Member Info for Longtermview24

ffc Agreed that $600M now would be the preference but $300 for a year of further progress and de-risk is still preferable to handing the keys to AAL. Indeed if the money had to be raised with equity, deferring $300M until next year might allow it to be raised on better terms. I'm not sure why we haven't been tapped for even less to keep the lights on and allow the BOD to keep looking and knocking on doors. Surely the adverse bond market conditions (such that there are) surely cant last forever.

That's tough to watch. It's like being mugged at knifepoint in the broad daylight. I cant fully express my feelings towards Cutafani or I'll probably get a ban.

I note they intend to spend $300M per year, so we don't even need to find all $600M upfront.

RF, without the benefit of a crystal ball or time travel, I'm not sure what advice or opinion you're seeking. It seemed like you were insinuating that "is that the best you can do" - . It's all speculation.

In the event of a no vote do you think it's possible Qatar Investment Authority might step in to save their hundreds of millions of dollars investment still going to AAL but at a fraction of the 5.5p?

Would you agree they could afford the $600M required without breaking a sweat?

They wouldn't be doing that on a charitable basis. I expect they'd get 60% + of the company for that. Not only would that allow them to recoup their initial investment, they'd make a killing on the further top up investment.

It's possible and it's a rational analysis is it not?

The company are denying any approach from QIA, but the details in the Evening Standard seem to me to be too specific to be made up out of thin air.

Scotsman, respect for your post. Hard to argue with the sentiment.

I think a lot of the anger and resentment stems from two things - the overconfidence Fraser exuded wrt financing ( he knew the average PI was listening to him and not reading the small print in the prospectus) and the fact that it appears that the paths of the AAL and SXX senior execs seem intertwined through the years tracing back to Fortescue.

If this didn’t have the Aussie angle and if he was walking away and folk could see a tangible loss for him then there been a sense of fairness. As it is he’ll cash in 7million and day to day it’s business as usual for him.

That can’t be right.

RF, if you’re going to quote my post quote all of it otherwise you’re in danger of misrepresenting my reply.

I’m not telling anyone what to do and don’t give a rats arze what you decide to do, but dint misrepresent my posts or my sincerity.

I think bond holders will step in to save themselves and, by association, us. That’s best case and cones with heavy dilution. I’d be ok with 60-75% dilution. That’s still better for us in the long run than Fraser giving the keys to his Aussie mates for a song.

Is there risk. Yes. Never said there wasn’t.

There are only three outcomes here, sale to Anglo, rescue or administration. Make your own mind up , if you have one, and/or stop pretending to be relying on others to do the thinking for you.

Great coverage in the Northern Echo. I hope it drives traffic to the ww.fundsirius.com site.

Great post FosterE . Agree 100%

That Gazette article is a disgrace. Still no apology. No sorry.

Fraser is massively conflicted. A no vote may or may not be the end of the road for Sirius (I think there'll be a rescue led by the bondholders) but a No vote is definitely the end of the road for Fraser. if it's not administration, and we're saved, he'll be booted out at an EGM in short order - and good riddance.

Any rescue will involve heavy dilution for all of us, Fraser included. Problem for him is he will no longer be in charge so wont be able to issue himself, Staley and others extra shares for free to make up for the dilution. He was good to himself was our Chris 124,000,00 shares and barely paid for a single one (except the 250,000 he bought recently at 4.4p while talking to AAL - handy that he's making a profit on those, not many of us are).

So after the ex-banker has presided over the funding fiasco and now knows the only way to save himself is to get this AAL deal through, it's impossible to believe a word he says. Time and again of late he has shown he doesn't give a stuff about PI's. He's only in it for himself. Take his advice at your peril, it's given to suit his own agenda. A nice seat on the board and big fat share options at AAL await for him delivering this to AAL on a plate.

Vote No and let's see if QIA want to thrown their hundreds of millions down the pan. I doubt it. Vote no and lets see if Odey is correct and the no vote flushes out an alternative to the thieves at Anglo.

It'd be nice if the press gave us PI's the same column inches to make our case. I wonder how much Sirius ae paying them for the coverage (out of the depleted bank account)

you should be able to do it through your broker/nominee account. You should make sure they send an acknowledgement that your vote has been recorded per your instruction.

Longtermview, I have not decided which way to vote yet and still have plenty of time to make my mind up. One of the issues I am trying to understand is if the vote was to turn down the offer why would anyone increase the offer as if it goes into administration surely the price it will be saved for will be a lot less with shares becoming worthless. This is a genuine question and would love the answer to be that I have got it wrong. Many thanks for any help, GLA
-- -----
Westcountry, IMO, if the vote is no then some of the big institutional investors - who could easily afford to provode financing - might step in. In particular those holding the bonds. The vakue of the bonds is preserved if the company s sold to AAL because AAL has a strong balance sheet and the likelihood of the bonds being repaid is high so they wont lose. In administration it's not just shareholders that get wiped out, bondholders do too. QIA hold more than $100 million worth of bonds. I just don't see them kissing them goodbye in addition to the $40 odd million they invested in equity shares.

Franalex Thomas Cook and Debenhams were operating businesses and their problems are poles apart from Sirius. To try and lump them together is disingenuous. Sirius has a string business model in place in the form of demand and TORPS for its product. It is not an operating company. Just needs a few quid and a shovel or two to dig it out then we're in business

Franalex, I think everyone has got it by now. You're in love with IBAB and administration is a bad thing for shareholders.

On the flip side the AAL bid is a steal and an improved bid or - better still - funding, is good for shareholders.

Pretty simple really.

www.fundsirius.com

Vote NO

Greta post tradermo. Very clear and concise. Everyone who can should vote in person. If not then by proxy. Individual votes count, not just the number of votes (this wil be decided two ways and both ways have to pass - they need 75% of the shares that vote AND they need more than 50% of the individuals to vote in favour)

Eggbasket - member since 27 Jan 2020 and it took you three weeks to come up with that story. Well done.

As for Honestsirius… that's an ironic name if its a Sirius inside job, cos there's not much honesty coming out of there of late, at least not the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. "Honest" Sirius tells us he's been a holder since the company was formed. He registered on 28 Jan 2020 a day after Eggbasket. He's been a bit more prolific with a dozen or so posts telling us what a great job Sirius has done to get this far and how we should sell and not risk losing the lot. Sounds eerily familiar to what Fraser was saying in the Yorkshire post Q & A (not sure why it's called a Q & A when those weren't really YP's questions).

Just tell them you want to vote no to all the resolutions! Simples!

Tex, of course the questions were staged. It was a set up to get out a puff piece from the BOD to back the bid. You have Fraser very keen to push this at 5.5p or it's curtains ,and then you have Odey speculating that there might well be another offer coming and that they note AAL have deliberately not made their offer final, so they're also half expecting another offer to come in.

I wonder if Fraser's bonus will be improved if he can get this away at 5.5p and not a penny more? It seems like he is overly keen on this offer. Not many are, and now it's not just PI's, you can add Odey and Jupiter to that list.

Fraser - " We’ve achieved so much, but ultimately we’ve stumbled at one of the final hurdles with the last stage of financing"

Stumbled? That's a nice way to put it. No, you drove us off a cliff and you and the other senior execs are the only ones with parachutes.

No mention of the 19 million quid sweetner they're divvying up, as well as the guaranteed job and bonus.

He's happy to offer his opinion on PI's commentary and BB's - and lay in to them - but the says "it wouldn't be appropriate" to comment in II's opinions. How hypocritical an it shows that he views us PI's as second class citizens compared to the II's.

That's a fairly pathetic mea cupla…..and not once is there an apology. Can anyone find the word "sorry" in there?

Spin and half truths from Fraser. He's leaving a lot of bits out.

Agreed Scotsman. 2030 is a realistic target and if we kept even a fraction of the company in private hands (and I hope it is more than that) everyone would make their money back and some by that date. A lot of PI's, especially locals, were always in this for the long run and to leave a legacy investment to their children and grandchilren

fund it in exchange for a big equity piece (more than 50%) I meant to say