We could not find any results for:
Make sure your spelling is correct or try broadening your search.
Register for real-time alerts, custom portfolio, and market movers
| Share Name | Share Symbol | Market | Stock Type |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pentagon Prot. | PPR | London | Ordinary Share |
| Price Change | Price Change % | Share Price | Last Trade
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.00 | 0.00% | 5.25 | 01:00:00 |
| Open Price | Low Price | High Price | Close Price | Previous Close |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5.25 |
| Top Posts |
|---|
Posted at 24/6/2014 14:44 by 4screws via an injection of new finances or specialist management, the Company can enhance the prospects and therefore the future value of the investment; -- able to benefit from the Proposed Directors existing network of contacts; and -- the potential to deliver significant returns for the Company. The Company will focus on opportunities in the travel, technology and leisure sectors. Whilst the Proposed Directors will be principally focused on making an investment in private businesses, they would not rule out investment in listed businesses if this presents, in their judgment, the best opportunity for Shareholders. The Company intends to be an active investor in situations where the Company can make a clear contribution to the progress and development of the investment. In respect of other, more substantial investment opportunities, the Proposed Directors expect that the Company will be more of a passive investor. The Proposed Directors believe that their broad collective experience together with their extensive network of contacts will assist them in the identification, evaluation and funding of appropriate investment opportunities. When necessary, other external professionals will be engaged to assist in the due diligence on prospective targets and their management teams. The Proposed Directors will also consider appointing additional directors with relevant experience if required. There will be no limit on the number of projects into which the Company may invest, and the Company's financial resources may be invested in a number of propositions or in just one investment, which may be deemed to be a reverse takeover pursuant to Rule 14 of the AIM Rules. Where the Company builds a portfolio of related assets it is possible that there may be cross-holdings between such assets. The Company does not currently intend to fund any investments with debt or other borrowings but may do so if appropriate. The Company's primary objective is that of securing for the Shareholders the best possible value consistent with achieving, over time, both capital growth and income for Shareholders through developing profitability coupled with dividend payments on a sustainable basis. Share certificates No new share certificates are being issued in respect of existing Ordinary Shares held in certificated form but any new share certificates will be issued in the name of YOLO Leisure and Technology plc. Shareholders should retain their existing share certificates which will continue to be valid. |
Posted at 19/6/2014 08:26 by tebbin One of those DC now owns SDS,and can now list it on Aim, and keep the money for himself... The DC's are the ones who went down with the ship, when the knew PPR were in debt to their backers, and no contracts coming in... |
Posted at 29/5/2014 09:08 by tebbin If an old Director knows anything about the Window Film Installation owned by PPR, he wont be putting his money into it... |
Posted at 06/5/2014 22:24 by knigel When was the last time you posted on PPR then?Thankfully I do not get obsessed with any one poster - following them round the threads to see were they are posting or holding just to have a cheap dig. If you are that interested - I'll tell you the next time I'm going to the bathroom for a xxxx |
Posted at 30/4/2014 09:58 by currypasty I took the hit on these a while ago... another AIM disaster Pentagon Protection plc (AIM: PPR) announces the termination of employment of Mr Stephen Harrhy, sales director of the Company with immediate effect. |
Posted at 14/4/2014 16:14 by knigel Sold most at 10p stalker - You see I am an active trader. Been in and out of PPR at least three times. First time brought the shares at 6p and sold between 15p and 20p. Second time brought the shares at 12p and sold at 16p. Then acquired shares at 8p and sold the majority at 10p. Obviously my remaining holding is sitting at a loss but profits made over the last 18 months more than make up for any realised loss to come. That's what AIM is about - picking shares were you make a lot of money and occasionally taking a hit. BTW GWIN doing well for me today so can take any hit here. I will not be adding until the next update though as suspension is now a real possibility. |
Posted at 14/4/2014 07:31 by knigel At this rate - my car will be worth more than PPR... not looking good now |
Posted at 07/3/2014 20:30 by euclid5 Take a read of the BoD's previous working history on Falanx PLC - then ask yourselves why PPR is cappaed at £1m & FLX at £10m & in the same businessPPR BoD's have failed to make a profit on many of their contracts ,why? - bad management perhaps - so mr mkt isn't interested in buying into the shares - which is why the stever brokthers tried a professional ramp last year with the famous Thales contract that went no where |
Posted at 14/5/2013 14:30 by stever4545 Thales site in Crawley (Manor Royal) was conceived for several reasons. a) The five operational sectors of Thales in Crawley largely operated from small sites across the Crawley area - the result of which was increased costs, lack of economies of scale and poorer communications. The old large site on Manor Royal was very outdated having been erected in the early 1950s. It certainly did not look "Corporate". b) New regulations were introduced in 2006 concerning sites that are government x listed. First of all many may ask what is an "X LISTED" site. " This is a site approved to meeting certain security levels for the purposes of being able to perform strategic military based or sensitive government required contracts via the MOD or certain third parties such as the US Pentagon and other third party customers - failure to meet this status means that such contracts cannot be awarded. Partial compliance would mean that the site where the contract would be performed would have to be fully compliant - so it is possible to have a non compliant site - but that would not be able to perform the x listed components of the said contract" "While x listed sites were classified prior to 2006 the criteria was changed then and became more stringent". c) These reasons led to the conception of the Sapphire Campus - pictures of which are widely available on the internet. Originally conceived to be a four building structure - in the end three were enough and the fourth building would have meant insufficient parking. d) While thee requirements for x listing are detailed and in many ways irrelevant to this thread - windows are relevant since these have to meet certain requirements - some of which in the new build have been discovered subsequently not to have been met either fully or partially. We will now post what has happened as a result of all this and where PPR come into play. In January 2013, and after two of the main windows had actually fallen out of Sapphire One, and in conjunction with an internal investigation and the MOD third party investigators it was discovered, that in fact, all the windows at Sapphire were non compliant to x listed status. This promoted investigation of other sites: and namely Glasgow, Basingstoke, Templecombe and others such as Bristol. Dependent on the nature of these sites and what was conducted in those sites a more detailed piece of work was then undertaken to derive actually what had to be done - contd... This work resulted in a complete re specification of the Thales UK requirements of windows in their UK buildings and followed a detailed three day meeting in the Paris Headquarters. The specification for the new windows was completed as a well as x listed requirements some others were identified - the most important of these being photo sensitivity in relation to the sun and angle of the sun during the day as it struck the building - a further requirement over looked in the original design. The most important non compliant x listed status was failure on structual rigidity and bomb test blast resistance - the technical details of which the OSA forbids us from posting. The contract what put out to initial tender on 22 Jan 2013 but final tenders were put out 19 Feb 2013 - and of the preferred supplier list none of these could deliver it which then meant an exploration into other companies that may be able to deliver or part deliver the requirements of the Paris specification which had been aligned to the MOD specification in the previous Paris meeting At this point Thales in Doncaster which are central procurement services (at not really to do with this) none the less identified from internet research and from a previous director of procurement at Thales Avionics Limited a company called Pentagon Protection PLC that could possibly help and initial discussions where held at the Sapphire Site on 5 March 2013 concerning the specification timescales and the funding -contd A secondary meeting was then held one week later again at the Thales Sapphire Campus for the purposes of questions and answers and for Pentagon to provide a presentation on the solution which was well received by Chris Hindle and by Paris representatives and from procurement senior finance within Thales although the Minister of Defence was not present although had been invited contd PPR were told that some of the timescale and that some of the specification was not adequate at this time but were invited to re present all the information and tender at the next meeting which was again scheduled at Sapphire and 9 days later contd... I attended the full two hour second presentation which was given by PPR at Sapphire Campus which was a much better presentation indeed - as a key influencer from financial procurement within Land Systems at that time was able to convince several large stake holders including the Paris representation that this was the way to go subject to : a) Timescales b) Finance c) That in particular PPR had no idea how to fund this So another meeting was proposed at the Sapphire Campus to discuss multi stage funding of the project with an up front payment and I was to prepare all the financial propostion for this meeting which is what i then did.... contd a Draft of the contract was made from Doncaster legal department Thales on view of the fact that PPR had not the funds but did have both the technology and presentation on site at Sapphire in that meeting that they could do this - although the size and scope cannot be totally stated on here - it is of value Sterling ?25 million pounds over 7 months. We are now in May - but the situation is this: a) The contract is fine with Thales - but they do need all the work done by 30 March 2014 b) Hence this initial timescale of 7 months or else there are penalty clauses. c) On the face of this and with alot of time consuming deliberation it has been mutually decided to perform the operation with the aid of a sub sub contractor - and initially neither party really knew who that would be and how that might work - but it was realized three weeks ago that that would have to be some one as well as PPR - but then the whole contract needed to be re written in view of payment clauses and timings etc - hence many of view are sceptical in seeing the delay - i do sympothise in that matter - however this is why you are having a full information post in this way as 4545 advised me to write all of this to you guys. d) Where are we at?? This is what you will now all ask contd..... We are at this position: a) That there is now in place an external sub contractor to help PPR complete within the timescales but to the PPR specification b) That the MOD have had to see the contract because there is no use unless it is x listed compliant which was the purpose of it all and indeed this huge posting today so that you all understand it all........ c) That Thales have indeed entered into the entire re formated contract in line with what is now four way partrate - but legal need to make sure its all secure which unfortunately takes a while and which numerous text queries have been sent to us. What we have aimed to do is therefore provide you with something much more comprehensive this morning and into the afternoon that makes some if not all of the questions answered |
Posted at 14/5/2013 12:06 by ro5enberg Anyone who doubts Steve should read his rather long post below. This chap certainly knows what he is talking about and hence why I believe the Thales deal is alive and well and on its way to us. Sp will be nearer a pound once announced.. Thales site in Crawley (Manor Royal) was conceived for several reasons. a) The five operational sectors of Thales in Crawley largely operated from small sites across the Crawley area - the result of which was increased costs, lack of economies of scale and poorer communications. The old large site on Manor Royal was very outdated having been erected in the early 1950s. It certainly did not look "Corporate". b) New regulations were introduced in 2006 concerning sites that are government x listed. First of all many may ask what is an "X LISTED" site. " This is a site approved to meeting certain security levels for the purposes of being able to perform strategic military based or sensitive government required contracts via the MOD or certain third parties such as the US Pentagon and other third party customers - failure to meet this status means that such contracts cannot be awarded. Partial compliance would mean that the site where the contract would be performed would have to be fully compliant - so it is possible to have a non compliant site - but that would not be able to perform the x listed components of the said contract" "While x listed sites were classified prior to 2006 the criteria was changed then and became more stringent". c) These reasons led to the conception of the Sapphire Campus - pictures of which are widely available on the internet. Originally conceived to be a four building structure - in the end three were enough and the fourth building would have meant insufficient parking. d) While thee requirements for x listing are detailed and in many ways irrelevant to this thread - windows are relevant since these have to meet certain requirements - some of which in the new build have been discovered subsequently not to have been met either fully or partially. We will now post what has happened as a result of all this and where PPR come into play. In January 2013, and after two of the main windows had actually fallen out of Sapphire One, and in conjunction with an internal investigation and the MOD third party investigators it was discovered, that in fact, all the windows at Sapphire were non compliant to x listed status. This promoted investigation of other sites: and namely Glasgow, Basingstoke, Templecombe and others such as Bristol. Dependent on the nature of these sites and what was conducted in those sites a more detailed piece of work was then undertaken to derive actually what had to be done - contd... This work resulted in a complete re specification of the Thales UK requirements of windows in their UK buildings and followed a detailed three day meeting in the Paris Headquarters. The specification for the new windows was completed as a well as x listed requirements some others were identified - the most important of these being photo sensitivity in relation to the sun and angle of the sun during the day as it struck the building - a further requirement over looked in the original design. The most important non compliant x listed status was failure on structual rigidity and bomb test blast resistance - the technical details of which the OSA forbids us from posting. The contract what put out to initial tender on 22 Jan 2013 but final tenders were put out 19 Feb 2013 - and of the preferred supplier list none of these could deliver it which then meant an exploration into other companies that may be able to deliver or part deliver the requirements of the Paris specification which had been aligned to the MOD specification in the previous Paris meeting At this point Thales in Doncaster which are central procurement services (at not really to do with this) none the less identified from internet research and from a previous director of procurement at Thales Avionics Limited a company called Pentagon Protection PLC that could possibly help and initial discussions where held at the Sapphire Site on 5 March 2013 concerning the specification timescales and the funding -contd A secondary meeting was then held one week later again at the Thales Sapphire Campus for the purposes of questions and answers and for Pentagon to provide a presentation on the solution which was well received by Chris Hindle and by Paris representatives and from procurement senior finance within Thales although the Minister of Defence was not present although had been invited contd PPR were told that some of the timescale and that some of the specification was not adequate at this time but were invited to re present all the information and tender at the next meeting which was again scheduled at Sapphire and 9 days later contd... I attended the full two hour second presentation which was given by PPR at Sapphire Campus which was a much better presentation indeed - as a key influencer from financial procurement within Land Systems at that time was able to convince several large stake holders including the Paris representation that this was the way to go subject to : a) Timescales b) Finance c) That in particular PPR had no idea how to fund this So another meeting was proposed at the Sapphire Campus to discuss multi stage funding of the project with an up front payment and I was to prepare all the financial propostion for this meeting which is what i then did.... contd a Draft of the contract was made from Doncaster legal department Thales on view of the fact that PPR had not the funds but did have both the technology and presentation on site at Sapphire in that meeting that they could do this - although the size and scope cannot be totally stated on here - it is of value Sterling £25 million pounds over 7 months. We are now in May - but the situation is this: a) The contract is fine with Thales - but they do need all the work done by 30 March 2014 b) Hence this initial timescale of 7 months or else there are penalty clauses. c) On the face of this and with alot of time consuming deliberation it has been mutually decided to perform the operation with the aid of a sub sub contractor - and initially neither party really knew who that would be and how that might work - but it was realized three weeks ago that that would have to be some one as well as PPR - but then the whole contract needed to be re written in view of payment clauses and timings etc - hence many of view are sceptical in seeing the delay - i do sympothise in that matter - however this is why you are having a full information post in this way as 4545 advised me to write all of this to you guys. d) Where are we at?? This is what you will now all ask contd..... We are at this position: a) That there is now in place an external sub contractor to help PPR complete within the timescales but to the PPR specification b) That the MOD have had to see the contract because there is no use unless it is x listed compliant which was the purpose of it all and indeed this huge posting today so that you all understand it all........ c) That Thales have indeed entered into the entire re formated contract in line with what is now four way partrate - but legal need to make sure its all secure which unfortunately takes a while and which numerous text queries have been sent to us. What we have aimed to do is therefore provide you with something much more comprehensive this morning and into the afternoon that makes some if not all of the questions answered |
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
Hot Features
Premium
