ADVFN Logo

We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.

Trending Now

Toplists

It looks like you aren't logged in.
Click the button below to log in and view your recent history.

Registration Strip Icon for charts Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.

BHG Belhaven Grp.

0.00
0.00 (0.00%)
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Belhaven Grp. LSE:BHG London Ordinary Share GB0000905397 ORD 10P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.00 0.00% 0.00 -
Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price
Industry Sector Turnover Profit EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap
  -
Last Trade Time Trade Type Trade Size Trade Price Currency
- 0 GBX

Belhaven Grp. (BHG) Latest News

Real-Time news about Belhaven Grp. (London Stock Exchange): 0 recent articles

Belhaven Grp. (BHG) Discussions and Chat

Belhaven Grp. Forums and Chat

Date Time Title Posts
12/5/200819:25Can pratboy/bhg avoid jail in 20082
28/11/200713:19911 inside job PROVEN LOONY speaks37
26/10/200614:36Is there anybody there?280

Add a New Thread

Belhaven Grp. (BHG) Most Recent Trades

No Trades
Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type

Belhaven Grp. (BHG) Top Chat Posts

Top Posts
Posted at 03/10/2006 20:12 by tradx666
And the fantasists and deceivers cannot bring themselves to read this either;

"The initial floor collapse occurred due to the aircraft impact damage
and the resulting eccentric loading of the core columns."

"CONCLUSIONS
 An analysis of the energetics of the WTC collapse events has shown that the kinetic energy of the aircraft collisions and the subsequent gravitational energy released by the descending blocks of floors were quite sufficient to destroy the twin towers in the manner observed.

The use of explosive devices in either of the two towers is not necessary to
explain the collapse events and is considered to be highly unlikely.

The times calculated for the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2 show good agreement with the observed collapse times verifying the basic assumptions of the momentum transfer model used in the calculations.
 The calculated times represent the minimum theoretical times of building collapse. If shorter times are to be physically achieved they must involve an unknown additional source of energy acting in a downward direction. Such a source of energy does not appear to have been involved in the collapse of the twin towers.
 The kinetic energy of the collapse events was sufficient to crush the WTC floor concrete in both towers to particles 100 m in diameter, or smaller, which is consistent with the observed WTC debris particle size distribution.
 From a consideration of the strength of the WTC columns, and the effective area of support they provided, it is demonstrated that the conditions necessary for the initial floor collapse were initiated by the aircraft impacts and made irrevocable by the subsequent eccentric loading of the core columns. The fires that were initiated by the jet fuel spilled
within the towers certainly weakened steel in localized areas in the impact zones. However, it is suggested that the total collapse of both towers would have occurred even without the jet fuel fires.
F.R. Greening
greening@sympatico.ca
Original version, (1.05): March 1, 2005
This version, (2.06): February 16, 2006


A proper scientific approach to the problems;

(bhg will struggle with the whole document no doubt).



regards

T..
Posted at 03/10/2006 17:37 by tradx666
bhg,

LOL!!

Keep your head in the sand...you really are getting desperate eh?

Never mind, you only have to try and keep this nonsense up for the rest of your 'life'...

Got any money yet?

regards

T..
Posted at 26/8/2005 18:25 by bigbertie
Yes who can tell. One thing here is that with BHG such an obvious target (and the only significant target in Scotland) the likely buyers will already have run over the numbers, so if anyone else is interested they could move quickly.
The other interesting thing is that all the major shareholders seem to have been happy to pledge support (subject to conditions). Are they so pessimistic about the prospects for BHG? Or perhaps Ross has pushed them into it by threatening to leave?
Posted at 23/8/2005 15:25 by bigbertie
Quite a lot of people must believe (or hope) that a higher bid is possible, otherwise they would sell now in the market (625p now is better than 625p in a few months time). I think the bid is low - the Scottish pub market probably has a lot more scope for an enterprising smaller player than the English market, and BHG has shown it can exploit this. If GNK make their projected £5m savings it would give an effective earnings per share for BHG of about 55p by my (very shaky) calculations. That puts the cash offer on a multiple of 11.3 times BHG's contribution to GNK which is much better than GNK's present ratio. I'm not surprised GNK are forecasting that the deal will be earnings enhancing in its first full year, but I don't understand why the BHG diretors are so keen to make this a done deal.
Posted at 23/8/2005 10:06 by domtheone
Is the general concensus that the fact that the share price is already up to (and a fraction beyond) the offer price, indicative that a counter offer is a realistic possibility..

What chance, maybe 1 in 5...
Posted at 22/8/2005 12:03 by bigbertie
I'm disappointed too - this looks like an opportunist bid to get BHG cheap while W&D are busy! I quote the offer document "...BHG...has applied a clear strategy which has resulted in strong growth in profitability and enhanced returns for shareholders. BHG's primary objective remains to generate shareholder value whilst growing it's position....." Er, so why are the directors so keen to sell out?

I note that GK expect the BHG acquisition to be earnings enhancing in the first full year, (ie the year to 1 May 2007) so they can't be very worried about the smoking ban!

GK probably threatened to walk away if their bid was not agreed, but so what? The directors could have announced a bid approach, and that might have started an auction. Anyway GK would not have wanted to quit the field completely - it could have gifted BHG to W&D. The company would have remained a successful company and a likely bid target.

Just my thoughts, and I shall certainly not sell out yet.....this could just be the start.
Posted at 22/8/2005 09:16 by edmundshaw
Paul, yes, 28% is offputting, but still leaves 72%; and the directors would probably need to be given a substantially better offer, as there are probably penalty clauses for revocation. Hard to believe it's a stitch-up, but I just feel BHG could/should have extracted a higher price. The Jennings price was better IMO.

The RNS is full of apologia 'given the uncertainties of the smoking ban', 'the
Offer represents a significant multiple of the Belhaven Group's historic EBITDA' etc etc...

I also wish the offer allowed for taking up GNK shares. These damned loan notes 75 points below LIBOR are a pain...

Still, with Burtonwood, Jennings and BHG representing about 15% of my portfolio 9 months back, perhaps I should be pleased.
Posted at 18/7/2005 09:24 by edmundshaw
Given BHG assets and track record, I would hope a good premium would be needed... but price will depend partly on institutions and how keen they are for the quick buck.

Though hard to compare, premiums for Burtonwood and Jennings were around the 40% mark; more if the 'speculative' price increases before the announcements are taken into account.

The deals were reasonably fair IMO because the asset value of the running business is not in the share price (sell the assets and you have no business), but the acquirer values the assets and the continuing business when compared with buying new assets in the market (and aims to get value out of synergies and adequate EPS ROCE).

The big question is, is there someone who wants those assets to expand their business?

Holding still; AGM news I expected to be good, in fact was better than expected.
Posted at 15/7/2005 17:41 by paulf99
I would be sorry to see BHG go because the management have proved themselves over the years (in my view). It's not so often that you can find a company like this which has grown sensibly but steadily over the years. However if they get taken out, the price will be what the price will be - arguably the larger traditional pub companies (such as GNK, which I also hold, and Wolves) are rather over rated because of their perceived growth prospects. So if there's to be a premium if/when BHG is taken over, maybe that will at least take the share price up to a reasonable (if not overly generous) value.
Posted at 15/7/2005 12:44 by salpara111
Well I am still a holder but am somewhat dissapointed that the share price does not seem to reflect the serious quality of the business but then again who ever said that the stock market was rational.
M&S announced the other day its seventh consecutive quarter of falling sales and what did the share price do....yes of course it went up to within 5p of its 2 year high...hmmm. So I guess that logic has little to do with it. I am just a little concerned that a predator may be able to take BHG off the market for what I would consider to be a cheap price.
Belhaven Grp. share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange

Your Recent History

Delayed Upgrade Clock

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com