Member Info for stokey12

Broomtree ref 13.04 post I would interpret that to include the Republic of Ireland as well as Northern Ireland.

Just seen this looks like HARL are engaging a wide spectrum of political parties in Northern Ireland https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7170392633008082944/ The text says

'On Friday, members of the Harland & Wolff team attended the Alliance Party of Northern Ireland Conference Dinner. We spoke with senior politicians including Tánaiste, Micheal Martin TD, and Alliance Deputy Leader, Stephen Farry MP.

Our team is always keen to engage with political stakeholders to showcase our four markets and six services approach to growing and providing excellence throughout the UK and Irish Shipbuilding industry.'

LSE03 ref 10.09 post this shows the need in my view for a Northern Ireland Investment Zone covering Belfast. Without this investment will be driven away from Belfast which might restrict how much HARL can grow in Belfast.

What has happened to the idea of HARL getting its own tugs. As I see it this together with the new debt facility could significantly reduce running costs to HARL.

Si_Derman ref 14.41 post One interesting fact, well I found it interesting, while the Methil and Arnish bank accounts are within the security the actual sites themselves are not. (See the reference to Scottish Assets and Schedule 4). So not all the HARL sites are covered. Need to read the document again to see what is said about the Northern Ireland Assets.

Broomtreeref 12.22 post can you please confirm the year of that announcement as I cannot find any RNS with that date for either this year or last year.

Before we get more comments about HARL being Hocked to the hilt to Riverstone I note that HARL have filed an updated charge with Companies House. From a quick read it just updates the previous charges to add Harland and Wolff (Marine) Limited and Harland and Wolff (Technology) Limited to the charged assets. The amount of the charge remains the same as far as I can see. You see the charge here https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/06409712/filing-history.

Just came across this article reporting on a committee meeting in the House of Lords https://www.newsletter.co.uk/business/lord-rogan-wins-ministerial-assurance-on-business-benefits-for-northern-ireland-4540071 . Of particular note is this exchange towards the end of the article '“Can the Minister tell me whether any of these jobs will come to Belfast which, as we well know, has such a long and illustrious history, both in shipbuilding at Harland & Wolff and in supplying the defence sector at Thales Air Defence Ltd, formerly Shorts Missiles Systems?”

Replying on behalf of the Government, the Minister of State for Defence told Lord Rogan: “On the question of jobs in Belfast, there is indeed a very proud tradition and industrial past of shipbuilding in Northern Ireland and across the UK.

“I take the point: Barrow-in-Furness has the licence and capability to build the submarines, but I am certain that there will be a lot of SME opportunity that includes Northern Ireland.

“In fact, we will ensure that it does.”'

It does not in terms says that work would go to HARL but I am not sure what other businesses in Belfast there are who can do sub contract work on submarines. I am sure that Consuela will enlighten us though.

Bubble2021 if your 17.40 post was aimed at Fforestgwmp then it is not their first post on HARL it is their first post in the last thirty days. I believe they have posted at least once before.

Si_Derman ref 15.18 post thanks

LSE03 ref 14.07 I do not use Facebook is it possible for you to summarise what it says.

Citizenlane ref 10.34 post if by a buyout you mean a management buyout then on the information I have I would disagree with you. The only way that a buyout would work would be is for a hedge fund or similar was to fund the buyout and provide the working capital. Also JW ould need in all probability need to provide a personal guarantee for the debts of the business. There would also be restriction on how JW ould raise funds. Personally the risk benefit analysis would not support a buyout.

Hebridean9 ref 09.54 post I would remind you that Harland and Wolff (Belfast) Limited, which is the company that Barclays holds the charge over the accounts, is legally a separate legal entity from Harland and Wolff Group Holdings PLC, which Riverfort holds the charge over its assets. The latter being the ultimate holding company of the former. I woulld not want broomtree thinking that I do not appreciate that HARL is the ultimate owner of Harland and Wolff (Belfast). So in your post your are confusing the debts of two different legal entities.

In fact I find the existence of the charge held by Barclays encouraging as opposed to a concern. Barclays who if I recall are HARL's Bankers would have been aware of the financial state of the group as a whole. It follows that they must have been satisfied that Harland and Wolff (Belfast) Limited was not about to go out of business.

I do agree that the absence of news about contracts is a worry as far as I can see the only contract that goes into H2 is the SeaRose FPSO Mid Life Extension Upgrade contract. That said I note that someody posted that workers are saying that they expect to be busy for the forseeable future. I am not at present overly concerned.

LSE03 ref 09.24 post thanks for this I forgot to post this yesterday when I saw it.

Citizenlane ref 11.34 post while I agree that a panicky or inconsequential RNS would not help the problem is that as we have not had a cntract RNS for over three months the market is probably wondering how HARL will make the guidance figure for 2024 without any material contracts.

Marcosino ref 10.01 post I would expect the finance to be sorted in March so that HARL can avoid having to pat another extension fee on the existing facility.

LSE03 ref 17.23 post the debate in the house on this can be fiund on this link https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2024-02-28/debates/8376E75D-552F-4497-B556-4F50A3D6AE8A/DefenceAcquisitionReform Unfortunately due to the length a cut and paste is not possible for me.

During questions to the Northern Ireland Ministers the following question is down to be answered, As it is number 11 I am not sure it would be reached. 'Gavin Robinson (Belfast East)

What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on support for the defence industry in Northern Ireland. '

LSE03 ref 08.02 post thanks I saw that afterI posted my 07.30 post. Before Consuela or broomtree point it out I noted that the last mandatory requirement requires the bidders to have built one turnkey vessel within the last five years. This is the only requirement that gives me a concern as it is a pass/fail question.

LSE03 ref 21.51 thanks for this. How many shipbuilders bid is dependent on the size of the ferries which is not explicitly stated in the article. I am going through the tender documents which you can find here https://bcbid.gov.bc.ca/page.aspx/en/bpm/process_manage_extranet/189676 and this information might be in them. The size of the ferries will be a imiting factor on who can bid. With its large drydock combined with the Artemis technology would mean that a consortium bid with Artemis Technology might be feasible.