Member Info for Straycat

The 'current contract' will not be upheld.

The bet is that the next version retains the fundamentals.

If not then it's a sell for me.

It may now be a sell.

It won't matter to me...I've made a fortune out of this share.

I don't think it's a sell right now, because I still believe in the principles on which GKP was re-established in 2016 after the Restructure.

Self-funding growth to ca. !00kbopd.

Certainly I could be wrong.

I simply don’t understand why shareholders think they’re going to get that $151m back.

Of course it’s owed.

Of course it’s overdue.

Of course, legally, it’s indisputable.

But, put simply, it’s going to get negotiated away.

As part of a much bigger re-negotiation.

Where the delinquent debt will be massaged into the new deal.

And lost.

Get over it.

TM,

That is a really thoughtful post.

I haven't checked its veracity, but I'm not sure I need to.

Your vision of the future?

I can’t properly respond to your question.

I’m not on the ground, I don’t know the personnel and none of us know the daily pressures they’re facing.

But on your broader point, you’re wrong.

Success and performance are not the same thing.

Loyalty has a role to play too.

You don’t throw a good manager under the bus because of events outside his/her control.

Performance should be rewarded according to strict and agreed arrangements.

‘Success’ in this case is a variable that is clearly outside of GKP’s absolute control.

You simply measure the senior employees as to agreed terms.

And not just give them options for just sticking around.

Absolutely ridiculous posture.

1) I would nominate reward in terms of Key PERFORMANCE Indicators; not ‘Key Success Indicators’;

2) That would draw in the senior employees to specific targets set for each of them, not ‘Success Indicators’ that might be out of their control;

3) Crucially, I would make sure they were paid salaries appropriate to the risk attached to what they are doing…careers matter;

4) Finally I would require them to buy into the basic premise of debt free funding to 100k bopd.

There is no magic here.

Risk is attached to senior management.

So you have to pay for that risk.

And you have to reward performance on an individual basis based on the specific job requirement.

Big bonuses will do that without compromising greater shareholder value because they’re paid out of profit performance and not ‘a given’.

It sickens me that GKP are about to embark on another buyback, but this time one which is clearly defined simply by the reward for turning up for three years.

Cancellation is the way forward, and bonuses for individual performance based on individual efforts.

JH’s job is to coral those efforts for the greater good.

And reward them accordingly.

Not through option shares for pitching up.

Yes, I've noticed that.

They'll be a level at which the Market has recalibrated.

Is this it?

Ha!

'whining here doesn't count.'

Love it.

No 'whining ' here.

Simply an attempt to get to the truth of the JH management ethic.

Are the senior management now self-fulfilling, or acting in our best interests?

The next 10% buyback will tell us all we need to know.

Unless it's for cancellation, then I'll definitely have a view.

And as far as I can tell the next purchases will not be in our shareholder's best interests.

Oh Dear.

You've missed my point entirely.

Management has a duty to manage.

Paying people to turn up is not the same as incentivising them to manage.

And if you let them stay in post just for sitting in a seat, that's not good enough in my world.

They should be incentivised for performance... it's not a difficult concept.

Pay them appropriately for sitting in their seats and then then pay them more for getting up and developing the performance of GKP!!!

Is that too subtle for you?

'Compensation schemes'...

What the Hell are you talking about?

FFS, you pay your employees the right rate and then reward them for performance.

NOT to compensate them for sticking around.

Idiot...

'Totally irrelevant.'

The Board's motives for buying back are a central issue.

And the Board are buying back on this first $10m tranche because they think the share price is intrinsically undervalued.

And they're cancelling.

You've never got the idea that buying back to Treasury is fundamentally different to buying back for cancellation, have you?

If you buy back for cancellation, the shares are gone forever.

If you buy back to Treasury those shares are dormant and can re-appear.

In this case in the hands of employees who are essentially being bribed to turn up to work for a period.

We don't even know the terms of those Treasury share releases.

Are you just a Bot?

Or are you real?

So the next buybacks @ 10% of the residual Common Share stock are clearly for internal consumption and will most likely be for employee benefit.

Which means they are not the same as cancellation buybacks.

Because they will almost certainly be re-introduced into the Market via employee incentives.

What I want to know is; what's the incentive apart from turning up to work every day for three years?

And the argument about capital returns to shareholders doesn't work in the context of the Board's declaration that they believe that:-

'...GKP's current share value trades at a significant discount to the intrinsic value of the Shaikan Field and does not adequately reflect the near term free cash flow generation from local sales.'

I think financial/economic models need to encompass the fact that the Board think they're share price is fundamentally undervalued.

I also think that there should be more buybacks for cancellation. A lot more.

But I doubt it...

As PI’s we must stop living in LALA Land.

And play what’s in front of us.

Forget the delinquent $151m debt. Now a bonus.

Forget the current PSC. Now a bonus.

Forget KRG support. Now a bonus.

However, seems to me that even without any of that support, it might be that the Board have found a way forward which works for us as shareholders in the current circumstances.

And here’s the thing; I’m painting a worst case scenario.

I actually reckon that pipe will definitely re-open.

Yes, new terms will be agreed. And yes, there will be much debate about the new deal that is reached.

But keep your eyes on the prize.

Self-funding growth to ca. 100k bopd.

Otherwise just trade and deal.

And I have no problem with that whatsoever.

Ranting again are we?

You talk too much, (b*llocks).

Inv,

Don't worry about PUTUP.

Just background noise, nothing more, nothing less.

And if you're looking on a fix as to my shareholding, you've got no chance.

Don't be stupid.

99% approvals for the LTIP.

Does that make for a genuine business model based on performance?

Of course not.

Performance is performance based.

Measurable.

Not a gift by way of Board fear that the workforce might quit.

Pay them the right money for the job and then incentivise them to stay by way of performance to agreed targets.

Is there something so wrong with that?

This RNS sickens me.

As I predicted, it rewards (in part) 'clocking on' for the next three years.

TSR targets need to be met. Whatever they are deemed to be.

BUT:-

'...the Remuneration Committee have the discretion to review vesting outcomes to ensure a fair reflection of performance.'

Nightmare.

What a joke.

What ever happened to rewarding performance as the sole criterion for earning bonuses?

What have we got here?

A bunch of self serving corporate civil servants?

I absolutely cannot stand the idea of paying out bonuses for simply turning up to work for three years.

Like I said; complete joke.

The employees are either in or they're out. They either believe or they don't.

Commitment is the key, which is a Senior Management imperative and critical to longer term business success.

Bonuses should be earned.

And not by punching a time sheet.

You do know you're tying yourself in knots trying to justify your argument here don't you?

We're either undervalued or over valued.

The Board think we're undervalued.

Hence the continued buyback for cancellation.

Are they wrong? And if so, why?