Hotel Corp Share Discussion Threads

[clocktower] 08/9/2015 14:00

Sorry riddle I thought you were the one and same but I guess as your on speaking terms & you will have passed it on anyway and acted as the messenger both ways.

[riddlerone] 08/9/2015 13:53

He didnt post here CT I did and took the letter from the shareprophets blog.I actually agree with your concerns and i hope he comes up with the goods.Being a shareholder I have spoke to him as its my money invested and i will not take anything i read on bulletin boards as gospel.

[clocktower] 08/9/2015 13:21

riddle, on the face of it he took the trouble to post here, so do you not think it is reasonable to assume he would read what follows? In addition, they could have sent a private e-mail through ADVFN, not that there was any reason to send a private e-mail, they need to address all and sundry if they seek support in an open and honest manner.

It seems to me that once again it is all about self interests, not that it is much difference to what appears to be the case anyway.

[nick rubens] 08/9/2015 09:25

clocktower makes a good point, though that applies to every listed plc really.

Trying to find executives that actually work for shareholders and put them first is a near impossibility.

We can only hope and the market moves on hope (up) and later on reality (fall).

[riddlerone] 07/9/2015 19:45

What makes you even think he would read this Bulletin Board?If you have questions for him ask him then post the answers on here if you feel the need to.

[clocktower] 07/9/2015 19:02

If he (they) has nothing to hide post it here riddle.To much cloak and dagger stuff everywhere.

[riddlerone] 07/9/2015 18:12

CT,dont you think you had better send him an email before assuming anything and ask him these questions?

[clocktower] 07/9/2015 17:42

So Marcus, it seems that there is no good reason to give you support and your suggestions have no meat on the bones or you would be more forthright with them it seems to me.

[clocktower] 05/9/2015 16:08

Marus, What assurances will you give and Mr Jackson give to PI`s if they support your resolution?

1) Will you guarantee that you will act in a manner that ensures the interests of small stakeholders are put first and foremost before remunerating you or any member of the board by way of any financial instrument?

2) Will you (and Mr.Jackson) guarantee that you will not support any fund raising exercise that does not include the same terms being offered to all small stakeholders in a fair and equitable manner?

3) Will you (and Mr Jackson) present your suggestions to all stakeholders prior and in good time before any decisions are made to implement your plans if successful?

4) Will you( and Mr Jackson) guarantee you will not seek to consolidate the stock? (which in most cases results in dilution for PI`s)

5) If elected to the board and as a result you gain control will you and the board guarantee that you will not pay any consultants a disproportionate sum/sums of money for services?
CT

[riddlerone] 05/9/2015 10:07

From Marcus Yeoman

Dear Shareholder,

Ref- Mr Yeoman and Mr Jackson's Requisition

I am writing on behalf of myself and Mr Jackson, who together have requisitioned a General Meeting of your Company.

It is our belief that a change in the board of your company is now necessary and will give all shareholders the opportunity to create value.

During the last year I have put forward several suggestions via the board and approached Shore Capital (under instruction from the board) for its support. However, the board has seemingly been unable to move forward, or indeed consult its wider shareholder base on our ideas, without the specific support of its stakeholder, Shore Capital. This support was evidently not forthcoming.

As you are now aware, shareholders have now been offered an alternative opportunity; to invest in a new fund structure, advised by Puma Investments, a member of the Shore Capital Group. Aside from noting that the Board seems only prepared to recommend to shareholders a new direction for the Company, if it involves Shore Capital, shareholders should also recognise that the previous Puma vehicle in which HCP shareholders held their investment, resulted in a large loss of capital for shareholders, but a large return for its promoters, Puma.

hxxp://www.stockmarketwire.com/article/4863675/UK-Group-of-Hotels-goes-into-administration.html

Subject to the passing of Resolution 1, the Company will enter into a property investment advisory agreement with Puma Investment Management Limited. Puma Investments is a subsidiary of the Shore Capital group of companies.

-Is this a conflict of interest?

-Are the proposed Puma fees fair and reasonable?

-Should Shore Capital be voting on this at all?

It is my belief that the recently suggested investing policy, resolution 1 put forward by your board, is as a result of the pressure felt by the board after the requisition of the GM and is not a well planned strategy for your company.

Shareholders must now vote on three resolutions:-

To adopt the new investment plan into another Puma structure (owned by Shore Capital)
Appoint Marcus Yeoman as a director.
Remove Derek Short as a director of your company.
We have received a number of supportive e mails which in conjunction with our own holdings represents approximately 25%, this group have indicated that they wish to vote for change. In order to do this they will vote in the following way:-

Against the resolution
For the resolution
For the resolution
I would urge all shareholders to vote at this time in a way that they feel will preserve value and give your company the best prospects moving forward.

It is important that if shareholders hold shares in a nominee company and have not received their proxy card, they should contact their broker or advisor and instruct them on the way they wish to vote, all votes must be received before 11am on the 14th Sept. 2015.



Yours faithfully

Marcus Yeoman

Shareholder

[debbie_does_dallas_twice] 01/9/2015 15:55

good man, ;)

[nick rubens] 01/9/2015 13:36

OK dddt.......looks like support for Yeoman then. It has dragged on far too long as it is under current mgmt. IMO.

[welshwiz] 01/9/2015 13:22

I bought Hcp last week and intend to support Yeoman.
The current bod are finished along with their flawed plan of repeating failure.

[debbie_does_dallas_twice] 01/9/2015 10:38

"Anyone feel the company has made a decent case to vote against the requisition?"

What and support the management and shore capital? ( Shore Capital are the shareholder whose proposal apparently have the board baking)
The very same partnership that got HCP into this mess in the first place?

Shore capital formed HCP to invest into Shore capitals own hotel investment vehicle Dawney hotels.

Shore capital was HCP nomad and broker when HCP invested into shore capital's part owned and part managed Dawney hotels chain (HCP only investment ).

Shore capital raised via placings more money by issuing HCP shares ALL OF WHICH WAS INVESTED IN SHORE CAPITALS PART OWNED DAWNEY HOTELS.

Shore capital was instrumental in the deal with Barcelo group that took over lease and management of the Dawney hotels (PUMA)
Barclo later abruptly ended this contact sending the company into a death spiral

Shore capital had a huge part in the running up of 347 million debt in Dawney hotels (Puma) with Anglo Irish bank of which was later called in by Bank Resolution corporation and put Dawney hotels (Puma) into ADMINISTRATION wiping out all HCP assets in one swoop.

So i guess what i am trying to say is Nick.
Are you f''king Serious???

aimho

[nick rubens] 01/9/2015 10:00

Anyone feel the company has made a decent case to vote against the requisition?

Seems to have backing for it's own proposals, so it's going to be a tug either way?

[mister md] 28/8/2015 19:52

bit laughable that the current directors own "58,000 Shares, equivalent to 0.12 per cent. of the issued ordinary share capital of the Company" ...

would be good to know what Yeoman is planning.

[mister md] 28/8/2015 13:57

good to hear, happy to see some 'action' here finally

[debbie_does_dallas_twice] 28/8/2015 13:56

Mr Yeomans taking control should see it spike,

[debbie_does_dallas_twice] 28/8/2015 13:45

Miter believe me, the only realistic game in town is Mr Yeomans taking control, save something that has materialised in the last few weeks rebel shareholders would not vote to accept anything else.

This company has huge potential with an injection of cash from a stakeholder to then invest into a project and utilise the huge tax loss
The bod has had long enough to find such an investor time and shareholder funds are running out, hence Why the company needs a deal maker like Mr Yoemans on the bod.

aimho

[mister md] 28/8/2015 13:38

they seemed optimistic about some kind of deal/reverse transaction though - do we think Yeoman has a better deal lined up ? Shareprice finally waking up & good to see in these volatile market conditions ...

[debbie_does_dallas_twice] 28/8/2015 11:54

Obviously if Mr Short decides to now stand down after accepting he can not win and admit defeat to allow Mr Yeoman to take charge the share price will rocket.
Either /or it makes little difference the shares will trade a lot higher once Mr Yeoman takes control be that with or without a egm.

[nick rubens] 28/8/2015 10:29

Action coming finally! No doubt a deal is lined up for soon after change of Director.