Perhaps time for new management. It's been very disappointing so far?
They have the product and manufacturing in place. |
Origin of 'SRT' = Simon Richard Tucker as I recall.
What's the mood at MSN I wonder? |
The problem is ST is the company-without him ,it would be toast in my view |
Worst case scenario. Pay a couple of hundred thousand on legal fees and Tucker leaves the company. Sce are not being charged so hardly explains the big drop in share price. |
Was under the impression that it went against EU rules for nation states to provide loans on the basis that the recipient had to buy the same nation's goods and services with the loan??? |
ftt
I remember at the time that the BFAR had thought they could simply switch from a foreign to locally financed project easily and that the original contract could be novated. The BFAR rarely had any projects so they didn't really know the process. The DBM instead insisted that the entire budgetary and bidding processes be redone. This opened the way for the BFAR to increase the size of the project, not doubling the amount of kit as transponders were only a small percentage. An agency like the BFAR, on a very small regular budget, could not on its own decide to do this but had to have buy-in and approval from multiple entities including NEDA, chaired by the then President. No short cuts allowed in summary. |
All a lot of technicalities if you ask me. Did the Phillipines Government get a decent system at a fair price is what matters. All they need to do is find out how well it is operating and what the alternatives might have been. It seemed to take many years to get the contract in the first place so it must have had every dot and I checked out. |
 When the Philippines contract was extended/expanded - as per the Philippines star article posted below - were all the new paperwork and regulatory stages carried through properly by BFAR etc with regard to govt/courts etc ? The amount of kit more than doubled. If various bodies were sidelined then I can see why this has reared it's head. But ST shouldn't be in the firing line unless they have a smoking gun - phone call, money, email etc - that indicates he knew that things were not right.It is also not clear why using a subsidiary of a company to carry out a contract is not ok. Most companies have loads of subsidiaries. However, if they are claiming it is a false front, or nominee, to merely get the contract and that paperwork submitted by SRT was disingenuous (to be polite) about aspects of that company then that could be an issue. With the dismissal of the case against RH i would surmise that only ST put his signature on a particular piece of paper.CM5 the eternal optimist might think it will blow over quickly and won't affect other operations, but the solution may well be (after an extended period) a financial penalty - perceived excess gains plus a punitive fine. That is the last thing SRT can afford.It would be interesting to know what the price of rolling over the loans that SRT currently has as the risk appears to have increased. Is it eagle eye who keeps upto date with those ? |
Would others agree that this is a fair analysis? If I have got the wrong end of the stick, amendments would be welcome:
1. We the Philippines have two major and conflicting fishing problems: (a) foreign [mainly Chinese?] vessels illegally fishing in our waters, and (b) home commercial fleets outmuscling small operators in part by fishing in shallow inshore waters. (b) will also deplete our fish stocks to the longer-term disbenefit of all concerned, including the country's economy, but see below. The more widely we deploy AIS, the better for (a), but the worse for (b) which we perceive as costing more money in terms of the Filipino economy and, more importantly, our own pockets.
2. We (being vested interests at top Government level) choose to disregard the above, in the hope or belief that - all evidence notwithstanding - the EU will prove toothless and can somehow be persuaded not to issue a yellow and then a red card even as we cheerfully continue to run fish stocks dry.
3. Pretending that none of the above is or has ever been a problem will involve, inter alia, finding a fall guy or two for the false narrative of what has happened so far. Oh wait a minute, how about SRT and that pushy man Tucker, they look like sitting ducks. We don't even need to bring formal charges against SRT, ruining its reputation will do just fine. Simples. |
CM-you don’t think this stuff will have some toxicity on the rest of the business?Why has the share price fallen 30pc on the news??
This needs cleared up pronto because a CEO being cited like this is not something to gloss over. |
Hopefully the dust will soon settle around the Ombudsman story. Everyone will have to wait for the Supreme Court ruling on whether the monitoring of fishing boats contravenes constitutional rights.
This board will then return to the start of three contracts. Indonesia requires the signing off of the £145 million UKEF backed loan by the Indonesian Ministry of Finance (MOF). The next stage of the M E contract awaits a start date as does the smaller Bahrain extension? September should see the launch of Nexus. Philgeps should reveal the first stage of the Philippines Coastguard ten year programme. This appears to be getting momentum from the US navy, as does possibly Tanzania and Kenya. Let us not forget that Kuwait and Vietnam also have need for a system. A lot of detailed work to keep the SRT team busy. |
Reading between the lines, have they simply bought more kit than needed? |
I haven't seen this before.
I hope it helps to explain the situation. |
pldazzle.
It's my phrasing above that is confusing. I was paraphrasing the argument made in the initial complaint letter to the ombudsman.
i.e. the initial complaint suggests no EU country should be able to benefit from EU regulation. It's daft. |
I don't have to convince anyone, merely giving my view.
This is anotther link I posted at the time which shows the same sort of reasoning:
'In case the cause of action for the EC’s ‘Red Card’ is due to the permanent injunction issued by the RTC, which issue is now pending before the Supreme Court, does the EC find itself above and beyond the judicial processes of country as enshrined in our Constitution?'. Might it not be that the EU does not feel itself bound by the Philippines constitution?
I suspect and hope that the EU does act. It changes nothing for Tucker's predicament, but may dissuade Marcos from putting a poacher in as game-keeper. The illegal fishermen have won this round, but they have not won the war.
Edit. There is no Philippines PR machine but rather vibrant reporting, the best and most fearless of which is the Rappler. Their chief was jailed under Duterte for no reason but at least Marcos has let her out. She has won a Nobel prize. |
La V #14296 - Sure, it may seem 'obvious' from where we sit that the Ombudsman and Victoriano have been bought, but go ahead and convince the Filipino PR machine, be my guest! Isn't the expression "Mud sticks"? |
“The sudden creation of SRT-France a month before the second bidding; the permission to SRT-France to participate in the bidding despite knowledge that will have to depend on SRT-UK’s technical, professional and financial capabilities; the sudden termination of the award to SRT-France for some baseless reason; and the immediate request for the cancellation of the French Laon by DA-BFAR in order to remove the French-related conditions–all these paved the way for SRT-UK to participate in the bidding – a bidding for a project with an expanded scope and increased project cost,” the OMB also said in its resolution.
This is part of the Ombudsman's reasoning. We all remember that there was no sudden termination of the award to SRT-France for some baseless reason but rather because the French refused to honnour their commitment. I rather think that such terminations are by nature sudden. As is the creation of a subsidiary. It should not be surprising either that the BFAR acted to replace the French loan with local funding as soon as it became apparent that the French were not going ahead with the loan. The EU had been waiting since 2015 for action on vessel monitoring after all.
The overarching thrust seems to be that the three defendants conspired to have a bigger contract awarded to SRT in the UK by firstly causing the French loan not to be provided. It is quite clear that they were trying to get the French loan to finance SRT-France's bid.
The Ombudsman's position is so similar to our pal Victoriano's counsel in style and in logic that it seems obvious to me at least that they have been bought. |
kinbasket #14292 - you wrote "Because the EU red card was from the EU, no non-EU country may ever benefit from it."
Sorry, but you have me baffled. The EU infographic reads:
"In cases where the pre-identified country fails to resolve its IUU fishing problems, the Commission identifies it as a non-cooperating country, in what is called the 'identification' step, or the 'red card', and proposes to the Council to place the country on the list of non-cooperating countries, i.e. the 'listing' step. Listing involves trade-restrictive measures – the prohibition of imports of fishery products from the listed country, associated with a prohibition on EU vessels operating in its waters."
Suppose now that, as in this case, a non-EU supplier* provides the country in question with a system designed to help reduce the "EU red card" risk. Where does it say that said non-EU supplier - note: a non-EU *supplier*, not a non-EU *country* - should be precluded from benefiting from the EC regulations? And why should that be the case anyway?
* [Or technically, perhaps, a supplier who was based in the EU when the order was placed in late 2018, but ceased to be so based upon Brexit taking effect on 31.1.2020]
_ _ _ _ _
And in passing: I don't think there has actually been a red card, has there? Isn't it rather the case that the country is perceived to be *at risk* of one? |
I’m lost Lav-is your analysis good or bad for us all as it seems plausible |
Thanks Kinbasket, I had forgotten about that article.
'The law firm said it was inclined to write the President after it has been made aware of BFAR’s push to implement Fisheries Administrative Order 266 issued in 2020 as it stressed that has been a series of recent articles alleging that the European Commission is poised to issue a “Red Card” against the Philippines, which in turn would affect exports to the member countries of the European Union.'
That strongly suggests that Victoriano has indeed concerns about vessels being tracked and is not the innocent newbie lawyer trying to take a stand against corruption. He even has his own counsel which seems slightly anomalous. |
I think there is also some debate about why the number of transceivers went from 2500 to 5000 for the second tender when "allegedly" only 1800 were required.
also from the same article.
“The project was initially conceptualized and funded by the French Republic, a member State of the European Union. SRT, a British company which consistently won the bidding despite its initial ineligibility, will continue to stand to benefit from the EC’s regulations based on an irregular contract despite the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union on 31 January 2020,” said the law firm in its letter.
That is a laughably bad argument. Because the EU red card was from the EU, no non-EU country may ever benefit from it. |
Isn't the Phillipines order complete anyway so no risk of revenue loss ? |
I think rwh£ue has got some of the detail mixed up.
Initially, the EU issued a yellow card. CLS, the incumbent provider of tracking mainly for High Seas Pocket 1 tuna fisheries, got busy and managed to get the French Treasury to offer a loan (presumably to the price that they had already specced with the BFAR) which was rapidly accepted by the Philippines. The EU lifted the yellow card very swiftly without anything other than the existence of the proposed loan as proof that the Philippines was taking action about IUU as well as some legal reforms.
SRT meanwhile was pitching their solution to monitoring as preferable as they could monitor large numbers of boats more cheaply using their shore-based systems with supplemental satellite data. The BFAR intended (and presumably still does) to monitor all fishing vessels. And when they issued a tender for the project it was clear that they wanted a system with the performance of SRT's. CLS bid for the project but their bid was rejected because it did not meet those criteria. SRT's French subsidiary's bid was accepted but the French refused to supply the loan even though by the letter of the law it was a French bid. The BFAR got the loan cancelled, a new and larger project approved by all the relevant bodies (including NEDA chaired by the President). We can only assume that the BFAR had to justify why they wanted to do this and why they didn't want CLS's offering.
When the new project was tendered, CLS did not bid as they could not supply what the BFAR wanted. |
One for the brave-it’s uninvestable unless you have FOMO which I have |
Well, as well as being gutted by the price drop, just when it was all starting to look rosier, I am sad that this has been aimed at ST. It must be awful for him, perhaps like being accused of rape that you didn't commit. |
Register for Free to get streaming real-time quotes, interactive charts, live options flow, and more.
Hot Features
Premium
