Member Info for stokey12

Hebridean9 ref 19,45 post 1) you were right it was me that got the name wrong. 2) The reason why I queried whether you had the right company is that there is more than one Harland and Wolff company listed at companies house but the specific charge you mentioned is not listed in the filing history of HARL. It is possible that you are looking at a subsidiary company.

Hebridean9 ref 17.59 post In your post you say 'The financial news might well see the price fall to 6p, the debt the company will be carrying will be astronomic with little chance of paying it back' I wonder are you double counting? By that I mean assuming that the Riverfort Loan and the new facility will co exist. If you are then you are mistaken as the Riverfort Loan will be paid off under the new facility. So the total amount of debt will remain the same. In addition as the base rate is different to the one used by Riverfort the actual interest paid will be less. I believe that it would be upto 50% less so HARL would be able to pay the obligations under the new facility as the payment will be less.

As an aside I note that you have not said anything with regards to your post on the December 2023 charge and my query about whether you had the right company.

Si_Derman ref 07.36 post Hebridean9 did not post a link to the filing history so we are unable to confirm that we are talking about the same company. I am sure that the link that I provided in my 06.48 post as on checking it reerences the appointments of Sir Jonathan Band and Katya Zotova granted some months later than they were actually made but allows us to verify that it is the right company.

Can I just check are you all looking at the right company? I ask as I am following the company at companies house so I am notified whenever a charge or any document is filed and this December charge did not ring a bell. I therefore went back in my emails to the last notification of a charge I received and there was no charge registered after January 2023. The correct coompany to follow is https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/06409712/filing-history

Just seen this on LinkedIn

David Honeyman

Exciting times ahead in our Ship Repair organisation in Belfast. We have multiple projects underway and coming up throughout 2024,

If you want to be part of a dynamic and growing organisation, we would be delighted to hear from you

It included a link to this vacancy https://jobs.smartrecruiters.com/HarlandWolff/743999968425251-ship-repair-manager?trid=463ac537-35c8-4256-8fe4-47ea285de0a6 For a Ship Repair Manager

Lottie123 ref 08.37 post If a buyback is a surefire way of improving share price how do you explain Lloyds Bank. Also with only 173m shares in issue I do not see the need there is not an excess number of shares available that I can see.

Before going to jury service was doing a check on LinkedIn and came across this https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7165570770562203648/ it was liked by David Fearnley. If you follow the link to the list of Stage 1 organisation you will see that both Arnish and Methil are included. I was expecting Arnish but not Methil. The full text of the post is

Today we announce 32 of the 38 projects completing Stage 1 of the Strategic Investment Model, as well as two of the initial projects moving into Stage 2.

The SIM is helping bring ports, supply chain investors, offshore wind projects and the Scottish Government together. By collaborating we can make sure our ports and supply chain are ready to build out Scotland's offshore wind pipeline.

Global Energy Group's Nigg West Deepwater Quay Expansion and Port of Cromarty Firth's port expansion project, plus a 3rd supply chain project, will now start collaborative meetings with Scottish offshore wind projects, and Scottish enterprise agencies.

https://lnkd.in/eEgYrPi5

Broomtree ref 17.21 post As HARL has been based in Belfast since December 2019 why do you think the have not restored the production line that was ripped out. They woulld probably need it for FSS.

Broomtree ref 12.09 post thanks seeing as first steel was cut in 2017 that would mean that it will take from first steel till the first ship being available 10 years. the remaining seven will take another five years. The three FSS ships are due to be delivered in less time than it took to build one Type 26. Is it just me or does it look like BAe have been dragging on te work on the Type 26.

Just found this on the UK Defence Journal https://twitter.com/UKDefJournal/status/1758941815623815245 the initial operating capability for the Type 26 is the same as the dates for completion of the FSS. Does anyone know if there is any difference between the IOC and handover of the completed ship.

Broomtree ref 09.56 post that is why the last three words were 'in the future.'

Consuela ref 20.08 post as an initial point the information you mention would not be in the public domain as they are comercially confident. In a contract like this I would expect there to be a liquidated damages clause. Of course as you no doubt know due to your extensive business knowledge a penalty clause in a contract are unenforcable. I would alo expect that there is provision for bonus payments for early completion. There are two good reasons that HARL will be looking to avoid the former and get the later. Firstly, it would in my estimation take about two days of liquidated damages payments to wipeout any profit element on the contract and about four days to turn it into a loss making contract. Secondly, as noted in the free advertising thread there is a film crew documenting the refurbishment of the SeaRose so it would be an advantage to HARL if they could point to an independently made film showing how they were able to refurbish a 272 metre long FPSO on time. As this film would be shown in the North American area it would be a good advertisement of HARL which would not cost them anything as the client is paying for it.

Comsuela ref 19.56 post if you had read my 19.25 post you would have noticed that I did state that it was a Team Resolute as I said 'HARL on the other hand as part of Team Resolute '. I am fully aware that the contract sits with Navantia that it is why I always refer to the manufacture sub contract. I note that you ignored the point I was making which was that BAe and BAB working together could not put together a compliant tender bid. Also with the knowledge transfer being provided by Navantia HARL would be able to bid for contracts with a lower headcount than BAe or BAB as evidenced by the Team Resolute headcount being a third that of Team UK. I think you will find that these the day of a single yard doing all the work especially when it comes to large defence contracts have gone so it is unlikely that BAe or BAB will do a solo bid either. With the reduced headcount based on the skills being passed by Navantia if BAe, BAB if they all put in technically compliant bids then HARL would win on costs so I would argue that HARL is a strategic threat to both BAe and BAB in the future.

Consuela ref 19.20 post I would observe that both BAe and BAB were part of Team UK who did not put in a compliant bid for FSS. Without knowing why it was non compliant I would not bet on them being able to make a sucessful bid on a competitive tender. HARL on the other hand as part of Team Resolute did put in a compliant bid so either on their own or as part of a consortium might be able to win work that BAe or BAB might have got.

Xenor ref 18.00 post but a takeover as opposed to a trade sale would leave both BAB or BAe with non core assets to maintain which is another reason why they would probably not be interested.

AimMaster2018 ref 17.29 post I think that it is more accurate that there has been no recent takeover rumours. I doubt that either BAB or BAe would be interested for a couple of reasons. Firstly, they have enough work of their own to do without the distraction of a takeover especially if it was to go hostile. Secondly, BAB has only just restarted paying dividends after a four year hiatus I am not sure their shareholders would be too happy if they were to engage in any kind of expansion which might put their dividend at risk. Thirdly, I am not sure that the BoD would consider £19m as fair value this would go back to my first point about a hostile takeover. Fourthly I am sure that the MoD might have words as a takeover by BAe or BAB would seem to go counter to government policy to have three defence companies.

AimMaster2018 ref 17.04 post do you want to start a separate thread on this topic making it easier for people to find.

LSE03 ref 11.27 post Construction appears way off going by the timeline. we need to speed the process up. Agree that Arnish is in a good position.

Came across this https://cruiseradio.net/world-cruise-ship-titanic-shipyard/ I note it says multi million dollar refurbishment not sure how much work will be done by HARL but it sounds substantial.

Bubble2021 ref 10.32 post While JW does not have to post everything he does have to post somethings like material contracts. Also this is taken from the 9th October 2023 RNS in the section under freight service ' Further details will be made available upon completion of the acquisition. ' Having undertaken here to provide details it is in my view incumbent on JW to provide the further details. The failure to do so might undermine market confidence in HARL management. It is also likely to antagonise shareholders who feel they are being kept in the dark.