies are 'a net drain on the public purse'...aka wind farms...that do not work when there is no wind, and stop working when the wind blows too hard Lol"

Sorry James, but I don't need to, economics are now driving this transition and Wind/Solar/BESS now have a cheaper levelized cost (LCOE) than Coal/Gas CCGT/Gas Peaker. Even when paying for a strategic reserve of Gas Peaker plants to backstop the variability, they are still cheaper.

The energy transition is simply inevitable, it's not an argument I need to make.

I am however, hopeful that Wood as engineers in the energy sector can capitalize on this energy revolution, be it servicing offshore wind, CCS, hydrogen production for industrial use etc. And in the meantime Gas will remain the transition fuel and backstop. But that doesn't mean that UK North Sea O&G isn't depleted. That game has already been played out. That gas will have to come from elsewhere.

"Will Labour change policyt and kick-start the economy with cheaper oil and gas. If so, Wood will be one of the beneficiaries as production kicks off."

James, surely you are aware that the North Sea is currently and has been for some time (since about 2015), a net drain on the public purse. North Sea O&G's tax contribution is dwarfed by its continued subsidy and costs the UK government and taxpayers significant sums yearly to prop up what limited production remains.

Labour, Tory or any other striped tie could not replenish what is a substantively depleted reservoir. What oil and gas remain in the North Sea are in the Norwegian sectors.

There is nothing to "kick off" that would benefit Wood. Wood's future lies in new energy markets.

"What does zero value mean? Will they go bust while they have billions of projects waiting in line? I am still not buying it.

They just need to service with dept and it’s clear that this cardboard is not capable of doing it."

You're clearly confusing zero to no shareholder value with the company "going bust". The two are not the same thing. You as a shareholder should be concerned about shareholder value.

The company can recapitalize via a Debt for Equity swap or a similarly highly dilutive Rights Issue at any time. The company would carry on, but shareholders would be left with next to nothing.

The company would be forced to do that to avoid administration in the event a takeover fell through, lenders are now in the position to force that. The company has a net debt position and a pile of debt they have breached covenants on. Should that debt be called in by lenders (which they are within rights to do given covenant breaches - the financial press reported some holdouts have been threatening to do so), then the company would be de facto insolvent.

Again, this should all be obvious, but as usual, for some, it clearly is not.

"How did you come to conclusion that they will go bust because they sold a non-core business?"

I didn't, the company and its advisors have guided to any alternative to the takeover resulting in: "potentially very limited to zero value for Wood Shareholders."

From the Bid RNS.

They have said trading has been poor. Order book is strong but clients have deferred contract start dates until there is clarity about the company's future, so probably cash flow has deteriorated rather than improved, and we know the cash and debt situation is already critical.

You chaps are free to keep your head in the sand for as long as you like, but you don't know more than the Board, nor more than Wood's lenders, nor more than the Institutional Investors who will vote this through. Sorry.

"RNS that confirmed the audit is done also confirmed that there is no further material impact"

That's not true, after the Review (which is not an audit) by Deloitte they expected no further material impact.

The latest bid RNS pointed out the current auditors (KMPG) had found new loss making contracts.

That would clearly have a material impact.

From Section 3. of the bid RNS:

"Given the delay in Wood finalising the Audited Accounts and the delay in completion of the audit, there are a greater number of post balance sheet events in 2025 that impact the 2024 results, including ***some newly identified contract losses***. Finally, the difficult situation the Company has faced in 2025 has led to increased work being required for the going concern and viability statements and associated audit opinion."