Stanelco Share Discussion Threads

[rajstar] 27/5/2010 08:15

while some of the retired PI's who have nothing else to do except talk about their 500 shares in SEO and expect a return within 6 - 12months - the BOD is on the right track -

"Biome Bioplastics will be utilised as the industrial brand for the development
of the bioplastics business and Stanelco's commercial and technical development
will continue to take place within this wholly owned subsidiary. The Biotec
joint venture will continue to be optimised for supporting the manufacturing
scale-up of existing and new products"

[2pearly] 27/5/2010 08:14

I can confirm that under current legislation they would have to come out of the ISA. Can stay in a SIPP but ISA would have to close.

People have a choice of get out now with whatever they can or have a mandatory sale if it gets passed at the EGM at whatever the prevailing price is then.

Why no explanation about the perceived benefits of AIM etc?

Usual ignorance towards the people funding the company.

[rajstar] 27/5/2010 08:13

while the pensioners on this board crib about BD expenses - some good strategy from the SEO BOD -

" In support of Stanelco's growth strategy the Directors will reduce their remuneration packages during this period of cash constraint by approximately 30 per cent. following successful completion of the Proposals, and make further staff cost reductions. These savings will reduce the cash burn in respect of central costs by approximately GBP0.3 million per annum"

[rajstar] 27/5/2010 08:12

while the ladies on this board throw their handbags around - some good stuff from the SEO -

"Stanelco has also invested in sales representation in the North America over the
last 20 months and intends to continue aggressive development of this market,
which has a strong focus on renewable content for materials"

[jwoolley] 27/5/2010 08:09

Graxy...not sure about people selling there ISA amount just yet....think we need someone to confirm this ISA/AIM thing as I pointed out....

I agree with you also chick....I will also be voting against moving to AIM...this stock of all stocks, does not need even less regulation...!!!!

[2pearly] 27/5/2010 08:06

It does send that message though doesn't it.No more protection from CT but hey, don't wory about that 'cos it ain't gonna happen anyway.

They still can't put anything in a positive light can they? even with all the advisors they have.

[jwoolley] 27/5/2010 08:05

sicilian_kan - perhaps if you read my post again...and then understand that this stock isn't currently Aim you will understand how I have this in my ISA...when it goes to ISA (if voted yes to do so) I was asking what happens to my holding that I hold in my ISA because I am unsure when the rules are changing for AIM stocks to go into ISA's....

[bulgarianpropertydoteudotcom] 27/5/2010 08:04

Ch1ck 21538 The AIM move is a disaster as many holders have shares in ISA accounts and would be forced to sell and and be liabel for CT.

CT I DONT THINK THAT WILL BE A PROBLEM

"I might buy at .1p"

[ch1ck] 27/5/2010 08:01

Doc

I agree the I dont think the name change is a problem but it rarely has any benefit in this case it better defines the product line.

The AIM move is a disaster as many holders have shares in ISA accounts and would be forced to sell and and be liabel for CT.

It is also seen as a lightly regulated option. What this company needs is more regulation and accurate and honest infomation to the share holders

I for one will be voting against the AIM move at the general meeting expected to be held on 14 June 2010

[2pearly] 27/5/2010 08:00

So, if I can buy at .125 why wouldn't I sell everything I've got at .16p [like we've seen happening while they have been stalling] and buy the same amount back at .125p? keeping the difference?

There will be some ISA sells going through as limited timescale to get out after that bomb.

[jwoolley] 27/5/2010 07:58

Looks like there wont be a saving at all with the possible opening price looking at the plus market......oopppsss!!!

[bulgarianpropertydoteudotcom] 27/5/2010 07:56

.125p lol

ffs did someone say no discount?

[2pearly] 27/5/2010 07:56

doc
get with the programme fella.

Issue Price represents a discount of 37.5 per cent. to the share price of the Company at close of trading on 26 May 2010


May not March!

ask the company what the saving will be if moving to AIM [and everybody having to sell their ISA's as JW says]and see what they say.That is why I said very little saving.Ask them to quantify that saving and you may be suprised.

[the_doctor] 27/5/2010 07:40

'and the clowns are trying to take it to AIM'

saves cost Pearly. That's sensible

Reality is that it's a 65% discount. The March 26th price is irrelevant.

Still, with funding done, you may see a recovery.
Just amazes me how nobody in the city will run a placing for lower costs.

[2pearly] 27/5/2010 07:33

20% cream off for expenses!

Loved this line 'We have the capability to build a leading bioplastics business' BUT NOT THE COMMITMENT OR PERSONNEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and the clowns are trying to take it to AIM,much as I feared.Less regulation [very little saving in costs if any]less scrutiny and less requirement to communicate with shareholders.

As ever it stinks to high heaven.No explanation of how anything wil change.All the 'advisors' will earn another nice slice off the shareholders and not one commitment to anything changing.

AIM must be voted down.

37.5% discount on yesterdays close?! I don't think so,unless you take a very,very charitable view of yesterdays close.

So I think we open at .13

[the_doctor] 27/5/2010 07:11

"Firm Placing and Placing and Open Offer to raise up to GBP3.5 million
(approximately GBP2.8 million net of expenses"

look at the expenses! city crooks have it too easy!

[2pearly] 27/5/2010 06:20

I think the arrogance of the whole board shines through.

We have a chairman who, as part of the remuneration committee, authorised bonus payments of £35k each for the CEO and FD for hitting targets! but we shareholders are not allowed to know what those targets are/were.Either way they were targets that saw a need for more fund raising but still they pressed on and took the money.

We have a CEO who has stubbornly refused to put basic business principles in place such as forecasts and market guidance.He refuses to promote the company or the products [unless he can give more of the companies cash away to a third party such as 'thethinktank' for doing what should be happening in-house anyway].

They have made an absolute pigs ear of each announcement about dates and financial events [this isn't a new failing btw, across the last 3 years I have implored them to take these dates/website info seriously and every time they balls it up and think it's not important].

Now we find ourselves at a record low for the share price Have they told us how things are going to change from now on? how we will see an improvement for the dilution? No, they want to just carry on as they were with no urgency or consideration for shareholders.

Will they be coming clean about the aborted acquisition? The money that cost and why it was hurriedly turned into a fund raiser? Very difficult to place your trust in a board that have continually and constantly let us down by being arrogant and even now aren't being honest with shareholders.

The list of 'people we are working with' is the same as ever with none of it ever coming to fruition.Why don't any of the 'mega brand owners' ever want to pursue their trials? is it the man at the top they've got a problem with?

I know that if I was a 'mega brand owner' looking to develop my green credentials I would think long and hard about placing significant orders with a company that won't provide market guidance and has all the hallmarks of going out of business without regular cash injections.It's the same reason no new funds or institutions will come on board.They do Due Diligence checks about where they are placing their clients money and find that SEO won't say what they expect to achieve or even communicate with markets etc. They soon move on to the next company that IS set up on a professional footing.

It is only the greed of clinging onto their salaries [and bonuses FFS!] that keeps them there.Anyone else with any pride would acknowledge their failings and, if not sacked, would walk away with their tails between their legs never to darken the stock market again.They have lost 88% of the company value in 3 years and now want more money to keep doing the same.

Think very carefully folks before giving them anymore money without some commitment to change and some specific details about why things won't just be the same as the last 3 years.

[runnett] 27/5/2010 00:16

I don't think we can hang responsibility of SEO's lack of clarity solely on PM. I do agreee the management aren't showing confidence in the company by not buying.

Is replacing PM good thing at this time, probably not. I new broom will do exactly as PM, sweep clean claiming great times ahead. As they do this, allsorts of bad decisions and shareholder value disappear. They will then stamp their authority and snout in the trough.

I've been trying to work out where their capital funding will go and if previous aquisitions have seamlessly intergrated into SEO mission. If they have one lol.

Daw - I think you have a good point why PI's are a bit upset, look at SEO's history of delivery - exactly!.
Their core RF has been built up over a decade and a half as a reputable manufacturer and deliverer of furnaces. The Bio has a had problems from SEO becoming a bio IP company. Mainly due to lack of experts and knowledgeable management in this area. They have had over eight years in a rising 'green' bio market.
I believe there is a mix of trust issues from clients and management indecision causing these jitters. SEO success seems from JV's, is this the best way to go, i suppose any revenue is better than none.

SEO staff - I have a lot of empathy with the SEO staff. Some of these workers must be ripping their hair out on some of these decisions and management style. I'd love to hear their voice on why a green IP company cannot (doesn't want to) make a profit.

[daw2] 26/5/2010 21:11

I agree antline but unfortunately I am now hoping for that. We could deal with the stink later however as I said above I think Mines is incapable of doing any SIGNIFICANT COMPANY CHANGING DEAL of any sort. He is an arrogant boffin with his head in the clouds of development and seems to forgot that selling and big deals are what it is all about. Was it Donald Trump who said if you gonna think you might as well think big? THE ONLY THING BIG ABOUT MINES IS HIS MONTHLY SALARY.

[antline] 26/5/2010 16:52

From another board:

"Just imagine the smell that will emanate from Marchwood if the share price surges up on a big RNS just days after the board have dipped their hands in their own pockets [remember Sue Bygrave has not bought one single share]having allowed the share price to collapse to record lows due to their inefficiencies."

100% spot on

[2pearly] 26/5/2010 15:50

'the f-----n Clangers'
Brilliant!
and I think you are right on the button about him thinking he's done well.The arrogance of the man is quite something.