We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Type | Share ISIN | Share Description |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Oak Hldgs | LSE:OAH | London | Ordinary Share | GB00B1XLNB88 | ORD 0.1P |
Price Change | % Change | Share Price | Bid Price | Offer Price | High Price | Low Price | Open Price | Shares Traded | Last Trade | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.00 | 0.00% | 0.20 | - | 0.00 | 00:00:00 |
Industry Sector | Turnover | Profit | EPS - Basic | PE Ratio | Market Cap |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
0 | 0 | N/A | 0 |
Date | Subject | Author | Discuss |
---|---|---|---|
17/4/2012 06:51 | In future I'll stick with 100% holdings in my own companies and never buy a share in another company. What a tale of incompetence OAH was. Stuck now with an investment in this Pires company. | ghbg | |
23/3/2012 11:52 | Me too. I assume the price will open around 0.001 so not great! However, if their new business (and a competent management team) look interesting, I may well average down later in the year. | timely4 | |
23/3/2012 10:43 | Hi timely....The same gang have a few shells at the moment waiting for developments, so it wouldn't surprise me if it's a few months before we get going. I daren't think what my 800k holding is going to be worth, but I'd written it off as a lost cause in any case! Not one of my better selections. | the_beagle | |
23/3/2012 10:32 | I will be interested to see which sector they enter by buying a business with the proceeds of the fund raising. | timely4 | |
23/3/2012 10:23 | Which was? | the_beagle | |
23/3/2012 08:54 | If you do a web search of Rivington Street Corporate Finance Limited, you see it was acquired in 8 Nov 2011 by DJ Webb and then promptly disposed of in 2 Dec 2011. Part of their 'boast list' includes : - Mergers and Acquisitions - Takeovers and Reverse Mergers - Mediator between companies, the regulatory authorities and the Takeover Panel BROKING and Company Check lists them as : SIC classification: OTHER FINANCIAL INTERMEDIATION It looks like Oak are going the way of Anglo Welsh. | gbb483 | |
23/3/2012 08:04 | Life of a sort! | the_beagle | |
20/1/2012 11:15 | Whoops - its back again. | gbb483 | |
19/1/2012 17:09 | This web site is now classifying OAH as an 'unknown stock'. Other web sites are still showing it. | gbb483 | |
29/12/2011 10:06 | The trading statement gives a bleak outlook. It seems that just about everything is now pledged against loans. | pifedayo | |
04/11/2011 15:13 | My broker has just sent me an 'important' corporate announcement on OAH - it appears I cannot exercise my warrants whilst they're suspended. Oh I am put out. | gbb483 | |
29/10/2011 12:06 | Today's Yorkshire Post has an interesting article regarding the development of Rother Valley National Park:- | pifedayo | |
26/10/2011 16:23 | It looks like there isn't going to be a quick solution to this ... | gbb483 | |
24/10/2011 15:09 | I agree timely4 that there is not much we can do but wait. I'm going to leave it a few days then see if I can get to speak with the chairman. I can't find anything in the Rotherham press re the break down, but the park's website has an apology that some entry cards are not working temporarily! If anyone sees or hears anything at all relevant, please post it here. | the_beagle | |
24/10/2011 15:03 | All we can do for now is speculate on what might happen, so I am going to just sit back and wait now for the outcome, whatever that may turn out to be. I reckon it could be some months before we hear any news if they lock horns with the council, and/or get embroiled in negotiations with the new developer over the strip of land. | timely4 | |
24/10/2011 11:15 | The matter nagging at me most is how a 7 year agreement can just be terminated without notice after just 2 years. The company said it was out of the blue. If that is the case we need to be told what the agreement contained, and what were the conditions regarding terminations. However, it sounds as if Oak didn't see much value in running the park, and I'm sure we would not have taken it on had it not been for the Yes project, now dead in the water. As timely says above, Ringwood was fortunately the baby of our remaining director and chairman, and the reason he is still there, which is good. Once free of Rotherham I think he and the new man will probably hatch a plan for expansion through acquisition in the more attractive region of the south coast, where people traffic is more catchable. We may well get our shareholdings diluted by the issuance of new shares, but at least there would be some future. Time will tell. GLA TB. | the_beagle | |
24/10/2011 10:56 | True, or maybe the other way round, given the RNS about renovating those cars. I would like to know what he is up to. | timely4 | |
24/10/2011 10:30 | Probably the recently appointed Associate Director was appointed with a view to expanding the asset? at RVCP along with the other RTCE asset. | ghbg | |
24/10/2011 09:25 | The chairman came from his Ringwood association. It was Steve Lewis and the previous directors who were associated with Yes and RVCP. Surely the strategy must be to get a pay-off from Rotherham/and or the new developers and then build on Ringwood's assets? I wonder what progress the fairly recently appointed director has made in determining the way ahead? | timely4 | |
24/10/2011 07:19 | Surely the business it know best was RVCP generating the most revenue. | ghbg | |
24/10/2011 06:12 | With regards to administration of OAK, there is no need whatsoever. The Rotherham business is not connected with Ringwood etc and could be put into receivership independently if so required, leaving OAK with the businesses it knows best. I know there may be some guarantees but equally there may not be any. | the_beagle | |
23/10/2011 16:09 | The Directors have significant shareholdings but did those shareholdings cost them anything. The only one could possibly be the chairman who sold the RTCE business including vehicle restoration. I think they probably could and in the interest of shareholders should make a nuisance of themselves to RMBC, in fact it is totally unacceptable that the RMBC appear to have approved planning with staged development until 2016 and then pulled the plug on the whole business plan and now with the Country Park as well particularly as it is documented that the idea was that the Council would end up with no cost running the park and this was the supposed benefit. I think the company is left with little option but to take action against the council and if not then against their former directors and advisers if the agreements were not watertight enough. | ghbg | |
23/10/2011 07:25 | Re your last point - do you think that they could make themselves of sufficient nuisance value to extract a buy off by the new developers? Your point about administration makes sense of course except that the Directors also have significant shareholdings. So I was assuming that to find an alternative solution might be in their interests too? | timely4 | |
22/10/2011 21:23 | No doubt the move is in part to do with wider site. But the fact is it leaves OAH with nothing at present. If the planning permission is altered there is no guarantee that site access will be required over the land but over land that either already forms part of the park or over the existing approved site. The land has a Vendor mortgage on it i.e. the Vendor had a secured charge. I would put the company in to administration so as to get rid of the liabilities of the YES costs and the mortgage in respect of the land and then acquire the remaining bits of the company, almost a pre-pack administration similar to the type that retailers use when they need to get out of leases etc. On the other hand I would already have my lawyers working and putting the matters to Court and delaying the China MCD/RMBC new proposals. | ghbg |
It looks like you are not logged in. Click the button below to log in and keep track of your recent history.
Support: +44 (0) 203 8794 460 | support@advfn.com
By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions