for more information about stanelco click on the links.

driver's research page link
http://www.moneyam.com/InvestorsRoom/posts.php?tid=7681#lastread
website link
http://www.stanelco.co.uk/index.htm

explosive,
they will need operating capital of at least 2million between now and revenue from any contracts signed now, so I don't think they've overegged it. They also need a bit aside in case another one comes along and they need to finance it.
Alan

Alan your begining to sound like a director. How can you say "2m between now and revenue from any contracts signed", we know not when contracts will be signed let alone when they'll produce revenue. As for "they also need abit aside in case another one comes along and they need to finance it" I think the RNS put this better as;

- to provide further working capital for the Group to fund the next stage
of commercial development of the Group's existing and new products and to
provide the Company with funds to back up any negotiations with customers and
partners.

But..........
SEO haven't justified there ask for 15.8m in fact they said

2.8 each approx on two manufacturing facilities in the USA, if there talking about building two manufacturing plants there must be a deal virtuly signed.
1.6m due in June 2007 to EKI for the Biotech Acquisition.
Now thats 2.8m x 2 = 5.6m + (1.6m due to EKI) = 7.2m and SEO propose to raise 15.8. Thats 8.6m unaccounted for and over 50% of the placing. Also the 1.6m payable to EKI isn't due until June 2007 in 8 months time. If any significant contract is announced within the next 8 months the sp would be higher allowing for a smaller placing. Leads you to think a contract won't be. So I can only assume that 8.6m is for general opperating expenses and pocket money unless theres either another deal or aquisition they can't mention.

Anyone got any idea how long 8.6m would last on general operating expenses?

did they not say 3 months ago that they had 900k and that it should last 3 months ?

If my memory is correct - then that appears to be about 300k per month or 3.6m for the year - ignoring any revenue

explosive,
Can't remember which RNS it was but cash burn was at about 300k per month. All the rest is simple business sense. Terms are ignored and big boys pay when they want, but always late! Todays RNS said for at least the first 2 contracts, so one assumes they would like more than the 2 they are talking about now. How foolish would they look if they just raised 7.2m and then by December asked for some more because another contract came up.
No mystery there. probably the only clear point in the whole statement!!
Anyway, i own so many bloody shares now, I ought to be a director. I couldn't do it any worse than some they have had.
(8.6mill at 300k per month is over 2 years).
Alan

As I said privately to someone, we are mostly fairly successful people in our own individual diciplines - otherwise we would not have the resources or acumen (other than greed!) to get into the situation we are.

Between the dozen or so clued up posters I am sure we know more than any single SEO director

BUT

singly, I doubt it.

From listening to, and conversations with, Martin Wagner I realise there is much more going on and more being resolved than appears on the surface.

Personally, I am happy with the proposals although unhappy how we got here.

alan, i don't care how many shares you have, just , have you got enough weedkiller yet? ;)

11million has been guaranteed (OK, conditionally upon the proposals being accepted) by Institutions and certain other investors. This cash is probably already sitting in T&G's bank.
So at this point the company goes ahead with funds for quite some time - between 2 and 3 years at burn rate of 300k p/month BUT our % of the company reduces by 66%.
OR
if we put up about half a penny per share (not a lot compared with most original costs) the Company gets another year and half's cash and our dilution reduces.

what none have you thought of in these last posts is money for legal action if required, when the rns first came out some of you picked up on it,now if they did not have the money for it, then asked shareholders for the dosh how many would put up the cash on this basis alone? if it is part of the fundraising no one can give an amount that would be needed.

Full of it, bos.
I get a feeling it is more needed than ever. ;-)

woodie,
i had some private intercourse last night on the subject of SPhere and litigation. The upshot was the thought that SEO wanted to detail the contracts in the RNS but T&G advised that it was not possible. They also advised that not including the Biotec rights would be misleading, but to put biotecs rights in would need a bit stating what would happen if Biotec decided to forgo their rights. That bit was not a unilateral action and so needed the rider about what would happen if there were a disagreement. If it were missed and subsequently there were a disagreement, SEO could stand accused of a misleading RNS.
While I have no evidence for this assumption, it seems to make sense, as I cannot see how Biotec have an action, if SEO offer them the chance to use their capacity and then increase their capacity, and they refuse or are unable to do so. I am no lawyer, but surely if they do not produce the resin required, then the contract becomes subject to non performance, and Biotec breach it, not SEO.
An interesting point for our resident lawyer. I know we have one on here.
Alan

Explosive

'2.8 each approx on two manufacturing facilities in the USA, if there talking about building two manufacturing plants there must be a deal virtuly signed.'

A deal virtually signed? In SEOSpeak that means very little!

The 8.6m unaccounted for? You've forgotten the new incentive scheme!

I'm afraid I'm become more sceptical and negative since this RNS - Can someone convince me we aren't just funding the Management's jobs for the next year or so? I really do want to be convinced, honest, but I'm having trouble convincing myself.

Away for a couple of days so lack of response for a while on my part doesn't mean I've leapt from the window ledge!

A key question for me at the EGM (BEFORE the vote) is what are Age of Reason's intentions. In my mind this is equivalent to director's interests with knobs on due to its size - do they still hold 23%, can't see it listed on Digital Look who says "no major shareholders found". Have they been selling over the last 6 months?

stockdog

I think that any person, trust or organisation that has more that 5% of a company's stock, are bound by Stock Exchange rules to announce when the they buy or sell. The reason being that it does affect the balance of power and alerts directors to any potential bid that might be planned.

The oily one

If Age of Reason had already given their backing, would that not form part of the 1350000000 firm shares, and not need to be included in the RNS, as they are not directors???
Alan

AgeoR could be among "certain other investors" who have already put up 11m.

Alan. Correct, not being Directors we do not have to be told this.

Stockdog. Definitly a key question but not one we can force the directors to answer at the EGM.

The vote at the EGM could, in theory, scupper the fundraising but we cannot make our own decision to put money up based on what we hear at the EGM. Applications close 5 days before the EGM. By which time our cheques will have cleared!

Although the EGM may be a discussion forum with the Board (unless the unlikely event of the Chairman not allowing this as it being outside the Agenda) what we hear cannot alter our decision.

Woodie,
Re My post 21117. Re...Do shorters have to close, or is their position extended by the amount of the dilution any one know.
This sentence was a cut/paste from a previous post (21108). I was just answering the question. Surely a dilution has no effect whatsoever on a shorters position re closing an already existing position. As to the additional shares, I fully agree they have the same rights as everyone else. I think we were at cross purposes.
Cheers Greek.

The potential for another CC is a big concern. Also, the fact that SEO appear to have got themselves into this particular corner is unbelievable.

With Sphere consuming 80% of Biotec's production, it doesn't leave much for other commitments.

Oblo, the mention of the unaccounted 8.6m should actually be 7.2m. The net proceeds is 14.4m of which 7.2m is already earmarked for at least 2 MMPs @ 2.8m each plus 1.6m Biotec payment. There is also the cash burn to consider, which currently runs at ~300k per month. I'd say they'd look at a year's worth: 3.6m. So I'd doesn't look like they've over-egged it at all to me, especially if they decide to build at least 3 MMPs.

greekman re the above post yes we were at cross purposes sorry for mis-understanding

garyble, agree with you totally re. seo getting themselves into this situation where it appears that they are banking on a legal interpretation of a clause in the jv with sphere rather than something crystal clear. it also appears that they are gambling on sphere/biotec not being prepared to take it to arbitration. it doesn't strike as the best way to "do" business especially when you are months away from going bang.

also, the rns stating that the fund raising was nearly completed. what a crock of shit!! the fund raising is nowhere near being completed. the fund raising could fall flat on its face if shareholders decide to not take up the open offer; that's a million miles from being completed.

Woodie,

No problem whatsoever.