Westminster Share Discussion Threads

[threeputt] 11/8/2017 19:19

apologies Graham,your post crossed with mine

[threeputt] 11/8/2017 19:17

Thanks, still puzzled by the answer, also like to get Graham's view on my post:
So do you agree or not that they have signed mou's and loi's, that the loi could be Egypt (or Oman), but that they (the bod) are overegging the likelihood that any contract(s) will come their way, the reality being it will likely go to tender instead or for some other reason not happen ?
Like I say, genuine interest having followed the story and not blind to the reality, but also why else would hh have invested ?

[graham1ty] 11/8/2017 19:04

Threeputt, no I do not think it is a complete fraud. I suspect WSG has been asked about a number of security contracts, has given advice ( probably for free, hoping it might lead to something), and therefore can claim to have a role in these airports.

However, the other side give out MOUs which are meaningless. They can be as vague as "let us keep talking, thanks for your help, this is the basis on which it is given" ( the MOU). However, as we know they are completely unbinding. So, WSG hangs on, hoping and praying. With the way they seem to think, a meeting at Heathrow saying "can you add any value ?" ( which they possibly can) counts as being part of the "pipeline". Part of business is assessing what % chance there is of getting a contract and factoring that in to your projections. WSG seem to just add the gross number in. And that counts for the financial projections. So Lungi and the ferry might have been £15m per annum......on their very very most optimistic forecasts. But WSG ( and their advisors and non Execs) let. Them use the rosy coloured specs number.

I have said before, with a pipeline of so many prospects, either WSG is absolutely useless or incapable of converting them; or they are not really, truly, realistic prospects. I think they are being lead a merry dance.

Meanwhile, overheads sit at £4.5m ( the last figures) when revenue is only £4.4m, no wonder they lose millions each year.

Any serious country or company looking at their record ( nothing apart from Lungi); their implementation ( .....ferry); their cash position ( needing to raise money 3/4 times per years; their balance sheet ( net assets £2.3m, but including £2.7m for the ferries.......they have negative net assets ex the ferries); their reputation ( allegations in Namibia.....these bulletin boards); the company they keep ( Darwin, Beaufort, Angel)..........would not touch them with a bargepole.

[youkme] 11/8/2017 18:03

not a fair question threeputt. look at the history, look at the rns feed look at the so called long term holders, look at delivery.
This company is the biggest pos on aim and grossly over valued, but as long as a new set of rampers rock up then they can keep the lights on.
Tick took as the dates the latest rampers suggest will bear a contract to egypt! really? ffs this company will not have any chance of landing this contract. Ask yourself why would a country of egypts size place a security contract with this lot.
These dates will come and go and the posters will disappear only to re invent themselves (harold what will your next name be). Next RNS will be a funding one imo but don't worry, the rampers will sell it to you as "contract imminent". 23M MC ffs! someone going to take a big hit here very soon

[threeputt] 11/8/2017 14:57

Graham, we all hear ya through the years, this share does hold my fascination tho.

So are you saying this company together with all their imminents, soons etc is a complete fraud designed to fleece holder of their money and pay the family, and there are no opportunities, loi's mou's, and the Baldrys etc were just brought on board because they are good with fraudulent companies

It seems unfeasible.
Genuine interest, I only hold a few

[loobrush] 11/8/2017 13:59

Contract next week perhaps..
On lse they have found a Turkey newspaper posting saying that a British Gov security team is due next week to sign of new security arrangements at a Cairo airport so that Brits can travel there.
Could be the airport WSG are in for and if so contract could also be announced.
So next week could be really interesting,
Have added some more just in case.

[madmonkflin] 11/8/2017 09:12

No problem, I thought I'd get it moving in the right direction this morning!

[someuwin] 11/8/2017 09:00

Good to see this one moving up on what is generally a down day.

[abergele] 10/8/2017 21:36

He always comes back when it's down ,then disappears when it climbs..

keeps preaching to us of our folly of investing here..he must be a vicar or curate perhaps...gl J H

[john henry] 10/8/2017 21:23

If you right about the placing at 10p ( which you keep banging on about) then you should make a fair wedge with your short.

[john henry] 10/8/2017 21:21

Graham1TY, I'm guessing you the kinda person who is man enough to back up his words hence you have a short on WSG. I'm guessing your probably short from around 17p with 500k. Let see how much you've gained or lost in around 6 weeks.

[graham1ty] 10/8/2017 09:57

Did you and saucepan find the footage of Baldrick at the ceremony giving "knighthoods" to certain gentlemen ? So dodgy. Surprise it is not "Arise Sir Peter, Lord of Banbury"

[john henry] 10/8/2017 09:29

A contract certainly needs to land this month, if not an awful lot of questions need to be answered by Fowler.

[youkme] 10/8/2017 09:16

Wow Graham, what a post last night on the other thread. Just been reading myself. So these are the big hitters that jimzi is on about (q taxdodge post) lol. Well well well I never

[saucepan] 10/8/2017 09:12

Just for the record, I exited my punt at 18p this morning for a small profit. I knew about Sutcliffe's ongoing Board association with SPL/MPL and all that is alleged there. I had not been aware of what had been written/alleged re Baldry until a Google search yesterday evening.

Insights gained, and some other connections made, proved just one red flag too many for me and ends my (long) fascination with WSG.

Thanks, Graham1TY, for your post 13270. It nudged me to do some further digging of my own.

I wish believers well and hope that a transformative contract will soon land.

[youkme] 10/8/2017 08:15

Going to have to unpack those bags soon just to air them surely.

[saucepan] 08/8/2017 13:16

Thanks, Nick; helpful

I lean towards the circumstantial evidence you put forward, but don't dismiss Graham's cynicism - reflected in the size of my current WSG holding.

By the way, the above referenced article mentions a British Company, Risk Control, (riskcontrol.com). I am surprised Eskers and others have not been searching for Linked In connections :-)

[nick2412] 08/8/2017 13:00

Saucepan, we come back to the free to client business model WSG offer, the fact Restrata focus on training (setting up a training academy), the high level ministerial involvement (fits with Egypt), the political issue (Sharm el-sheikh), the fact that it is not Oman (lord Astor's unawareness of WSG), German subsidiary links to Egypt aviation, the fact that wsg have referenced it is a Govt client - the only other WSG Govt client in the ME is Yemen and they don't fit plus far too many other coincidental and compelling points that have been referenced numerous times. Last but not least the numbers cited by WSG fit with Cairo plus add-ons the passenger numbers have to be divided by two as it's embarking passengers that pay the security fees.

[graham1ty] 08/8/2017 12:43

Saucepan, considering the "certainty" over Oman, I am surprised there is not more caution over it being Egypt. In fact, the passenger numbers for Egypt do not fit AT ALL the previously mentioned WSG numbers and convoluted arguments are being used to twist Egypt to fit the desired profile.

I would also be rather surprised if such a high profile role, with existing multinationals crawling all over it, would be given to a squirt like WSG. They are a financial minnow, bankrupt over the last five years, hence 23 fundraisings, and negligible record of successful implementation. The ferry as we all know is a disaster. Google "security issues Lungi" and their reign at Lungi has not been entirely without issues: WSG are the mob who allowed a man with petrol, matches and lighter to get on a plane last summer, hardly the kind of security that Sharm requires ?

It may be Egypt. It might be Heathrow

[saucepan] 08/8/2017 10:23

I find this fascinating:



[link posted earlier today on that other well known board]

Local journalists have clearly identified the involvement of Falcon and Restrata as fact.

I cannot, however, get my head round the links between these Companies and WSG and for me it raises more questions than answers.

Does it seem more likely that Egypt is indeed the rumoured ME LOI?
Is the contract seemingly more likely to land WSG's way because of the Restrata and Falcon links with WSG, or could it be a sign that opposition has muscled in instead. i.e. going it alone, without WSG?
Why have the journalists seemingly got no whiff of WSG involvement, if indeed there is such involvement?

Nick, I expect you will have insights to share.

[abergele] 08/8/2017 09:15

I can see at least two early buys got themselves frightened and offloaded as quick as they could,pos. three even...just out for a quick buck .gla lth's

[nick2412] 08/8/2017 09:09

To add to someuwin's clarification the RNS says 'based on the *current* PAX throughput. The number of passengers to Sharm (which I perceive to be one of the add-ons) has reduced up to 85% with a loss of 120m per month to the Egyptian economy following the flight. The contract figures are starting at a low point if as it appears it is Egypt.

The 85% figure is taken four months before the LOI rns was issued. That rns was issued for the main airport but since then the add-ons have been included taking it up to £35m per annum. The same point remains - if the likes of Sharm el-Sheikh and other tourist hit airports are included then they start from an unusually low basis. Aside from that, capacity for Cairo and Sharm is being increased by 10m passengers in total - 8m for Cairo and 2m for Sharm el-sheikh,

So on that basis (that the likes of Sharm are included) there will be an inevitable significant increase in the numbers following a return to previous numbers after the UK lifts the travel advisory flight 'ban' to Sharm el-sheikh.