Srt Marine Systems Share Discussion Threads

[trident5] 09/8/2016 21:05

well why wasn't it in the accounts then? There's something dishonest here

[hjb1] 09/8/2016 20:55

Trident behave, you know who he got it from.

[trident5] 09/8/2016 20:52

The Prophet

you;re the guy who said these options were set 6 months ago

Do you mind explaining where you got that information from

[ramnik007] 09/8/2016 20:46

I am sure nothing was mentioned in the Annual Report as the issue would have resulted in a lot of questions at the AGM, and the directors would have found it awkward to justify. Hence an RNS at 15:38.

[hjb1] 09/8/2016 20:30

5 months ago?,,,blimey I'm still waiting for some 5 years ago!!

[buck581] 09/8/2016 20:02

Seems like ST's not as open, frank and honest as he would have us believe.
Like someone else said, all the trust and goodwill built up over the years is gone.
Show me a contract. Either of those that were imminent 5 months ago would be nice.

[hjb1] 09/8/2016 19:49

Tucker's word I expect!

[trident5] 09/8/2016 19:38

I am more than happy to take SRT's word for what happened.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

where is this word coming from?

[the prophet] 09/8/2016 18:36

please speak for yourself, hjb1.

I am more than happy to take SRT's word for what happened.

In any case, even if it was or wasn't agreed 6 months ago (agreed, not signed off!!!) I'm happy with the option package so it makes absolutely no odds to me at all. It is only right and proper that these guys are suitably incentivised.

The good thing about shares is that if you really don't like the actions or results or anything else, you are free to sell. Sp and liquidity are good right now.

Again, I'm not saying others can't have a different take on these matters, that is their prerogative.

[hjb1] 09/8/2016 17:58

all the goodwill/trust Tucker has tried to garner over all these years with all the webcasts and prompt replies to all emails etc etc...seems to have gone in a puff of smoke...expecting people to believe that rubbish.

[lavalmy] 09/8/2016 17:17

If it had been formally approved by the directors six months ago, it would have been disclosed at that time. And some of you who are whingeing about it now, would have whinged then, possibly saying that by setting the bar at 2.5, 3.75 and 6.25 times the price then, the directors were giving punters a hopelessly over-optimistic view of where they thought the share price was heading.

hjb

If a contract were to be imminent, they probably would have revised the terms to higher levels. They still get the same shares no matter whether the share price is £1.50 tomorrow. If they thought that was likely, they could have set the first tranche at 75p or a quid or whatever. It makes jack all difference to what they make as long as the share price has gone up.

[hjb1] 09/8/2016 17:05

on the flipside are they now having to get the news out asap because there is a contract/s waiting to be signed...?

[trident5] 09/8/2016 16:59

If it was decided 6 months ago - doesn't that need disclosing in the accounts?

[ramnik007] 09/8/2016 16:05

Decided 6 months....admin error....sounds fishy....loss of some credibility I think

[trident5] 09/8/2016 15:58

LaV
I think you'll find ST advises the RemCom. It sucks.

I know this company has been very open, but the other side of that coin is share promotion. You could argue that a lot of that has gone on here.

And how do we know this was decided 6 months ago - unless I'm missing something that has come out of nowhere.

[supernumerary] 09/8/2016 15:38

Piedro - the directors (and all the other staff by all accounts) were obviously very enthusiastic, but so have they always been. And a very good thing too.

[lavalmy] 09/8/2016 15:29

fft

I am talking about them as significant owners of the business.

I also understand that they show up at everything and get very stuck in. They are not rent-a-suit non-execs, which you might know if you knew the company better.

In the old days, the directors only put their money in when they exercised the options, just as now. Then they had to sell some to 'meet their tax obligations' or some such guff. So no net cost to them.

Edit: And talking about significant owners of the business, both YumYum and myself are very happy with the recent arrangements. I had been anxious previously that the executives had not been adequately rewarded. That concern has been partially allayed.

[fft] 09/8/2016 15:21

Lavalmy,

RemComs are always headed by non-execs. Why they (rogers/lapping) claim they couldn't get pen to paper to sign it for 6 month beggars belief. Did they actually turn up for any committee meetings (company or remcom) during that time ?

BTW, it is always nice if directors put their own money in to buy shares. It shows commitment. Many years ago (say 1980's and 1990's) that is what directors used to do. They had skin in the game. Options are like free money- they never had it in the first place so not as much to lose if it goes wrong. It is symptomatic of how capitalism (and especially AIM) has gone wrong over the last few decades.

[piedro] 09/8/2016 15:18

supern,

Was the share price "jammed" up?

[lavalmy] 09/8/2016 15:15

I think in this debate about the options it needs to be emphasized that the longest term of long term shareholders are Rogers and Horne, one the Chairman, the other involved in the buyout. They currently hold 18% between them despite the doubling of the number of shares in issue. Rogers and Lapping (1.2 million shares) comprise the renumeration committee, and it is they who decided on the recent scheme and Rogers who is most affected by it personally. This is not a company where the executive directors control the board. Far from it.

[supernumerary] 09/8/2016 15:13

zoolook - I share the sentiment (although I tend to avoid such displays of synthetic emotion on shares I don't even hold for fear people might think I was only talking my book ;¬)) but in this case, I forgive them. As already said, I don't think the total remuneration is out of kilter with the achievement, and that's what really counts.

On the other hand, if all those outraged holders would do what they want the directors to do and put their money where their mouth is by selling their holdings, that might give me a nice little top-up opportunity ;¬)

[yumyum] 09/8/2016 15:11

SRT are in a fantastic position in a huge new market. SRT are small. The management are few. They need not only rewarding (because they are l'Oreal) but they also need retention.

Imagine a headline like this '' EADS are pleased to announce they have hired....''

I think we should all calm down a bit. Management (and staff) have done a fantastic job over the last few years. Let's not begrudge some reward to them, admittedly this has been badly handled. If agreed months ago then it should have been announced to shareholders months ago.

Nonetheless I hope the bad handling looks even worse. Much worse.

When contracts are announced...and share price rockets. Followed by takeover at £8 (to prove LaValmy's friend a little wrong).

[davidosh] 09/8/2016 14:55

zoolook....spot on although ShareSoc are doing their best to help investors.