Sureserve Share Discussion Threads

[igoe104] 02/12/2019 10:59

Added again, this morning.

[igoe104] 29/11/2019 16:59

I managed to buy £3200, worth. any other order I placed got cancelled. could be interesting next week.

[knowhow77] 29/11/2019 16:36

Ticking along nicely onwards and upwards

[cheshire man] 29/11/2019 16:04

:-) Difficult to buy in size here so any increase in volume should move us up

[igoe104] 29/11/2019 11:56

Good to see you here Cheshire, your a good luck charm for me. I've also been adding as well.

[vfast] 28/11/2019 08:39

For information online trading:-

This morning MM's are biding 30.125p for up to 600,000 shares way above the 29p bid price and the Market Size would expect the share price to move today/very soon.

Never seen this in SUR so someone thinks they are very good value at this level.

Will look forward to figures in January.

[igoe104] 27/11/2019 16:12

it will be interesting to see if chris mills keeps buying these.

[cheshire man] 27/11/2019 16:06

Took some recently,,,,,,,let's hope the finals in Jan. reward me :-)

[vfast] 27/11/2019 15:35

MM's biding 29.65p for 500,000 shares and 30p for 400,000.

That is the most I have seen online trading in SUR. Someone very enthusiastic to get there hands on the stock.

[vfast] 26/11/2019 16:29

Thanks Cerrito.

MM's biding 29.4p for up to 375,000 shares, there must be a buyer looking for stock.

Just for reference. 27th Nov

MM's still biding 29.4p for 375,000 shares and biding 29.815p for up to 300,000 shares.

Hope we see some positive action in January when the final figures come out.

[cerrito] 25/11/2019 23:28

vfast, I do not know the answer to your question.
It had rather passed me by that Mills was a NED, While I note he is a NED at Goals Soccer Centre, I do feel that he adds weight to the board and provide challenge to Bob Holt.

[vfast] 25/11/2019 17:23

The company is in its "Closed Period" can a NED buy shares for the fund he runs? otherwise positive news.

RNS 25/11/19

Sureserve was notified today that on 22 November 2019, Harwood Capital LLP purchased 324,711 ordinary shares in Sureserve ("Ordinary Shares") at a price of 29 pence per Ordinary Share.

Christopher Mills, Non-Executive Director of Sureserve, is deemed to be person discharging managerial responsibilities at Harwood Capital LLP and is therefore deemed to have an interest in 30,489,711 Ordinary Shares of Sureserve representing 19.18% of the issued share capital of Sureserve.

[cerrito] 13/11/2019 21:18

I found the new Edison report an interesting read and see they see the sum of the parts valuation at 45p.
That said they are right to say that the share is at the show me stage and we need to wait until we get the full full year figures.
I remain concerned about Bob Holt being over extended given his wide ranging portfolio of jobs and the departure of Mr McMahon. Also reminded me when the AR comes out to look at parent company guarantees given for divested businesses.
hxxps://www.edisongroup.com/publication/starting-to-build-a-track-record-of-delivery/25553

[trustman] 05/11/2019 11:40

Nice and steady, a few small buys appearing

[vfast] 29/10/2019 20:16

Sometime hard tell with large trades between the bid and offer price but my guess is buys by Downing Strategic Micro-Cap Investment Trust or it could be another fund manager.

If it is Downing we will find out soon.

[vfast] 23/10/2019 10:57

I agree good news and a good recovery play.

[cerrito] 23/10/2019 09:43

To me, rather a strange RNS.
They knew the net debt position at September 30 when they did the previous RNS and they could have told us then about the £900k payment.
At first glance v good about reduction in net debt from the £12.9m at March 30 but we will need to see the working capital components in the year end balance sheet before passing final judgement.

[igoe104] 23/10/2019 08:02

I think these are a good recovery play, might have to start adding soon, when funds come available.

[knowhow77] 23/10/2019 07:59

More positive news from the group

[igoe104] 23/10/2019 07:44

Sureserve Group plc
("Sureserve" or the "Group")
Net debt position

Sureserve, the Compliance and Energy Support Services Group, announces that shortly before the end of the financial year to 30 September 2019, the Company paid down a further £4m of the Revolving Credit Facility to NatWest Bank and is currently utilising a total of £10m. As a result, net financial debt at 30 September 2019 is now expected to be approximately £7.6 million.

In addition, post the year end, the Group received £930k in relation to the sale of Orchard Energy to World Fuel Services Limited by way of final settlement of the deal consideration.

Bob Holt, Executive Chairman, said: "Continuing from our recent trading update, I am very pleased with our cash management whilst at the same time the Group is in a strong place to continue to build a profitable platform for future growth. I look forward to bringing you news of further successes for the Grou

[diduno] 19/10/2019 10:27

Found yesterday on Southwark Crown Court's listings, 2 of those facing charges have had their case listed for trial on 13 January 2020. It does not stipulate if this case will have reporting restrictions. I dare say we will learn more at the time.

[diduno] 11/10/2019 11:09

The link below is from the Hackney Gazette re case against Polyteck's owners, the Polycarpous.

hxxps://www.hackneygazette.co.uk/news/crime-court/costas-and-yiannakis-polycarpou-paid-bribes-of-90k-1-6316164

[vfast] 09/10/2019 11:36

From my understanding the alleged fraud took place against HC however it was individuals within HC, subcontractor(s)and Lakehouse and now these individuals have been charged and are on trail.

Like you say rather than speculating what might or might not happen regarding the trial it would better to wait and see.

I have made clear my opinion in several posts.

[diduno] 09/10/2019 10:35

The information passed to me is that Lakehouse paid for remedial works although possibly not voluntarily. It has not to date, at least to my knowledge, taken any action to recover whatever sums were paid to or withheld by HC for remedial works. Why has it not done so, or perhaps you know something to the contrary?

I think the Mayor's letter strongly indicates if not confirms that something was 'going on' as do the current court proceedings. Lakehouse has confirmed this but claimed the company was unaware of it at the time.

If HC was unaffected by the fraud that you appear to believe was purely a company in-house crime, why would the Mayor refer to fraud and overcharging in his letter? Who was overcharging HC if not Lakehouse? Do you not think Lakehouse would sue if there was no truth in it?

Obviously, I cannot state as a matter of fact that police are currently investigating Lakehouse. Can you state as a matter of fact that they are not?

With reference to a possible civil claim, as previously said, I believe that HC is awaiting the outcome of the criminal trial. It is possibly because an earlier civil case might have prejudiced the current proceedings by naming individuals prior to their criminal trials. In addition, I think even you might agree that civil claims are far easier to prove if there have been convictions for related crimes. In some cases such convictions often lead to agreements being made between the parties prior to civil proceedings. But having said that, there may well be no convictions. At this stage we will just have to wait and see.

[vfast] 08/10/2019 17:08

Yes, you are right about my comment "note they have not stated as a matter of fact that the work carried out was defective" my mistake.

I'm aware that the Company has refuted the allegations regarding the letter by Hackney Council and from memory HC never paid the full amount for the work undertaken.


The Company and HC have never stated anything is going on and I would think the Company would have to make an RNS to the City if there was. Can you state as a matter of fact the police are currently investigating?

I note the consideration for civil action but again as far as I'm aware no action has been taken and like I said above the Company refute the work was substandard.