Member Info for Only1Gibbo

I'll help you out then, the 6th was a response to Gaynelly suggesting that the relevant MOU might be Zanzibar, the 8th was a new thread titled 'Draft Contract'. So I'd say that they do relate directly.

You are indeed correct, it can be either, that is why I asked you, which one? (i) or (ii)? But it cannot be both given the stated policy of informing shareholders of material developments via RNS.

Sounds to me like you are going for (i) that the material development is that they have just drafted a contract for the first time? as you haven't heard of any others being at the draft contract stage. Which backs up the assertion that you keep stating that this is just an initial draft. But you seem confused about that as you are denying that is what you have been saying, even though you repeated it less than an hour ago.

These weren't your posts then?

27 Dec - "Contracts have been drafted (just at draft stage, so probably not - can it have taken 16 more months to get to draft contract since offering the market that expectation - where was this when they made that prediction - not even draft contract presumably?)"

6 Jan - "That’ll only taken six plus years to get to draft contract"

8 Jan - "Was that announced because it was a material development of the type they’ve said they’d notify us of - our just some ‘Hundred’s n Thousands’ sprinkled onto an otherwise naked cupcake of an RNS. IF it was the former - then are we to assume that none of the other anonyMoU’s have reached the status of “draft contract” ?? despite years of flights and negotiations, at “different stages”."

WSG have been very clear that they would only RNS material developments. So which is it Joe? RNS for draft contract means (i) that the material development is that they have just drafted a contract for the first time? or (ii) the material development is that the final contract has been drafted? It's got to be one or the other, which one are you going for? (i) or (ii)?

Yes Mike, it is impossible to contemplate that they would have stated that they expected to convert at least one other MOU (and therefore by implication possibly a second) back in January if they hadn't progressed contract negotiations on at least two of them at that point. So Joe's suggestion that it was a first draft and that none of the others have by implication even made it that far, is as ludicrous as Bigear's jumbo board argument last week.

Is it murky Vander? Have you read the Telegraph article (which is about a UN report criticising the sale of licences to foreign companies as opposed to lucrative terms) and TB's response? I'd say providing the contract to the UN monitoring group was quite transparent, not murky.

You also seem to assume that there will be a queue of foreign security companies lined up wanting to secure Somaliland's airport. Maybe we are the only one? maybe that could be a reason for a lack of a competitive process of selection, if indeed that is the case? That assumes of course that your theory of location is correct.

Just because some (whoever that undefined group may be) might be confused because they have decided to form an opinion based upon hearsay and without knowing the full facts isn't a reason to refuse to enter into a contract there imo.

However, I admire your personal ethics and look forward to your confirmation that you have donated all of your profits from WSG, should the contract be in Somaliland, to a registered charity so that you are not seen to personally profit from what you seem to perceive as unethical practices.

You need to read all of the RNS Joe, not just one word.

As ethical investors should we support the improvement of air travel security in a part of the world that desperately needs it? Yes.

There is an old saying "it's not what you know it's who you know". Personal contacts and relationships are important in most businesses. There is a huge social media platform called LinkiIn dedicated to it. I'm not sure why you think that is cronyism in this case?

Joe, You are clearly taking the word drafted to mean the initial first version of the contract. Contracts drafted could mean anything from first version to final version ready for signing. Until signed by both parties it is always draft. You choose to take the pessimistic view. Don't bother replying to tell us why, we all ready know. Zzzzzzzz.

Personally I don't think that both PF and TB would have travelled together to the location unless they thought there was a possibility that they were going to sign something. So that suggests to me it was in an advanced stage. My personal view is that similar to what happened with Iran, WSG have already signed it and are awaiting on the client's approval. But as I say that is a personal view. And yes, I know that even if WSG have signed it, it means nothing until the other side does.

I'm struggling to work out how large that is Vander.
Per https://dlca.logcluster.org/plugins/servlet/mobile#content/view/4227548 PAX of 85,800 in 2012, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hargeisa_Airport PAX of 56,000 in 2002.
But per http://www.hargeisaairport.com/ it handled 3.5m passenger trips in 2013 ?????

We know the MOU is bigger than SL but smaller than Iran, but can still be considered 'transformational' to WSG.

Vander, looking back at some notes I made a while back, I think there was
Nov 12 -East Africa
Dec 15 - East Africa
Jan - Sept 17 - two of theee MOUs were Africa

There were also three MOUs in 2016 and one in Oct 15 not disclosed where (assume one was Iran).

Feb 15 and the other MOU Jan - Sept 17 were Asia, plus we gave the border MOU in the same region as Iran.

Plus anything since they stopped announcing MOUs post Sep 17.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-24/eu-says-preparations-for-iran-spv-are-at-advanced-stage

The European Commission said it’s seeking to launch “very soon” a special purpose vehicle to help European companies bypass U.S. sanctions on Iran, with three European diplomats saying the official unveiling could come as early as Monday.

MikeGP, that should be, update on the Iran contracts (plural), don't forget there is another €2.65m (presumably tech) contract that is also on hold as well.

I'm looking forward to an update on the African contract too, I have a strong suspicion that there is already one set of signatures on it. Tick tock.

Not sure that I understand how Iran discovering oil in the southwest region for the first time puts paid to the sanctions? Seems a very poorly written article, but probably shouldn't expect anything else from the Express.

A nice chunky buy this morning from someone.

Vander, no it is not correct to say that two NEDs are recommended for small companies.

The small company reference that you refer to was in the old FRC code, which required that at least half of the board should be made up of NEDs, except for small companies that should have at least two NEDs. At least, not only.
That small company exemption was removed when the code was revised in July last year.

That said, WSG applies the QCA code, not the FRC code. The QCA code requires that there should be an appropriate balance between executive and non executive directors, with at least two of those NEDs being independent NEDs.

So with four exec directors and a requirement for at least two INEDs, three NEDs doesn't sound an inappropriate balance.

Bigears, I neither suggested that you would nor should give a hoot about who I work for, in fact I didn't even tell you who. I merely used its metrics as an example (there are many others I could have used) without having to bother looking up the details, in order to demonstrate the ridiculous argument you were trying to put forward.

So, in answer to your question, am I happy to for someone with 30 years' corporate finance experience gained in investment banking, industry and the accounting profession, who provides corporate finance advice to a wide range of clients including Main Market Listed, AIM and private companies and; who has advised on many public company transactions including hostile and recommended takeovers, acquisitions, disposals, equity and debt fund raisings, transfers to the Full List and to AIM, and flotations, with the wealth of contacts as well as the knowledge that brings? Yes I am. Very.

I don't think you are correct in that MB. I think all of Darwin's warrants have lapsed, the last lot in April 17. HH still have some, which lapse at the beginning of June this year and, whoever the Jan 18 placing was with also took some warrants with a five year life.

Probably one of the most ridiculous comparisons I have ever read on here Bigears.

To take your example a stage further, consider the organisation I work for. A BoD of 13 heads. Q3 revenues $46bn. Compare that with ASOS 3 months to 30/11 of £0.7bn. So on your metrics, ASOS must be pretty crap.

Maybe it will surprise you to realise that the day to day operations of managing 270,000 employees isn't just carried out by a BoD of 13 heads, there is a whole team of talented highly paid managers below them, as no doubt is the case at ASOS.

There's an old saying, if you have nothing sensible to say, it's best to just shut up and say nothing.

Not that it really matters Bigears, but there are only seven board members, not sure where you get the idea there are ten from?

JCPOA anniversary I think

Vander, yes my view is based on a specific piece of evidence, but I can't share it on here I'm afraid.

I hadn't realised that about Namibia either. I know that others have asked PF about it and have been told not to believe what is printed in the local press and that the opportunity is still live.