Member Info for Kando

Anyone would be rather misguided to vote against, given the implications of alternative refinancing. The upside is in another bidder, not in rejecting Sidara.

Pokerchips, I thought Ice was cringe with his delusions and emojis... but you make him look humble.

Sat on your yacht with your shoe shine boy. You're giving us all second hand embarrassment. Kindly stop.

Wood rejecting Sidara would surprise me.

"Again pure speculation Plan B doesn’t say any of the above. 🤦‍♂️🤣😉"

Go ask the Cheshire Cat what Plan B is then...

In your fantasy, how do they raise the requisite capital?

Is it a magic money tree? Or do they win the Euromillions on both the Tuesday and the Friday?

"I mean what’s stopping the institutions from going yeah 30p is unacceptable let’s proceed with plan B?"

Other than self-preservation and not being in the business of setting their own money on fire in a dilutive D4E swap or Rights Issue? Other than that, what is stopping them?

Then explain the Note in the RNS, Pokerchips. If the bid isn't imminent, why is the extension only 3 days, and if the accounts are soon to follow, why the inclusion of the note saying that the audited accounts pre-condition is "under review".

Bid soon + Accounts not soon = Possibility of a vote prior to the completion of the audit.

There's nothing in the takeover code or law necessitating that any vote is subject to audited accounts being available. A company and its shareholders can vote to sell at any time. Audited accounts are only required for continued trading on the LSE.

And FYI, Pokerchips, you and Icecool spend all your time "guessing" as well. I'm just reading what was included in the RNS that was put there for a reason. It's guidance.

It looks like we might be expected to vote on it without seeing the audited accounts. Institutional investors will know the state of the accounts already. They will almost certainly vote per the board's recommendation. Unlike some posters here, they won't be living in a fantasy where some of the lenders aren't ready to make this ugly. They know this, and getting paid for your shares is better than not getting paid for your shares because shareholders are behind creditors in the pecking order. The lenders are and have always been in control of this situation - not shareholders, whether institutional or retail. Wood breached debt covenants and needs to term that debt out otherwise the company is de facto insolvent. The lenders are calling the shots, so investors ought to listen and do what they're told represents best value for them.

"The Reduced Possible Offer is also subject to the same pre-conditions and reservations set out in Wood's announcement of 14 April 2025 (except that pre-condition (b) relating to the publication of Wood's audited accounts is under review by Sidara)."

Pondering on this note, you could draw the conclusion that the audited accounts must still be quite some way off, for the waiving of that pre-condition to be "under review" suggests that they're probably not forthcoming.

Would you consider it worth mentioning that it is "under review" whether to wait or not if the accounts were a couple of weeks out, or even up to a month? Probably not, you'd just wait, they'd be in the home straight.

Would you start considering waiving that pre-condition if it was still several months out (or worse, some indeterminate future point they can't yet pin a date to) and some hold out lenders (the ones unwilling to engage on the terms of refinancing) were still threatening the worst if progress wasn't made? Yeah, probably you would.

yeah froggles, ultimately they were just too slow to pivot from the exhausted and depleted north sea basin and into the future of energy consumption. let that be a lesson to stubborn allegiance to fading eras and technology.

that inertia and the major amec foster wheeler shaped misstep is why someone is able to buy a phenomenal amount of engineering skill and know-how here for pennies on the dollar. it's why wood have accumulated so much debt and found themselves backed into a dead end. sidara sure as **** aren't going to squander those skills like boards gone by at wood have. energy demand is only going in one direction, up, and it's only heading towards one end state - the electrification of everything. oil and gas still yet have a place during the transition but wood haven't carved out a big enough slice of the ever growing pie of energy landscape of the future. in 2050 all cars sold will be electric and almost all homes will be heated with heat pumps. that's just the reality of market forces. if you're not part of the future you get left in the past. wood tied itself too much to the past and only latterly and begrudgingly has been forced to start looking into the future. the uk and companies like wood need to slough off this victorian nostalgia for the past, and keep up and stay dynamic and competitive.

Very good catch Rock.

That changes much then. So we should be expecting the bid before accounts, with the bid - it seems to be suggested - to arrive no later than tomorrow. Accounts could still be weeks and months off, lenders are presumably still exerting pressure on both parties to paint or get off the ladder, especially those lenders unwilling to engage on the terms of the refinancing and debt modifications. They've clearly long since had enough of the Wood saga.

Well it's difficult to understand why they'd only extend the deadline by 3 days if they weren't expecting the preconditions of the offer to be met - aka the publication of accounts.

Unless there's some opaque clerical reason with the takeover code why it would be a short extension into another longer request, but I can't imagine what that might be. So I am still assuming accounts and bid are imminent within the 3 day extension.

Good luck Klassic.

There's still the possibility that after the bid is formalized we get notice of another potential suitor. Any other interested parties would be waiting for the first bid and/or accounts to disclose their interest. 30p might not be all you're hoping for. It's more of a floor than a ceiling.

That would be nice, so far we've only seen contract wins amounting to roughly expected churn. At $5.6bn yearly revenue, that requires roughly $2.8bn of replacement orders every 6 months to maintain that. They could just be treading water, or even still sinking, until we know what contracts rolled off, and how profitable and when, these new projects are. I'd caution reading too much into them until we actually see the accounts. It would still be nice to see more contract wins in the meantime. They need to keep growing the top line in spite of asset sales to give them a chance of fixing the bottom line and cash flow.

Very true, KPMG are the auditors. Someone at Deloittes could only ever be giving a best guess.

To quote the great Cheeto Benito, it seems like we're all getting "tapped along" by the drip feed of accounts ETA rumours, employees included.

They would have known from the start how long an audit of this size would likely take, but it's easier to keep everyone thinking they could be just around the corner than admit from the start it would likely be 3-6 months for an irreproachable multi-year restatement.

"The debt is not an issue, agreements with all loan owners for better terms"

Just as a fact check to this as possible misinformation. Per RNS on 28th July:

"not all lenders have engaged with the Company in relation to the Proposed Refinancing. The Company is working to secure support from all lenders but, absent such agreement, it is expected that the Proposed Refinancing would be implemented in part via a Scottish scheme of arrangement of John Wood Group Holdings Limited (the "Creditor Scheme"). The Creditor Scheme must be approved by a majority in number and 75% by value of committed lenders"

"There is now commercial alignment on the headline terms of an extension to the Company's existing committed debt facilities (the "Proposed Refinancing"). If implemented, the Proposed Refinancing would be conditional upon Sidara making a firm offer for Wood"

The company have informed us that not all lenders are on board. Moreover no agreements yet exist, but are contingent on Sidara bidding for Wood. There is at the moment only "commercial alignment" on future terms with what is expected to be a voting majority of Wood's lenders.

So it's not time to count your chickens yet, nor is it time for you to start trumpeting a new dawn of Wood "going it alone". There are still lenders unwilling to engage, and those who are engaging are wanting to see Sidara make a bid first. That should highlight once again just how little latitude Wood have with lenders.

If you get what you want and no takeover materializes, that is where you'll see your inevitable dilution. You can put as many exclamation marks and emojis after it as you like. You've had it explained to you by more posters here than just me. The company has told you substantial new capital is required to recapitalize the business and secure modifications and extension of term to the debt pile (which you yourself have now posted as evidence). If that capital injection is not from Sidara, it will be a debt for equity or a rights issue, thus, inevitable dilution. It's far too complicated for you, clearly, but to all else, it's simple.

"alright jim back the **** off, i have hardly posted here."

Checks notes....

User Icecool has made 118 Wood Group posts over the last 30 days.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

If that was ChatGPT then ChatGPT has your number as well.

So that's your response?

"My point still stands."?

After accidentally posting your own proof of how wrong and deluded you are... Crikey.

"You must be using AI to call me out!"

Pitiful.

Cheers for posting proof that what I've written was factual. No mention whatsoever of your "long-term optionality funding".

What it does say is:

"the Company needs a more sustainable capital structure, requiring substantial new capital"

"Wood and Sidara are working on a range of alternative refinancing options"

"In order to support Wood in obtaining the Debt Modifications, Sidara intends (after any Offer) to provide a total of $450 million in new capital to Wood"

"the Board believes the Possible Offer is the better option for shareholders"

There in black and white it tells you the company needs to "raise substantial new capital".

There in black and white that substantial new capital is required to obtain debt modifications/extensions from lenders.

There in black and white it says the offer represents the best value for shareholders in securing the required recapitalization of the company.

I think it's fair to say you've debunked everything you've ever claimed and I applaud your new-found humility in doing so.