Member Info for stokey12

Trendz ref 19.57 post I note that today is the deadline for the MoD to answer the 16 questions from the Defence Select Committee. If it is not signed before we might get an answer when the SRO for the contract gives evidence to the Defence Select Committee later this month. I do not have a date for this.

Kaeren ref 15.20 post if it is the ship to keep undersea cables protected then I believe one has been secured and will be modified and in service later this year. A second ship will be built specifically for UK use and will be in force later. I do not recall if a decision has been made on who will build the second ship.

Bubble2021 ref 14.26 post I cannot see why HARL would agree to novate a contract that they have to BAB or BAe.

Bubble2021 ref 12.23 post I am sceptical of such a bid in relation to the yards as this would increase overheads at a time that BAB has been disposing of businesses. Neither Methil or Arnish seem suited for shipbuilding. Can you clarify what you meant about bidding for work.

mrozzy ref 09.12 post this crossed with my 09.14 post which I was typing when your post came up. Thanks for the full Times article. Looks like BAB has about five years to find replacement work. The SNP says it wants Independence it needs to show support for Scotish shipbuilding and stop relying on the UK if it wants to be independent.

I have just seen this on the Navy Lookout twitter feed https://twitter.com/NavyLookout/status/1614544247679500291. I have not read the Times article. I note that HARL would not be affected if it is true as it was unlikely to have been awarded the contract. It also shows why HARL's strategy of working on more than one sector is a good idea. It also shows why HARL needs to secure renewables contracts.

Something in my memory says the 60% was the local content figure so is split between HARL and BMT. If that is right then Navantia gets 40% of the work but I am not sure if that equates to 40% of the value. Navantia will according to answers to parlaimentary questions be doing the rear section and HARL will do the front and mid sections. I am not very knowledgable about ships so I am not sure how complicated the different parts are to construct. So it may be possible that HARL will do around 50% of the work but get less than 50% of the value of the work. We will definitely need to see the contract details as promised.

Trendz ref 18.16 post with regards to the £77m capital injection I read it as an investment as part of the social value criteria for the bid, 20% of the marks on the tender came from social value. I believe that the £77m was part of the social vlaue element of the bid. If I am right on that then it is not a loan. Also it has to be remembered that the £77m investment is coming from the FSS contract as I understand it so it is not coming from Navantia but as part of the bid. There are political and legal problems with Navantia taking a significant stake in HARL. But let us say that Navantia take a 10% stake in HARL in exchange for the £77m investment that would effectively valuing HARL at £770m.

Si_Derman ref 13.11 post what always confused me is that the RNS in relation to it said that HARL had acquired the Atherstone so it is not clear to me if HARL had bought it or if it was jut transferred in view of the time from the start of the procurement process to the contract being signed and the costs increase. It always looked likea two for one deal.

On Wednesday I posted this 'I have just noticed that HARL Comms have not posted anything on the HARL twitter feed since Christmas Day. The LinkedIn page has only had Christmas Wishes posted last week. I cannot remember these media blackouts are they normally followed by an RNS? I know we have had these blackouts in the past.' Aim tends to rely on sentiment with a social media blackout and no RNS since the Q4 trading update sentiment in my opinion is drifting away from HARL. I do not see any chance of the share price moving upwards and staying there until comms starts doing some this radio silence is not helping. An update on HMS Athelstone would be a start I thought HARL was due to start the conversion.

Trendz ref 11.44 post the problem with a placing with the share rpice this low is that you will probably totally decimate the share price as the amount of shares that would need to be issued would be so high. I think that any need for working capital financing would be by debt rather than equity.

Trendz ref 11.28 post in the circumstances the problem would be that we do not know what other contracts have been entered into so we do not know what other revenue it has. Also we do not know the terms of the FSS contract so we do not know if there will be any payment on the signing of the contract. I presume from the way you worded your post that you are also assuming that the FSS will not be signed in Q1. Taking all the unknowns into account I am still comfortable in their being no placing in Q1.

mcadder ref 1059 post I think next time we should all ignore him and not respond to his posts.

Si_Derman ref 10.41 post I note that the lowest score in the reviews was for job security and advancement. Hopefully with the FSS contract this will improve.

I think that LSE only bans someone if there are a number of complaints.

This article outlines changes to the Procurement Bill as it left the House of Lords. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7cd87b21-844e-4e4e-899d-320ffc46e954&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2023-01-13&utm_term=

Of particular note is the provision that would allow a tender to be awarded which was not the highest scoring tender bid. This provision may allow BAB or BAe to be awarded a contract where they are not the highest scoring but met the objective of the tender. It might also help HARL in similar circumstances.

The UK's new Subsidy Control Regime which replaces the EU State Aid Rules are now in force. This article summarises the main provisions https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=2d5f8d73-bc21-4e9a-9e6a-d76d37d7296f&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email+-+Body+-+General+section&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2023-01-13&utm_term=
From a quick read of the article it would seem that should it be required state aid would be easier to obtain. This would possibly be of particular help in relation to IslandMagee where state aid would help reduce the need for other finance and allow HARL to keep a greater equity share in the project.

LSE03 ref 18.37 post this is interesting HARL will need to lock in contracts in the renewables sector to ensure that this new Freeport does not capture work that HARL may have otherwise have been expected to get. The new Planning Framework does not help.

LSE03 the full report and a summary report can be found fromthis link. https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/360/international-relations-and-defence-committee/news/175352/uk-defence-policy-from-aspiration-to-reality/

LSE03 ref 23.41 post I think that HM may have a few things to say in private. I also think her late Majesty would of had a few things to say about this policy. While HM has impeccable green credentials I am not sure that he would approve of anything that effects his beloved Balmoral.

Also I give it two months before there is a legal challenge to this policy.