Member Info for stokey12

Comment has been added in reponse to a posted comment seems tno blame attaches to HARL https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7201588296160870400/?commentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Acomment%3A(activity%3A7201588296160870400%2C7201883759569170433)&dashCommentUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afsd_comment%3A(7201883759569170433%2Curn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A7201588296160870400)&dashReplyUrn=urn%3Ali%3Afsd_comment%3A(7201965170246529025%2Curn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A7201588296160870400)&replyUrn=urn%3Ali%3Acomment%3A(activity%3A7201588296160870400%2C7201965170246529025).

Comment says

Mikael Petterson

Cruise Start-Up Entrepreneur

Michael Vidal H&W has been great!

Just seen this on LinkedIn it explains the delay in the departure of the Odyssey. Not clear if this is down to HARL or not and I doubt that speculation would be wise.

Dave Monk Award-winning cruise writerAward-winning cruise writer

19 hours ago

The maiden voyage of residential ship Villa Vie Odyssey, due to leave Belfast tomorrow, has been delayed until next week for work on a waste water tank.

In a statement, Villa Vie Residences MD Mike Petterson said: ‘During our final DNV inspections yesterday, we identified issues with the steelwork in one of our grey water tanks. To address this, we will need to extend our stay in dry dock by an additional four days. This extension ensures that we meet and exceed all DNV and MCA safety standards.

‘The safety of our guests is our top priority, and we are committed to ensuring everything is in perfect order before we set sail.’

Findingtheta ref 10.17 post I am flattered that you think I have such a pull on the share price. I do not believe that any one post on here will move the share price. It is more likely a combination of factors causing today's rise in the SP. There is always a chance I am wrong and it will take more than two weeks.

Hebridean9 ref 08.43 post That does not in my view make sense. Riverstone already have security for their loan and have a charge over the assets of the company as you have repeatedly made clear wih your frequent references to he assets being hocked. I therefore do not see why they would now want to have a charge over the shares of the company.

I am not sure how many people commenting on the new filing have a) read and b) understood what the filing means. The resolution which was what was effectively being filed states:-

'THAT new articles of association, in the form of the articles of association appended to this Resolution as Appendix A, be adopted as the new articles of association of the Company in substitution for, and to the exclusion of, the existing articles of association of the Company with effect from the date of approval of this Resolution as set out below in order to permit the granting of security and enforcement of security created over the shares of the Company.'

As I read it the previous articles of association did not permit a charge to be placed over the shares of those three particular companies. Therefore the resolution was passed to amend the articles to permit placing of a charge over the shares. This does not affect the statement by JW that the funds of Scilly ferries are separate from the funds of the other parts of the group. What I find interesting is the timing of the resolution. If I recall Kaeren posted that last week JW and AR had meetings with Ministers. It would seem that after those meetings that these resolutions were passed. Bearing in mind the purpose of a charge over shares in my view that the banks who would be lending the money that is to be guaranteed may have decided that they would rather have another form of security which might be easier to enforce in the event that it should become necessary.

Bear with me if I speculate for a minute. If the banks take a charge over the shares of any or all of the group companies and the UKEF guarantee is only enforceable in as far as the security is insufficient to cover the loan then I do not see how the state aid rules or the Subsidy Control Act would apply. I say this because the third limb of the four limb test under the Subsidy Control Act to determine if it is a subsidy would not apply and the guarantee would not be a subsidy. The IOSSC can complain as much as they like the underlying transaction which the guarantee is for is a commercial transaction on a normal basis so the guarantee is not a subsidy.

I would expect final confirmation of the finance within the next two weeks.

LSE03 ref 13.30 post two observations firstly if the cost of the renovations was/is £12m why was there no RNS? The second observation is that in the article states 'He has currently sold 280 out of 295 cabins on the ship, although more are still available on the second ship which they are planning to launch.' will HARL get the refurb contract for that one as well?

Just seen this on LinkedIn. He will have the advantage of having completed two refurbishments.

Darren Smith Director of Outfitting @ Harland & Wolff | Project Delivery, outfitting, design, shipbuilding, fabrication, refit & conversion, in-service support & marine operations

1 hour ago

I will be attending the Cruise Ship Interiors Expo Miami June 6th-7th . I'm excited to reconnect with industry leaders, old friends and meet new contacts. It's always a great platform to discuss all that is happening in the cruise interior sector. But for me its an exciting chance to showcase the fantastic things going on at Harland & Wolff.

Register for free via the link to join me there! https://lnkd.in/eDhtvZdk

hashtag#harlandandwolff hashtag#CSI24 hashtag#cruisecommunity hashtag#cruisedesign hashtag#cruiseinteriors

Ref 06.12 post it should 'the MoD cannot enforce any term in the sub contract'

Speedy_Gonzalez ref 03.18 post There is a major flaw in the argument that the government is considering rescinding the contract. That is the MoD does NOT actually have a contract with HARL to build the three FSS contract. The correct legal position is that there is a contract between the MoD and Navantia (UK) Limited for the building of the FSS ships. In addition there is a sub contract between Navantia (UK) Limited and HARL under which HARL will contract parts of the FSS ships. As between Navantia and HARL the MoD cannot not enforce any term in the sub contract unless in the contract between the MoD and Navantia there is a term falling within s.1 of the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. Absent such a provision all the MoD can possibly do is serve a contractual breach notice and require Navantia to remedy any breach that may occur if a sub contractor is unable to fulfill their obligation.

I have just seen this from UK Defence Journal via their twitter feed. https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/multi-role-support-ship-funding-and-procurement-update/ The text of the article says

In response to a question from the Shadow Secretary of State for Defence, John Healey MP, regarding the funding and procurement process for the Multi Role Support Ship (MRSS), James Cartlidge, Minister of State for the Ministry of Defence, provided the following written statement.

The statement reads.

“Funding for the concept phase of the Multi Role Support Ship (MRSS) has been approved by HM Treasury. I can confirm that the platform will be procured through the new Integrated Procurement Model (IPM), which I recently announced. As such, the next step in the programme will be for me to receive and review the Independent Advice Note (IAN) on MRSS which will inform the concept and design phases of the programme. As I said in my Oral Statement of 28th February, announcing the IPM, the aim of this note is ‘to provide a credible second opinion for Ministers to weigh alongside the military’s proposed requirement’ (Hansard ref).

The IAN will provide advice on key policy choices, to ensure we set the programme up for success from the off. In particular, this is to ensure core policy issues are transparently considered at the earliest stage, and then locked down as far as possible, so that the remaining procurement stages can proceed at pace, and in a context of underlying policy certainty. Policy areas to be informed by the IAN will include:

Industrial options, to be supplemented by in-depth engagement with industry;

Exportability, enabling any related campaigns to commence at the earliest opportunity, and providing transparency over any potential mismatch between domestic and international market requirements;

Full cost transparency, including the likely cost of associated and dependent enablers; and

Technological considerations, informed by wargaming and other evidence.

Advice would draw on expertise from across the Defence Enterprise, including, but not restricted to: DSTL; DE&S; DSE/DBT.

The total programme budget will be allocated on completion of the concept phase. It is too early in that process to have committed expenditure or actual spend.

MRSS will enter service in the early 2030s, providing highly flexible warships, able to deploy on a wider variety of operations. They will be lean-crewed, with the precise crew requirement being confirmed during the concept phase.”

Not sure that either BAB or BAe would have the capacity to meet this timetable. But with the Commbat Insertion Craft procurement being due around the same time looks like there will have to be workload sharing among HARL, BAB and BAe.

I have just seen this on twitter from one of the Union reps at Appledore. As this is the labour candidate who will be up against Geoffrey Cox I am not sue what her chances are.

Jake_Mclean

@JakeGMBrep

With @HarlandWolffplc

Appledore being in the Torridge & Tavistock constituency, local Labour candidate @IsabelSaxbyUK

will ensure the yard continues to thrive and will engage with all involved to seize the opportunities that will help to propel Appledore to the future.

Broomtree ref 14.23 post I note that the award of preferred bidder status of the Falklands bid was after the ISSOC comment so I am not entirely sure that you are right on that.

Speedy_Gonzalez ref 13.11 post it is not a question of trust. The question is what do the objective surrounding facts tell you about who is likely to be telling the truth. In this instance looking at the fact that all sites would seem to be busy. In addition the actual purpose the loan is going to be used for is not known so any impact on other sites is unknown. For reasons I have given before the IOSSC would be hard pressed to argue that any guarantee by the UK Government would fall foul of EU State Aid rules or the Subsidy Control Act so as to disadvantage them. I would observe from my experience of working with government lawyers they would ask the question about state aid. But asking the question does not mean that they think there is a problem they are just making sure that they have the answer if challenged.

Trickymatters ref 11.44 post what you say is completely contradicted by this LinkedIn post from John Wood posted yesterday.

John Wood CEO @ Harland & Wolff | design, shipbuilding, fabrication, refit & conversion, in service support and marine operations. Active in Defence, Cruise & Ferry, Renewables, Energy and Commercial

Our Methil yard announced last week it’s clear plan to build two floating dry docks at our biggest facility in the UK, the project known as project Euston has been worked on for several months so we are in a strong position when the bid pack is released. Harland and Wolff with 51% of the marine fabrication capacity in the UK are the only yard that will have that surplus capacity between its Methil and Arnish yards at that time to build this project with T26, T32 and FSS keeping all other yards busy with the expected follow on orders.

Whilst there is lots of speculation in the press Methil and Arnish are clearly front and center of our continued growth.

I think a certain journalist at the Telegraph has had a few too many glasses of wine over the holiday weekend a “Source” told me earlier.

It is business as usual in our facilities as work progresses at pace, are we fighting to get a cheaper rate of finance yes - why not. We do not see the General Election causing us any major issues in our efforts to close the deal. In any event in six weeks time things may change again with a new Government and different Ministers.

Since this story started to run it is interesting to note that not one journalist has managed to attach any of the rubbish they are printing to a factual source or quote an actual person.

To be clear we have no plans or intention to shut or mothball either of our Methil or Arnish delivery centers. This goes completely against our strategic aims and increases risks on our other major programs.

The link to it is here https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7200914207372980225/

LSE03 ref 10.22 post Very interesting as they say the timescale is tight. I am not sure if to keep to the timescale they would use more than one contractor or risk going with just the one contractor. With the timescale they are looking at I am sceptical that BAB or BAe would be able to complete the contract in time. Another point is due to the speed the MoD works this is likely to be the first tender under the Procurement Act 2023. As I said in my post this morning this would mean that there would be three published KPIs. That being the case would anyone want to risk taking on the work if they cannot meet the KPIs especially if one relates to deivery.

I noticed that the SONIA rate looks to have stabalised at 5.20%. With the SOFR rate at 5.31% so the longer the delay in finishing the funding deal the more in interest that HARL will be paying. This is not just in the slightly higher SOFR rate but also in the premium above SONIA that HARL will pay. So in my view we really do need a conclusion to the funding negotiation before H1 ends.

This from CityAM in relation to possible/likely ECB interest rate cut https://www.cityam.com/ecb-poised-to-cut-interest-rates-in-divergence-from-fed-and-bank-of-england/?utm_source=CityAM&utm_campaign=ac73a9c4b7-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2024_05_27_08_36&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-ac73a9c4b7-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D

question is whether the MPC will follow suit if the ECB does cut rates.

Ref my 07.21 post the link to the article is https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=acf48bdd-48a9-4c4c-8f26-a0ea8c698bef&utm_source=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed&utm_medium=HTML+email&utm_campaign=Lexology+subscriber+daily+feed&utm_content=Lexology+Daily+Newsfeed+2024-05-28&utm_term=

This article details issues around contract management for contracts under the Procurement Act 2023. One thing that I would pull out from the article and draw attention to is this 'Although it has commonly been best practice to set and publish KPIs for public contracts (see the Sourcing Playbook [The Sourcing Playbook - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)]), the PA23 now requires contracting authorities to set at least three KPIs for any public contracts valued at over £5 million. Given that these KPIs, and performance against them, will be published through a Contract Performance Notice, there is likely to be greater scrutiny of KPIs to ensure that they are sufficiently well defined and capable of being achieved.

Going forward, failure to achieve KPIs will also be published, creating both a reputational risk for suppliers, and a significant business risk given that unsatisfactory performance against the KPIs brings with it the risk of debarment.'

This means that for all tenders issued after October of this year for more than £5m there will have to be three published KPIs and any breach of them will be published. So from October we will see how BAB and BAe do with meeting KPIs.

A comment in relation to Project Euston made me think. After paying off Riverstone HARL will have in the region of £100m left. Could HARL be looking to use that money to bid for international tenders? They have successfully bid for the Falklands contract and I agree we should be hearing more on that soon. The costs involved in going for such bids is significant. As an example for FSS the MoD paid a contribution of £5m to cover bid costs. So for UKEF to agree to guarantee a loan of £200m where there is a potential of orders ten times that is not unreasonable. It would fit in with the purpose of the EDG.