Cradle Arc Share Discussion Threads

[timmbo] 20/1/2015 05:36

I'll get my coat, gone beyond petty now.

[dashcroft70] 19/1/2015 20:52

Timmbo

"You use LinkedIn to find out who has left the company (ie you don't know what's going on inside the company?)"

Did I?

"
And then you claim to know that if something isn't sorted out soon there will be 'disastrous consequences'?? (ie you know what's going on in the company)"

And I'm not the only one.


"
Which side of the fence are you? Rhetorical question, not bothered any more.
If you can't substantiate your comments then don't bother."

Why? Ruffling your feathers, am I?

"CRA aka CET isn't that big."

And getting smaller.

[lundylou] 19/1/2015 18:34

I wonder why the_doc doesn't change avatar. Sure he could be just as irritating,and I would be forced to read.

[timmbo] 17/1/2015 06:59

You use LinkedIn to find out who has left the company (ie you don't know what's going on inside the company?) And then you claim to know that if something isn't sorted out soon there will be 'disastrous consequences'?? (ie you know what's going on in the company) Which side of the fence are you? Rhetorical question, not bothered any more. If you can't substantiate your comments then don't bother. CRA aka CET isn't that big.

[timmbo] 17/1/2015 06:49

Dash re LinkedIn see post 28541

[dashcroft70] 16/1/2015 23:18

The doctor, hello.

You say


"What I don't get is that you slate CRA for working on no-hope projects, but at the same time seem to let the engineers involved in all of those off the hook?
As I put forward before, if the management were making the wrong decisions, what DID the engineers think should be worked on?
Very few sane staff would go to bosses saying their projects are no-hopers without offering an alternative to be focusing on. According to you, Rigby had heated arguments about this, but there's something missing. If she didn't like what CET was working on, what DID she think they should? As before, CRA couldn't just close the whole of CET down just because projects were risky.

What confuses me is that you're saying there are CET issues (which I'm open to being possible), but despite Cartmell diversifying away from CET and downsizing the DGC, you're making out he's a fool.
It seems to me that based on what you've said, he's been doing pretty much the right thing, no?
What DO YOU think he should be doing?"

I have passed no comments on anyone. I have called no one a fool.

You need to come up with something better to say, rather than trying to put words in people's mouths.

[dashcroft70] 16/1/2015 22:52

Timmbo, in response to

"And above the you refer having to look at LinkedIn to find out who has left the company"

No, I have never referred to LinkedIn.

and

"My question, how can you be 'in the know' and not 'in the know' at the same time??"

Does not really make sense to me, what are you asking me?

[septblues] 16/1/2015 16:29

2014 should have been the year of regulatory approvals. I suspect that the mgt changes 3rd Q were assocaited with R&D people and responsible board director not making adequate progress. The appointment of a heavyweight industrialist to the board would help move that along. In any event it should be no barrier (other than a psychological one) to securing orders with an adequate "provided that reulatory clearance is obtained" clause inserted. Regulatory clearances can be a bureaucratic challenge but not impossible - firms get there in the end.

[the_doctor] 16/1/2015 09:43

meijiman - valuing loss-making companies is not unusual
The main way is by valuing future expected cash flows, applying sensible levels of risk-adjustment
The issue is more that a company generating money has a clearer floor price. In contrast, a loss-making company could fall close to zero and still not be an obvious buy since the future cash flows may never come.
Corac does though have profitable Wellman units that were acquired for £11m or so (although that doesn't mean they could be sold for that again).
That gives some form of floor although if the rest of the company is spending all of that cash, the overall value still isn't clear

The way I see it - you have to take a view on whether any of the CET projects will be successfully developed and commercialised. If it's a yes, then the value of the company is probably over the current share price How much over doesn't matter.

I don't currently hold fwiw because I see a material risk that key CET projects may be reported as being delayed or dropped, but we'll have to see. Trading update expected by month end

[meijiman] 16/1/2015 09:37

How do you value a loss making company. ? Forecasts are for losses in 2014 and 2015. Bulls may have other views...

[ricardo125] 15/1/2015 23:04

Seems to be no bottom here. How low can this go. Been downward pressure for ages on the share price What can turn it around!

[the_doctor] 14/1/2015 09:19

timbo - more contradictions of sorts!


Dashcroft, thanks for your comments


You're saying don't believe formal, regulatory news releases, yet at the same time, you're believing ex-employees who are clearly bitter

What I don't get is that you slate CRA for working on no-hope projects, but at the same time seem to let the engineers involved in all of those off the hook?
As I put forward before, if the management were making the wrong decisions, what DID the engineers think should be worked on?
Very few sane staff would go to bosses saying their projects are no-hopers without offering an alternative to be focusing on. According to you, Rigby had heated arguments about this, but there's something missing. If she didn't like what CET was working on, what DID she think they should? As before, CRA couldn't just close the whole of CET down just because projects were risky.

What confuses me is that you're saying there are CET issues (which I'm open to being possible), but despite Cartmell diversifying away from CET and downsizing the DGC, you're making out he's a fool.
It seems to me that based on what you've said, he's been doing pretty much the right thing, no?
What DO YOU think he should be doing?


In terms of the serious issues, what indications are there at present that there could be disastrous consequences???

[timmbo] 14/1/2015 06:18

Dashcroft , you say in 'c' above;'let's just say there's a few issues which if aren't sorted out soon, may have disastrous consequences'And above the you refer having to look at LinkedIn to find out who has left the company. My question, how can you be 'in the know' and not 'in the know' at the same time??

[dashcroft70] 13/1/2015 21:45

the doctor, hello.

a)I did. I said money was being spent investigating erosion on the dead project, not exactly the same thing.

b) wouldn't we all like to know.

c) if you believe any of that then you'll believe anything. Let's just say there's a few issues which if aren't sorted soon, may have disastrous consequences.

[the_doctor] 11/1/2015 15:53

Dashcroft, nice to see you back

What I didn't get was this:

a) you said the DGC was dead.... yet also said CRA was frittering away money on it (and therefore still alive). Which is it?
If the latter, what's there to suggest the new rig set-up cost much? All it does really is add material into the flow, which is hardly rocket science.

b) you say (or from Rigby etc) that CRA management has been working on projects that the engineering teams felt should not be worked on - that they just continued regardless. Given that CRA has clearly deprioritised the DGC and diversified away from CET via Wellman, what DO you suggest they should've focused on? It seems that they have already moved away from less attractive projects to a degree. If ALL of CET was duff, what on earth were all of those engineers doing?
Surely the engineers didn't think everything in CET was rubbish, so what's decent and warranted further investment?

c) you said that many of the projects will never work, yet CRA in a recent RNS said that one was progressing well both financially and technically. That doesn't sound like a disaster and some of the partners have been paying material sums. Are they daft?

Thanks for your comments

[the_doctor] 11/1/2015 15:46

Thanks for the links above.

re Àlex Poyo Munoz - odd that he's seemingly not worked for more than a year at any of those places

[dashcroft70] 09/1/2015 22:24

Doctor, you said,

It's possible the project due to be delivered by year end isn't ready or has hit issues etc.

Well, I think you're onto something there. I suspect it will be a very long time before we see this 'project'.

[dashcroft70] 09/1/2015 22:12

In terms of dashcroft
I suggest you look back at my posts
Where I disagreed with him was his contradictory remarks
I did not disagree with his comments about staff leaving because I verified that on LinkedIn
He's either a sneaky manipulator spreading lies... naive and fooled by bitter ex-employees with a one-sided agenda... or well informed and passing on bits of insight

For those reasons I've specifically asked him to come back here and explain furthe-----------

Doctor, what do you need explaining?

[goatherd] 09/1/2015 19:41

Thanks sscullio - very useful.

That engineer was clearly working on the device to extract energy when gas pressure in pipe lines is reduced. Only marginally to do with DGC or IGC.

[bullster] 09/1/2015 18:16

CP.....Try this link:-

[cliffpeat] 09/1/2015 18:13

sscullio - the link (with http) results in a 404 - i.e. not on server.

Have they taken this down? Have you a copy?

[sscullio] 09/1/2015 17:45

Actually, it does look a bit like the Corac/Spirax product. I saw the picture of the prototype.

On Corac engineers, try this one...hxxp://contactbee.com/en/contact/view/100751121. More illuminating. I'm assuming the 275kw machine is the one that was due to be delivered by the end of this year. And a little worrying that it seems like this guy has recently left the company (maybe).