Sdic Power Discussion Threads

[lagosboy] 30/4/2010 16:12

I think SYG manages 100% of the properties but only uses GOAL to manage a percentage of them, a pecentage that SYG and the management of SDIC would like to increase to create some economies of scale.

[w1ndjammer] 30/4/2010 14:57

what you guys need to realise is goal/SYG only manage part of
the portfolio of properties, so you may be directing your anger
at the wrong party.

WJ.

[envirovision] 30/4/2010 14:27

I'm talking about Raymond Apsey and some of the others, should they not have walked the plank by now with a big fat cheque? OK its going to cost but surley getting rid of the cancer by its removal is best? If its to be liquidated and sold or refinanced or what ever.

[lagosboy] 29/4/2010 22:12

I should clarify, I think lqs is right in his view that management have failed but I doubt they will walk away with parachutes as Jeffian correctly says payments are governed by contractual arrangements.

I am more concerned about how this might be turned around and apart from sound bites from JM to attendees at the weekend, the management and Board have remained silent.

[jeffian] 29/4/2010 20:15

"hmmmm i doubt anyone will be going anywhere without some eye watering payouts."

According to the original Prospectus, the relationship between SIDC and SYG/GOAL is governed by a contractual Management Agreement entered into on 10 March 2006. This can be terminated by 12 months' notice on either side. It would therefore appear to be open to SDIC to issue notice of termination and let SYG/GOAL work out their notice at no extra cost or pay them 1 year's management fee in lieu.

[lagosboy] 29/4/2010 19:20

lqs

I think you are right but you would not think so from the spin in the last set of accounts.

As investors we view success in terms of share price performance and return, clearly it has been a disaster to date.

[envirovision] 29/4/2010 14:18

hmmmm i doubt anyone will be going anywhere without some eye watering payouts.

[lqs] 29/4/2010 13:47

looks more and more like a 0.1 euros placing.
I think the management company have to resign since they have clearly failed. I doubt they have a leg to stand on legally if they were sacked.

[lagosboy] 28/4/2010 10:54

shrubs

Epicure no longer figures in the up to date group structure.

Is it possible that GOAL has severed its links with the company?

[scburbs] 28/4/2010 10:33

Perhaps this [P9] gives us all the clues we need as to how Epicure is doing!

"GOAL construction GmbH contracted to manage the refurbishment activities [Epicure]"

[scburbs] 28/4/2010 10:24

Anyone know what happened to the Epicure Property Company Ltd which is referred to in the 2006 note as being managed by Goal? I can't see this company referred to in recent SYG announcements.

Edit: Looks like it is still there, but gets a very low profile in the announcements so not idea how it is performing.

[lagosboy] 28/4/2010 09:32

davidosh

Surely it would be best for you to question it directly.

Afterall you have been told one thing by JM which is at odds with what Jeffian has referred to in 974.

It is up to you whether or not you dessinante that information but personally I would not be comfortable having done so in good faith and I would feel mislead 'if' what I had been told by JM was patently untrue.

Am I missing something ?

[alunmorris] 28/4/2010 09:31

"Burnbrae Germany has contributed a portfolio of apartments to be managed and serviced by GOAL Service"
May 2006
Burnbrae Group rescued The Wigmore Group which renamed itself Speymill Group.

[davidosh] 28/4/2010 09:05

If the prospectus is saying something different to the verbal information I have been given can someone email the company and ask that specific question so that we can establish the truth in writing hopefully. It would not be ethical nor appropriate for me to question it having been given the answer.

[lagosboy] 28/4/2010 08:58

Perhaps I should have said ' I have no reason not to believe what davidosh said JM had said to him'.

Anyway....better get back to losing money today!

£ weeks hard work almost wiped out in 24 hours.....oh well, let's hope er indoors does not twig.

[lagosboy] 28/4/2010 07:32

jeffian

Thanks, perhaps it would be more appropriate for davidosh to respond, but clearly my reliance on what JM told Davidosh maybe mis-placed.

If it is , it becomes a matter of integrity and honesty.

[jeffian] 27/4/2010 23:42

"I have no reason to doubt what davidosh was told by JM."

Then check out post 974 and the SDIC Prospectus which tends, on the whole, to tell the truth!

[lagosboy] 27/4/2010 20:49

kramch

It's normal, suspicion alaways rises when people loose money. The conflicts of interest become more apparent and more significant.

My greatest concern is that if the properties within the SDIC are truly inferior they will always struggle to command market rates and they will always suffer high vacanacy rates. It is one thing investing in property and another running a property company.

I have no reason to doubt what davidosh was told by JM.

[lagosboy] 27/4/2010 20:44

Rightnice

Oh no, not another one on the Sherry.

Do you remember this post on III, it followed a whole series of pitiful ramps on how the covenants were resolved and the share price was shortly due to rise.

Is this what it based on? A rightnice prediction


Date open High Low Close Volume Adjusted close

9-Apr-09 19.00 25.00 19.00 21.25 1,846,800 21.25
8-Apr-09 15.00 16.00 15.00 17.50 1,990,600 17.50
7-Apr-09 15.00 15.50 14.25 14.75 654,300 14.75
6-Apr-09 14.50 14.50 13.00 14.50 205,900 14.50

Look familiar??? Look at the 6 and 7th, Almost identical to this year. Could the share price reach 17.50 cents by Thursday and 21.25 cents by Friday. Spooky if it did or market makers playing their games again.


Pure genius, I shall look up last years 30th April price and make loads of money. It's hilarious & no wonder retail punters get cleaned out.

[kramch] 27/4/2010 18:47

I don't know what happened in the early days of SDIC's formation and whether it was buying at the same time that JM was buying his blocks.
Did good blocks go to JM and less good to SDIC?
What are the void rates like on JM's portfolio?
GOAL were arguing the benefits of economies of scale (by bringing all the SDIC blocks under their management). Surely they would achieve economies of scale if they include managing JM's blocks.
Does something not add up, or an I being overly suspicious? K.

[scburbs] 27/4/2010 18:16

If you watch the debate closely you can see Nick Clegg mouthing exactly that! (excluding the name because that would have just been bizarre!).

[jeffian] 27/4/2010 17:26

davidosh,

re: your 954, I think I was inadvertently the cause of the claim that JM's German property portfolio formed the basis of SDIC and if I did I must put it down to the softening of my brain due to age and retirement, but when I was introduced to SYG I was certainly told there was a relationship. This is what I said at the time:-



Are you sure about your statements
"3. His portfolio is not managed by GOAL nor any company linked to SYG.

4. JM does not use SYG for any services on his own portfolio to the best of my knowledge and understanding." ?

According to the SDIC Prospectus, GOAL managed properties for investors other than SDIC and it said "This includes a Berlin residential property portfolio with an estimated value of €80m spread across approximately 1800 units". It then goes on, under the heading "Conflicts Management", to say "The Manager, the Investment Adviser and their Affiliates currently provide property management services to other funds and investors which have a similar objective to that of the Company". I believe that these are the German property investments of JM's company Burnbrae. This would appear to be confirmed by a brokers note on SYG prepared by Lewis Charles Securities on 2 May 2006 which said "The strong relationship with Jim Mellon should serve the Group well. His property investment vehicle, Burnbrae, has provided the Group with financial backing and strategic direction. Burnbrae Germany has contributed a portfolio of apartments to be managed and serviced by GOAL Service."

Regards, Ian

[lagosboy] 27/4/2010 17:14

So Goal now works for nothing because it has been bought by SDIC with an issue of SDIC stock.

Now that's pure genius.

The shareholders of GOAL which is 100% owned by SYG will also benefit....more pure genius.

Covenant waivers.......pure genius

As Gordon said to Nick....Get Real.

[rightnice] 27/4/2010 15:19

Thanks Shrubs. I agree, seeing that lots of companies have improved cashflow by internalising management of the portfolio it makes sense to buy GOAL from SYG. Such a deal could benefit shareholders of both companies. I think that this coupled with some asset sales would be enough to renegotiate financial terms - such as covenant waivers and and exit fee instead of continued amortisation of the loans.