Member Info for Only1Gibbo

Hence why “ we are investigating putting measures in place to isolate the contract in a dormant German subsidiary. Such measure would mean that should circumstances change in the future, to safely and legally allow the project to go ahead without impact on the rest of our business”

It can easily be isolated, particularly if debt financed (maybe government backed) from within that entity too.

When you say it can’t be ignored Don Franco, you seem to be ignoring the fact that it wasn’t Iran that breached the JCPOA. It was the US. Who then used its considerable leverage to threaten and force other countries, including our own, to also comply with the sanctions they had imposed on Iran. Prior to that inspectors had consistently stated that Iran was in compliance with the JCPOA. It was working. Biden was one of the architects of the JCPOA.

Iran really has just been trying to force the US back to the JCPOA and to lift sanctions. I don’t think it really had any other choice, in order to motivate / force the US to return to the JCPOA.

It seems to me that the real issue has been that the US nationalists under Trump were unable to forgive or forget the humiliation of the embassy siege 40 years prior. It was no coincidence that the the US pulled out from the JCPOA on the anniversary of it.

Going forwards , I don’t think Biden will ignore the fact that Iran has broken the limits imposed by the JCPOA, that will of course need to be addressed as part of lifting sanctions.

What has changed in Iran's make up since 2016? Nothing. The change was with the US, not Iran.

Phil, this is the comment you refer to in the 2019 financial statements. It clearly refers to the project being put in hold, not abandoned, making the key point that no further expenditure is taking place on it. One can always take something off the shelf once it has been placed there.
Exceptional Items

“The exceptional item of £0.1m (2018: £0.4) is the pre-contract costs on a Middle East airport project. This project was fully shelved in the first half of 2019. The costs relate to the period up to 30 June 2019.”

The fact that it is on hold and not abandoned is clearly illustrated by other official WSG announcements.

RNS 24 May 2019 – Final Results (at the end of the period you say the project was ‘abandoned’ in)
"The decision to place the contract on hold, whilst frustrating for the Company and its shareholders, was however the right and sensible course of action whilst we continue to work with government bodies and the client to resolve the various challenges and monitor developments in the region. The contract is structured so that all that is required to commence the project is an exchange of Board letters and there is no time limit on this. Both parties remain committed to the project but need to be sure that once started the project is able to be safely delivered."

RNS 21 Jun 2019 – Saudi JV (also at the end of the period you say the project was ‘abandoned’ in)
"The Parties have also acknowledged and agreed that Westminster has business interests and prospects in many counties around the world and this Agreement will not in any way affect Westminster's business outside of Saudi Arabia."

RNS 15 Aug 2019 – Half Year Report (AFTER at the end of the period you say the project was ‘abandoned’ in)
Iranian Contract
"As previously advised, our Iranian contract remains on hold whilst we continue to closely monitor the geopolitical situation and the future of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and it no longer features in our internal forecasts. In order to preserve the potential of this project without affecting the Group's other business activities, we are investigating putting measures in place to isolate the contract in a dormant German subsidiary. Such measure would mean that should circumstances change in the future, to safely and legally allow the project to go ahead without impact on the rest of our business we would have the option of re-activating it by exchange of board letters with the client."

So to suggest otherwise is as I say an attempt (albeit a very poor and feeble effort) to misrepresent the facts, like you usually do.

Likewise your assertions that no overseas travel can take place. They are also factually incorrect.

What a lot seem to forget is that Iran needs to update and improve its airport security. That issue has not gone away. US and Israeli security companies won't touch them, neither will larger organisations with significant US business. If Iran's economy is to recover it will need air travel and for that to be both safe and perceived to be safe. It is in everyone's interest for any plane taking off from any airport to be safe, so I wouldn't be concerned about Saudi. Remember the Iran contract is signed and it just awaits the exchange of board letters.

Yawn, we've been through that before Phil, you're misrepresenting the facts yet again, as usual.

Clearly any sort of border closure potentially makes things more difficult.
However,
1. It won't necessarily be an issue if French staff are already overseas
2. There are exemptions, including cross-border workers and hauliers, and other groups such as students, health workers and diplomats, although the list is not fully defined.
3. And perhaps most importantly, I don't think the 5 airport location is a Francophone location anyway.

Actually it is 33 because Burundi and Rwanda.have also been added. Not that I think that is an issue as the location of where I believe the 5 airport deal isn’t one of the 33. :-)

Thanks Jim

@JimPrice - out of interest when did you get that reply please Jim ?

Well I can’t stop you being an idiot if that’s what you choose. You’ll possibly have noticed that your revenue number for the year was actually achieved in Q1, a number entirely consistent with 25% (3 months open) of 2019 for an airport operating with record numbers, and one that would have been reviewed by external auditors prior to the half year results announcement.

So, if you want to carry on having wet dreams over the idea that WSG may have been impacted even harder than it was, based on non specific IATA numbers for the whole of the continent of Africa, you carry on. I’ll just stick to the facts.

Dear dear dear, there really is no hope when folk have to resort to making it up instead of quoting the information already provided.

From the half year report
Revenue from Sea in H1 £2.0m (Scanner for Asia $1.6m and Tema $1m) At average GBP/USD circa 0.8 = £2.1m)
Revenue from Africa in H1 £1.9m (If Tema is $1m (£0.8m) then Lunghi is £1.1m in H1. This is consistent with record passenger numbers up until airport closed at the end of March (not Feb as you state)
Airport reopened 22 July
A selection of fortnightly passenger numbers (these are arrivals and not departures, but no reason to think they would be wildly different ) since reopening show

Date PAX Flights
16/9 - 30/9 3131 19
4/10 - 18/10 3310 29
20/10 - 1/11 3043 24
9/11 - 23/11 3616 27
11/1 - 25/1 3482 22

So an average of 3,300 PAX per fortnight = 6,600 PAX per month * 5 months * $39 = $1.3m = £1.0m

So annual revenues for Lunghi will be likely be £2.1m as opposed to the £1.1m that you quote Bigears . That is therefore entirely consistent with the 40 - 50 % quoted by Arden and PF.

I'm fully aware of the guidance Phil. I'll even quote the guidance as you obviously haven't read it.
Under the title heading "International Travel"
"If you do need to travel overseas (and are legally permitted to do so, for example, because it is for work),"

So as I stated,
1. There is nothing to stop travel other than the hassle of obtaining COVID tests and quarantine.
2. Not all WSG employees are based in the UK anyway, so even if your theory was correct (which it isn't) they could travel instead.
3. Presence in country isn't required to sign a contract, although obviously staff would need to travel (if not already there!) to implement.
4. 2 above is even more likely if it is a Francophone country.

Out of interest, who do you think flies on all of those plane leaving the UK each day given your interpretation of the lockdown rules?

Absolutely right Phil, probably not.

1. It doesn't stop anyone flying out to sign a contract.
2. It doesn't stop anyone flying out to manage the contract and train local staff. Anyone doing so is unlikely to return in the short term anyway.
3. 1 & 2 can be the same individual if given the authority to sign a contract eg via a PoA.
4. Contracts can be signed without physical presence in country anyway.
5. We have staff in other countries not impacted by UK quarantine decisions (eg GLIS and Euro Ops) that could travel to sign the contract
6. We have staff in other countries not impacted by UK quarantine decisions (eg Euro Ops) that could travel to manage the contract and train local staff.

So while such a policy will certainly make making arrangements more difficult, it won't be an insurmountable problem.

Or perhaps better phrased for AimingHigh2021's situation

If you don't buy a house and then the next day someone comes along and offers you 25% less than what you didn't pay for it, you can't sell the house

As opposed to those with such fulfilling lives they spend all day posting about shares they don’t own under multiple IDs?

That’s strange AIMing2021 (Phil) because your first post on 7 Dec was “You were all warned by a few on here to be very careful of the fooler”

There are plenty of planes flying in and out of the U.K. again today Phil.

Morning Phil, just took a quick look on Flightboard for Heathrow flights. There are around 150 overseas flights out of Heathrow today alone. So your “borders are shut to U.K. flights “ comment is about as accurate as every other comment you make.

There you go again H&N, spouting facts as usual. Don't you realise they get in the way of a good deramp?