Member Info for stokey12

RazorShulz In relation to your 14.34 post I feel my questions are appropriate as they are designed to ensure the BoD are more careful in given estimates of likely work.

NigelHaemoglobin In relation to your 14.16 post point taken.

Jabido In relation to your 13.00 post I will try and attend but as I would be finishing three days of school admission appeals I am not sure that I ill be able to attend in case I do not I would add the following questions if someone could ask them.

What is the conversion rate of inquiries to firm orders as the optimistic tone about ship repair enquiries is not matched by what I am seeing on the Belfast Harbour website.

Currently an email to the investor@infrastrataplc.com email address has based on responses a zero chance of being acknowledged and a 1 in 3 chance of being answered. What steps do you propose to take to improve on this.

Can you provide an update on the Triumph Subsea Services Negotiations do you still feel the LOI would be converted into a contract.

It was previously noted that the Heavy Load carrier Pugnax is at anchor just outside port in Belfast and has been since April 29. It would now seem that the CIELODI SANFRANCISCO which is an Italian Bulk carrier has joined it at anchor. I wonder if either will eventually berth in port. There is n current indication that they will.

NigelHaemoglobin In relation to your 15.23 post I noted that discrepancy as well. As far as I can tell the discrepancy is caused by Cenkos basing its calculations on the basis of confirmed contracts together with an estimation of ship repair work based on the level work obtained last year. I think that JW has his forecast based on projected work so if the work does not come in as expected then the breakeven point would not be reached. The other concern which feeds into this is that there is a difference in the gross margin rate Cenkos is using a gross margin rate of 18% INFA are using a higher rate. In the half year report the gross profit margin was 22% so the rate used by INFA is not unreasonable. I am not sure where or how the 18% is coming from. We will have to wait for the December Trading Update to get an indication of whether Cenkos or INFA are correct on the breakeven point.

Earlier this week JW posted on LinkedIn about the first delivery of steel at Methil. As the Saipem contract does not start for over a month is this delivery for another contract or is INFA getting the raw materials in early?

Lottie123 In relation to your 12.49 post this is a positive development. As I see it INFA needs one or both of the following to happen. The IslandMagee project to go ahead and the ML to be granted. The slight niggle with this is that if INFA is to avoid further delay then the maximum foreign investment in the project would need to be below 25% or it would probably trigger a mandatory referral to the Secretary of State under the National Security and Investment Act 2021. The other thing is that INFA gets a significant proportion of the contracts to fabricate the jackets for the wind turbine. With the number of wind turbines that will be needed across all the offshore wind licenses even a 25% share of these contracts would be transformational.

Avyererdowt In relation to your 10.08 the low profit margins on shipbuilding is why I think INFA is going for a strategy of engaging in five different sectors. I note that Cenkos gave a blended gross profit margin of 18%.

pacman27 In relation to your 07.47 post the more important thing is that Saipem will be making progress payments from August. These payments may mitigate the amount needed for a performance bond. I suspect that part of the reason for the performance bond was that the yard went into administration so they want some reassurance that the same will not happen again.

BlairPeach In relation to your 21.37 post having double checked, as far as I am able, both your posts and JWs statements a practice I would recommend. I think the true position lies somewhere between your negative spin and JWs positive spin.

I think that next time the BoD should not make decisions based on what politicians say they will do. At the time of Appledore purchase are illustrious Prime Minister was at the Shipyard making promises of work to come. Nine months later still waiting for him to make good on his promises. If HMG had kept to its word I doubt that this placing would have been necessary.

Taking all the information that I have been able to verify I am now of the view that this is a buy due to the long term prospects. For personal reasons I am not taking part in the open offer.

Can I ask in relation to the shareholders meeting how many people are planning to advise their broker to vote against or abstain on the resolutions.

Just seen this https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6795287103283585024/ I am not sure what a Sales CRM Coordinator does.

Morning post from JW on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:6795242626938351616/ looks like progress at Methil.

While unlike BlairPeach I neither think that the move by the BoD into shipbuilding was a mistake or that the ML and the wider IslandMagee project is needed for the future of INFA I do have a concern that I hope someone on this board can address. The rhetoric from JW about the level of ship repairing contracts that H&W can expect and the timing of this work is not being met by what I am seeing on the Belfast Harbour website. Although there are ships berthing for 2 - 3 weeks worth of repairs the gap between one repair job finishing and another starting is 1+week. This does not seem to match with the statements about the level of enquiries that are being received.

As with others I am confident about the mid - long term future for INFA and that view is not dependent on what happens with the IslandMagee but the BoD needs to be more upfront on work levels as they eroding trust.

Just seen this from the Belfast Telegraph https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/new-flagship-vessel-should-be-built-in-belfast-naval-architect-40380038.html. If this gets the go ahead then it would be a feather in the cap for INFA. The fact that the architect is saying that H&W can build it seems to imply that H&W could build the HMS Prince Philip.

Avyererdowt In relation to your 20.38 post of yesterday it is not necessary to sell the whole of the IM project to raise the finance for the project. In fact the way INFA is structured I am sure that is not what is intended. If you recall INFA has two operating divisions. One for the shipping companies under the Harland and Wolff brand. The other is the energy division which contains the IM project. With this structure you can create a subsidiary company within the energy division and shares in that company could be sold to raise finance without diluting the shares in INFA.

I note that it has always been said that finance will be at project level and I think what is described above is what is meant or some variation of it. It is also probably what Chitta123 meant in his 13.28 pot when he said 'It's my belief that the gas storage project will be partially sold off'

Avyeredowt In relation to your 13.36 post you could be right the reason I had in my mind is this quote 'Jake Berry, who is chairman of the Northern Research Group of MPs, has called for HMY Prince Philip to be built by Cammell Laird on Merseyside.' which came from the Sky News report on the matter together with the price tag of circa £200m. So there will be some heavy lobbying from MPs on it.

Avyererdowt In relation to your 11.23 post I was only comparing him with Jake Berry who is one of the local MPs for the area covering Cammell Laird. As a novelty they could make the decision on a commercial basis.

Bubble2021 If INFA can get the contract it will be a feather in its cap. It does have experience in building yachts. Also in the battle of the MPs I think Sir Geoffrey Cox has more weight than Jake Berry. It does not help that Cammell Laird did not complete its last ship the Research Ship Sir David Attenborough on time.