Member Info for Ovets

No LEEDS5, they were the 3 guys sitting next to him, all wearing boiler suits!

Michael, make sure you're socially distanced, or you might catch something nasty!!

Oh dear, the always delightful Ralphy losing it and the equally charming Kurgy suddenly gone all quiet.
Maybe you two should contact your charm school and ask for a refund?

It may not have been Lough himself, but it is alleged that there was and still is, a management culture that found it acceptable behaviour.

Wasn't it, that paying a mere £90million was far cheaper than having to fix the causes of their sewage problems, so they went into this whole affair with their unscrupulous eyes wide open?

If that's right, I'm not sure that's the sort of person I'd choose as a chairman

All very true in theory, but try putting that into practice. Don't think you'd last long.

Just to add - RKH can ill afford to waste any cash, let alone £200,000 (or whatever the fee might be), but in this context that would be peanuts by comparison with what a good negotiator could achieve.

Please don't be facetious about this.
There's a lot to negotiate, e.g. with the FIG such issues as licences and licence renewals, especially if another party gets involved, temporary harbour decommissioning, CGT.
Then there's Navitas and HBR to think about - far too much and complex to be left to the likes of Sam & Co.
If you don't agree, then perhaps consider the brilliant job of negotiating they've done so far and then have another think.
A good negotiator would more than recoup any fee (several times over) and might act in an advisory capacity, rather than conduct the negotiations themselves.

As for Sam having his head in the trough, if a capable negotiator delivered the right outcome, then Sam & Co. would benefit greatly.

There's too much at stake to leave to amateurs.

Cyan, when I posted "So who to bring in to make the difference?", I wasn't suggesting replacing the BoD, although that might have been, and one day might still be a great idea. I agree that now isn't the moment.

What I was asking was who could one recruit as a negotiator to do a better job than this bunch of amateurs?
Sam & Co. would probably have been OK, if everything had gone just fine with a very wealthy, experienced and dynamic partner just walking in, taking the lead in developing SL. But as we know, that didn't happen and Sam & Co. have shown themselves to be very poor at anticipating bumps in the road. Instead of planning for the unforeseen bumps in the road, they've spent their time and the company's money on pampering their sore bottoms.

So to return to my question "So who to bring in to make the difference?", who can lead the negotiating team?
There's a lot to do, with FIG, HBR/PMO, Navitas and hopefully a new partner.

Something RKH are going to have to do, very fast, is improve their negotiating skills.
I don't believe the current bunch are capable and those they're going to be negotiating with must know that.

So who to bring in to make the difference?

Waffle eh, Ralph?

You still haven't produced those posts where you allege I called you a boiler room deramper and alcoholic.

Regarding the 50% due diligence reduction, my understanding is that it's 'up to' 50%, so even if a reduction does apply, it could be less than 50%.

I know this is a dazzling vision of the bleedin' obvious, but SL is either going ahead, or it's not - that is an absolute certainty.
I'm here at least to see SL FID, or better still sanctioned. It's possible that RKH could be taken out before that happens.
If none of that happens, then I agree that, even with a big OM pay out, there's unlikely to be much to distribute, once the vultures have picked over the carcass.
But I'm not here for that.

As I said from the beginning, this was always going to be a bet, not an investment, but it isn't over yet by a very long way.

I think the current kerfuffle about energy supply and prices emphasises just how reliant humanity is on energy. At the moment, there isn't enough renewable energy to meet a fraction of the overall demand, let alone reliable renewable energy, so oil and gas continue to take the strain.

There's always the risk that SL won't go ahead, but as things are now, I can't see it not going ahead.
With the 40th anniversary of the Falkland War next April, there's going to be a great opportunity for Boris to make some grand jingoistic gesture to galvanise support before an early election, just as Thatcher did before the 1983 election, which she spectacularly won.

First, the tribunal has to schedule this new, unexpected work into their schedule, and they have to appear to be giving it due consideration.

If they answered immediately, the loser would complain that they had been a bit too quick.

Please filter the fool - it's just too inane to have to read and merely clogs the BB with noise.

I think an "out-of-Tribunal-settlement" would be unlikely and unwise.

The Italians are notorious wrigglers, with frequent changes of Government.
Having agreed a settlement, they would procrastinate long enough until the next administration, who would say that they didn't agree to anything, so bad luck RKH.
Any settlement MUST be the formal award, in stone, from ICSID.

and, of course any potential predator knows this and will make any offer correspondingly low.

MrSlaphead, I think you're conflating some unrelated issues.
Yes the Bod is useless, but I don't believe the ICSID announcement has anything to do with that, except that, once again, they got involved in something that went wrong.
The ICSID delay is more likely a procedural/legal point issue, as discussed here already.

RKH doesn't have the luxury of loads of spare time to wait for the lawyers to finalise their decision/announcement, so in that respect, I suppose there is a connection.

Agreed - as I emailed Glen:
"What we need is an injection of dynamism, anticipation, imagination and much improved negotiating skills.
SL may be a great asset, but it can't be assumed that it will go ahead on the strength of that alone.
Also, with our BoD's negotiating skills record, anyone negotiating with our BoD will expect it to be easy.".

No Ralph, I may not have agreed with a lot of what you posted, but those were not terms that I ever used, so please withdraw them.

P.S. They certainly don't justify the remuneration packages they are enjoying.

Ralph, I think you recall things differently to me - it's all very well being smug now, but you seems to have forgotten that we have experienced some dramatically unforeseen events. However, I agree that if we'd had a more dynamic BoD with imagination, the unforeseen events might not have been so calamitous.
I suppose our BoD should have planned for the unexpected, rather than just assume that SL is such an amazing asset that the project would go ahead without too much effort. At least they should have been sufficiently nimble to think and re-plan on their feet.
What bothers me is that the same management team is now supposed to get us over the finishing line. Maybe Glenrothes' initiative will help, but I fear that our lead-footed management team doesn't have the sparkle to come up with imaginative ideas, or the negotiating skills to get the best deals.
We've seen so many examples, where our management team didn't think of covering important points in various contracts, so we end up being stitched-up over and over again.
Our BoD needs to accept Glenrothes offer of help, to ensure we don't just carry on doing the same things.

I agree that this "bad news" could actually be an amazing opportunity, but the management team doesn't have a track record of doing well in a crisis.