We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
---|---|---|---|
Belhaven Grp. | BHG | London | Ordinary Share |
Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
---|---|---|---|---|
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.c 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 09/9/2005 15:30 by hunting lodge I've just tried to elect for the Loan Note alternative for my BHG holding at iDealing. However, it seems that iDealing will only let me accept cash - and the CGT bill which goes with it.Also, the Halifax are insisting that, if I am to take Loan Notes, I have to transfer the shares out of my nominee account, onto a certificate which then has to be sent to the registrar for Loan Notes to be issued - I can only hope the offer is extended beyond 15 Sept for all this to go through! Anyone else had problems with the Loan Note offer? |
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 22/8/2005 12:07 by grebo BB I think I agree with you. Looked around for other brewers that look like a good place for the money I've currently got in BHG - but I couldn't find any that would look anywhere near as attractive to a bidder as BHG. So I'll be sticking around hoping for a counter bid. |
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 09:57 by grebo Thanks huttonr, have added HDYS to my watch list. Not diving in yet as prior to today's announcement I would almost certainly have chosed BHG over HDYS as BHG seem to generate better profits. Will consider buying HDYS on any weakness though. |
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 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. |
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 |
ADVFN UK Investors Hub ADVFN Italy ADVFN Australia ADVFN Brazil |
ADVFN Canada ADVFN Germany ADVFN Japan ADVFN Mexico |
ADVFN France ADVFN US ADVFN Korea |