Member Info for Only1Gibbo

That is true Foxy. As I say, don't know if that is the location, but it is a credible contender. I'm sure there are others too.

Foxy I haven't said this is the location. But one thing you can be sure of, wherever it is it will either have just implemented or will be about to implement a security fee. So any airport where that is in place will be a contender for location imo. As I have also previously stated, I think wherever it is, is on the eastern side of Africa. Time will tell, but for any airport that introduces their own fee, they may get some revenue, but they won't get the western security standards that WSG will bring. That is the driving force for these countries, as they have seen what security issues did for tourism in Egypt and Tunisia.

IF it is then I am sure you are right MB. As I say, no idea of it is, but it is consistent with my theory that it is located in the east of Africa.

No idea if this is where we are headed or not, but there is a new terminal due to open at Dar Es Salaam in June. I've often wondered whether the possibility of a new airport terminal opening in late 2018 or early 2019 somewhere (and therefore a deadline for the client to sort things by) is what enabled PF to state that they expected to sign a new deal in 2018.

https://centreforaviation.com/news/tanzania-airport-authority-to-open-terminal-at-dar-es-salaam-international-airport-877179
https://allafrica.com/stories/201901290425.html

And Tanzania has recently introduced an airport security fee
https://www.eturbonews.com/234352/tanzania-airport-authority-taa-has-introduced-a-security-fees

Plus the government also dissolved the TAA board in December. Maybe that is why we had to leave the contract with them?
https://www.thecitizen.co.tz/News/Government-dissolves-TAA-board/1840340-4891562-srkmjhz/index.html

Eskers I can help you out with that. I picked up this a few weeks back, but didn't bother posting the details as it is possibly a way off yet.

It is not the new Saleem terminal due to open but the planned Iranshahr terminal. Google it.

It's a planned new terminal at IKA all tied in with making it an airport city free trade zone. First phase would handle up to 20m PAX, expanding to 110m. Can't see them doing anything particularly quickly, especially whilst sanctions are in place, but that kind of expansion could represent serious cash in the years to come for WSG.

Apologies for the triple posting - LSE seems a bit temperamental today

Eskers I can help you out with that. I picked up this a few weeks back, but didn't bother posting the details as it is possibly a way off yet.

It is not the new Saleem terminal due to open but the planned Iranshahr terminal. Google it.

It's a planned new terminal at IKA all tied in with making it an airport city free trade zone. First phase would handle up to 20m PAX, expanding to 110m. Can't see them doing anything particularly quickly, especially whilst sanctions are in place, but that kind of expansion could represent serious cash in the years to come for WSG.

Eskers I can help you out with that. I picked up this a few weeks back, but didn't bother posting the details as it is possibly a way off yet.

It is not the new Saleem terminal due to open but the planned Iranshahr terminal. Google it.

It's a planned new terminal at IKA all tied in with making it an airport city free trade zone. First phase would handle up to 20m PAX, expanding to 110m. Can't see them doing anything particularly quickly, especially whilst sanctions are in place, but that kind of expansion could represent serious cash in the years to come for WSG.

Eskers I can help you out with that. I picked up this a few weeks back, but didn't bother posting the details as it is possibly a way off yet.

It is not the new Saleem terminal due to open but the planned Iranshahr terminal. Google it.

It's a planned new terminal at IKA all tied in with making it an airport city free trade zone. First phase would handle up to 20m PAX, expanding to 110m. Can't see them doing anything particularly quickly, especially whilst sanctions are in place, but that kind of expansion could represent serious cash in the years to come for WSG.

Fairview, Iran is different to SL. We are not providing the security guards. We are providing equipment, training and compliance monitoring. The exchange of letters was designed to originally take place 8 weeks after the contract was signed, to give us the opportunity to get everything in place whilst knowing that the terms of the agreement were fixed. The SPV had been set up but it is not up and running yet.

Fairview, you are of course assuming that the continuing hold up is purely down to WSG. It may be, but it might not be. The client might also equally be waiting for the EU to get the SPV up and running. But let's assume for arguments sake that your assumption is correct. Which international security companies with the necessary expertise do you think they would be able to work with? Can't be US, nor Israeli. Nor the likes of G4S either as they have US exposures. In practice, it would be very difficult for the client to switch now as there are probably few companies either wiling or able to take our place. Then there is the issue of how long it took WSG to put everything in place. Any new company would need to do the same, all of the due diligence that they would then need to do on their supply chains etc. That won't be quick. And if it is us holding it up, you'd have to ask why? What is the issue? Surely any new entrants would be faced the same issues? and if we can't solve it with 3 years experience of negotiating with Iran, how will someone else with no such experience manage to wave a magic wand over it? I think you're worrying over nothing.

Source - RNS.

DHC we already know what the construction and project management jobs on the website are about.

Mike, it isn't "almost as if they are saying", they are saying it, very clearly, plain and simple. No ifs, no buts. We have already been out there and signed. The contract is final. It is now just waiting for the relevant government's approval process. Once we get that, we're off.

What I thought was interesting was the comment that they had "recently returned". Compare that with the December 17 RNS re Iran which stated "just returned". Spot the difference? How many times have posters on here commented on how carefully our RNSs are written? Imo, Africa clearly wasn't signed immediately before Xmas. It sounds like it was before then, so the clock was already running. How long is recently? days or weeks? imo if it were days it would have still got a just returned label. "Recently" to me indicates weeks not days. This really could drop at any time and I doubt there will be anymore announcements before it does.

You are right to also highlight the material advancements on other opportunities, which has largely been ignored on here. I don't think that we have had a recent RNS making such a positive statement on them. It says we have been in discussion for sometime and we have now made material advances. That doesn't sound like just more discussions to me. That sounds like we have contracts being drafted. The question is is how near are they to being finalised and signed? Well they have been discussed for sometime and we have made material advances. That suggests to me that they are well past the first draft stage. Perhaps not finalised like African, but getting close. Also interesting is the comment "a number of other airport prospects" How many is a number? Well clearly more than one. Two? Possibly. But a couple would probably have been more appropriate wording if that was the case. Three? could well be imo.

So we have Africa, which could drop at anytime, Iran which could now start to move to completion now the SPV is set up, and two?, three? maybe even more? opportunities that are progressing very well. This really could get interesting very quickly.

AIMing, if you look at the bottom of the last TR1.you will see the beneficial ownership chain which lists HH as the owner and 3 Cannacord entities as having 100% controlling interests. So the that Bloomberg are showing them as separate shareholders owning different numbers of shares suggests they have a glitch in their system.

You can also refer Bloomberg to https://www.wsg-corporate.com/investor-relations/shareholders/ which shows Cannacord along with PF, R Worrall and H Jamal as major shareholders.

I'd qualify your early statement slightly in that the price will depend on both the demand and the supply of shares. 19.84% of the shares are held between just 4 holders, all of which I suspect will be very sticky shares.

And HH were insiders, so they knew it was Iran when they invested.

The last TR1 I can spot is Oct 17 and that was definitely listed as Cannacord. If they had sold them to another institution there would have to have been a TR1. Likewise if Cannacord had been acquired there would have been a similar notification, as there was when Cannacord purchased Hargreaves Hale. Where are you seeing Marlborough listed?

AIMing I think they still own 13,133,333 shares. The last TR1 that I recall was Oct 2017.

Really Vander? what makes you claim that?

On the contrary I suspect that the SPV is the last piece of the jigsaw waiting to be slotted into place. I suspect that either WSG or the client, or maybe even both, are waiting for the SPV to be concluded on before signing on the dotted line. If I'm right I'd probably expect the SPV to be operational, as opposed to just set up, before the deal proceeds, but once it is, things could happen quite fast imo.

In the meantime we can just sit back, relax and look forward to the news that the African contract has been signed.

Happy days!!

Only1gibbo Sunday 13.22 "My personal view is that similar to what happened with Iran, WSG have already signed it and are awaiting on the client's approval"

WSG Tuesday 7.00 "Contracts have been drafted and, at the request of the client, Westminster have signed, and we await counter signature from the government."