Member Info for stokey12

Alansugareatyour ref 13.25 post assuming that this is the same Russell Downs as has just been appointed the Interim CEO then I am not sure that the share price will plummet https://armadaadvisers.co.uk/ . He sounds like a turnaround specialist so I suspect the markets might be pleased with this. This is the bio from a professional body for the new NED Alan Fort https://www.the-ift.com/profile/AlanFort/MjQy/ It would seem that Riverfort wants a turnaround to make HARL profitable.

In relation to any statement on Monday I will update the board at around 7am on Monday if there will be a statement. If it is a writtem statement we should have it by 2pm. If it is an oral statement then it will be about 3.30pm.

So JW is taking a leave of absence. New CEO and NED. I believe that the new short loan is to give time for a restructuring. Would not surprise me if HWMS and Scilly Ferries are sold off.

Ref my 11.17 post i will check th Order Paper on Monday and will post if I see anything.

Si_Derman ref 11.08 post I am not sure how the BBC would know that the order paper for Monday has not been published. If there has been a leak there are only two places it could come from. It would come from one of two sections within the DBT or from the Leader of the Houses's Office as they are the only two places that would know inadvance about a statement.

LSE03 ref 08.43 post apologies I was probably drafting my post when you were doing your post. Navy Lookout is one journal I take note of. The fact that they say that HARL could handle MRSS and FSS at the same time is encouraging. BAB is still unlikely to have the capacity to handle this with its current workload. In any case I am not sure if they are geared up to do a build at the speed required.

this article comes from navy lookout and is a first look at what the needs of the mrss are https://www.navylookout.com/royal-navy-outlines-multi-role-support-ship-requirements/ the full article is beyond my cut and paste capabilities. however i would draw attention to this comment. 'there are also just three shipyards in the uk potentially capable of building large ships from scratch or consolidating blocks from other shipbuilders. bab****, rosyth have a large dry dock but this is earmarked for aircraft carrier maintenance for the next decade at least. cammell laird, birkenhead has a large dry dock but limited recent large shipbuilding experience and no large gantry crane. harland & wolff, belfast has the space to cope with mrss simultaneously with fss, if not yet having generated a large enough workforce and is currently experiencing financial challenges.'

Wyndrum ref 07.50 post the only problem with your very interesting proposition is that the technical reason why HARL is insolvent has nothing to do with the loan. I appreciate you do not like the facts getting in the way but the reason for the technical insolvency is that the NAV is negative. Having looked at the accounts which I doubt you have the likely reason is that purchase orders were put in for long lead items needed for FSS. I say this because the high Trade Payables figure.

Some of the accountants on the board will correct me if I am wrong on this and whether HARL can do what you suggested.

Just seen this from CityAM https://www.cityam.com/ofcom-stomps-out-inflation-linked-price-rises-for-phone-and-broadband-contracts/?utm_source=CityAM&utm_campaign=856139eab8-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2024_07_19_06_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-856139eab8-%5BLIST_EMAIL_ID%5D From January 2025 telephone companies cannot increase charges mid contract to reflect changes in inflation. what I suspect they will do is increases charges so that they recover the money uofront based on what they think inflation will be.

In the RNS on Monday we were told that the audit report was gong through final checks and sign off. I would have thought that would take at most three days. The continued delay is perplexing to me.

Vectors ref 18.16 post As the accounts were due at the end of June and the decision was not until June I would be sceptical on that. In any event the book value would surely have been on the basis of its value subject to the legal dispute so its value would if anything go down as it no longer has the benefit of the license. As I understand wyndham's argument he appeared to be arguing that the value went up.

Wyndrum ref 16.47 post The reason for me not assuming that there was no revaluation is that this is not supported by the accounts. If you look at the Consolidated Statement of Changes in Equity for the Year Ended 31 December 2023 in the accounts and the column revaluation reserves there was no changes in this column thoughout 2023. Had IM been revalued during 2023 I would have expected to see it reflected in this column.

I would point out that the NICA decision was in 2024 and not 2023 and therefore can have no bearing on the 2023 accounts. You criticise me for making assumptions based on available data so what are your assumptions based on they do not appear to be based on normal accounting standards or available data.

Wyndrum ref 16.15 post As I previously stated to you in the accounts for the FY22 IM had a book value of circa £10.5m. As it was not disposed of during FY2023 it would still have a book value of circa £10.5m for FY2023. As I also said to you previously by one technical measure of solvency HARL is technically insolvent. However as I went on to state it is trading itself out of insolvency so this os not an issue. You appear to be trying to justify a narrative which has no basis in fact. The accounts are for the FY2023 so nothing that happens after 31 December 2023 can change the accounts. So any change in the value of IM resulting from the NICA judgement will be reflected in the FY2024 accounts and a re totally immaterial to the accounts being signed off.

ForrestGump ref 15.48 post. That joke about the Honourable Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington is in extremely bad taste

LSE03 ref 15.08 post if and i do mean if this story is true then it looks like support for JW is running out. There ar two questions as I see it. First is HARL pursuing the right strategy. With the exception of the Scilly Ferries debacle I would say yes. My view is that once scilly ferries is operating and is showing some revenues positive or negative it should be sold off as a non core asset. Harland and Wolff Marine Services could be retained although it too is possibly non core. The second question is whether the current management are the right people to execute the strategy. On this I am not sure as I said previousy I believe I do not think JW has the confidence of the markets which might hinder a recovery in the share price.

LSE93 ref 15.05 post I stopped istening after Ed Milliband finished his speech. But agree with your view. Judging by the numbe rof new bills introduced I do not thinkthey will be lettig the grass grow under their feet on anything.

Wyndrum ref 14.04 post I certainly do not think so as In my opinion that wouold be conflating two different things. That said I suspect others would disagree with me.

This from the Daily Telegraph https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/07/17/sue-gray-investigation-northern-ireland-stadium/?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1721236879 I amstarting to think that the DT hasa bias against NI receiving funding for anything.

LSE03 ref 08.42 post an interesting read I note the reference to InvestNI. Could we see InvestNI providing assistance to lower the amount of the loan needed?

The subject matter for the debate today on the motion on the Humble Address is Foriegn Affairs and Defence and shold start around 10am after the Business Question.

Just seen this on LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/feed/?highlightedUpdateType=SHARED_BY_YOUR_PAGE&highlightedUpdateUrn=urn%3Ali%3Aactivity%3A7219285772829368320 i hope HARL was in the room or is due to have a meeting soon.