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

Bos,
To be honest I would not have the foggiest idea what Starpol or GS looked like, but I noticed the same about 2 weeks ago in the prepared salad section (the clear lidded trays with the disposable spoon etc.).
Didn't comment cos I didn't know.
Alan

can someone tell me what`s going on with `vislinks ` shares not many shares are sold but it`s still going up & up . is it worth a punt .please tell me

This is the Stanelco thread. Go elsewhere for the information you are seeking

The oily one

Alan, 'I choose to believe that the LOI mean nothing because they have moved on to full formal contracts subject to finance'

Doesn't make sense. If the contracts have not been signed, the LOI's are still relevant. The LOI's can only be irrelevant if it is no longer the intention to sign the contracts.

Even if it is intended to wait for finance before signing, the LOI's would have as much validity as they had when announced. Yet they have been dropped from the prospectus.

Considering the prospectus went to over 200 pages and into minute detail, you would expect the LOI's to have been mentioned, particularly as they had previously been thought important enough to have two RNS's devoted to them!

No mention of LOI's means 'there is no longer any intention to enter into contract'.

Hence SEO decide to build the plants themselves and then look for customers - something they haven't thus far proved they are very good at.

'If you had 12 million to stick into a company ........would you not ask about LOI...' - who has put 12m in?

Oblo,
I wrote that my take was the contracts had been signed subject to finance, not would be if finance were forthcoming. No need for an RNS cos they were "subject to" and the LOI are no longer relevent, because the contracts were done. Your take could be equally true, but any company lawyer will tell you that LOI are not lightly done. They tie you to signing unless certain pre requisites are not met. You cannot back out of them easily.
The 12 million is the offer shares already taken. These were taken before the RNS about the offer and so must come from large and / or institutional investors who the company and its brokers approached in order to secure the bulk of the finance. These guys will have had a face to face prospectus presented and will have done an awful lot of due diligence, which is why there was such a long time between the announcement of SEO addressing funding and announcing it.
Time wil tell, but I am confident that as soon as the vote is secure, the contracts will be announced as signed, after all, if the contract is "subject to" the financing they cannot announce it prior to the vote and the LOI are nulled by the contracts being in that position.
Just my take on the situation. I know you will feel free to point out the invalid points ;-)
Alan

oblo/
how about a quick e/mail to SEO asking if LOI still exist.
regards

Auto,
done it about 3 minutes ago!!!
I would also argue that the LOI being withdrawn would have a significant impact on the markets and to not RNS that would be a breach of LSE rules, but that is another story.
Alan

I emailed SEO last night about the LOI's - will be interesting if we get a response

If they are like Asda we will get a response in about 5 years!!!!
Anyone else got a take on the LOI debate. Its likely that I and maybe Oblo are missing something.
Alan

I see the prices are being fiddled again, a leap up on 3 sells!

o/t - good to see BPRG making good headway after all the fuss earlier in the year. Would be nice to see SEO following suit

Any one here going to the MAM Xmas bash on the 8th December - looks like a spot of fun to me ??

I was thinking of having a northern one. The menu would be 14 pints of Theakstons, a pork pie with a piece of holly in it and a doner kebab on the way home. Traditional Christmas fayre.
Alan

Alan, 'No need for an RNS cos they were "subject to" and the LOI are no longer relevent, because the contracts were done. Your take could be equally true, but any company lawyer will tell you that LOI are not lightly done. They tie you to signing unless certain pre requisites are not met.'

The contracts 'were done'? I dont think you mean that.

'They tie you to signing unless certain pre requisites are not met' - precisely. We can debate what pre requisites may not have been met, but SPHere springs to mind - as the LOI's have never to my knowledge been made public, we may never know.

On the 12m - I quote 'the 1,375,000,000 New Ordinary Shares which have been
conditionally subscribed for by institutions and certain other
investors'

'Conditionally subsribed for' - what are the conditions, and will they be met?


Something else that wories me - from RNS 9th Oct setting out what the proceeds of the offer will be used for:-

'to meet the final stage payment of 1.6m due in June 2007 to EKI for
the Biotec Acquisition'

If all were going well, big contracts about to be signed, lots of income just around the corner, Why would they need to raise finance now (on pretty poor terms) for something not due until next June?

oblo - The current fundraising is costing 1.4M, i.e. if 15.8M is raised, 14.4M will actually be available.

I doubt very much that any company would want to repeat this exercise in the near future - hence the wider time-scales.

Timing-wise, I would agree it is dreadful but one suspects that there has been some hand-forcing over this past 6 months or so.

Alfa.

oblomov
''to meet the final stage payment of 1.6m due in June 2007 to EKI for
the Biotec Acquisition''

I share your concerns on this point.

The condition is the vote, oblo.
Yes I do mean the contracts were done. Signed subject to the EGM passing the resolutions required and the finance being raised (one and the same really).
The Biotec payment to me is simply SEO setting out all liabilities falling due within one year. No more. It may also be that any cash returns may be ploughed into more MMU's as the prospectus does say "at least the first two". The rest, if they come, will not be free.
All IMHO of course, and as usual I may be well wrong, but if all these things you point out were the problems you think, who in their right mind would subscribe to 1,375,000,000 shares??? Remember, if you are investing a few million at the request of a company, they do not seal their lips and point you to the last RNS. They answer your questions. They can be very candid about this and say things they cannot release to the general market providing they warn of the insider dealing legislation.
Alan

Well heres the reply about LOI;

Dear Mr Hewitt

Thank you for your email.

As you aware, we are unable to comment on specific questions due to stock exchange rules.

However, when we have any news to release to the market, an RNS announcement will be made and our website updated.

Best regards

Sylvia

Alan, its the standard 'dont ask awkward questions' reply, as mentioned by me a few days ago. Thats the one I usually get - doesn't inspire confidence, does it?

'Yes I do mean the contracts were done. Signed subject to the EGM passing the resolutions required and the finance being raised (one and the same really).'

Please elaborate - this is an important point. You're saying the contracts have been signed?

I'm saying that my take on it is that the contracts are signed subject to the EGM vote and financing. After all, if the resolutions are not passed and the money not raised, there is no company left to sign a contract.
I have absolutely no evidence of this, or any to the contrary, its just that no mention of the LOI in the prospectus leads me to beleive the same as you. Namely that they are now irrelevent. If they had failed then I am fairly certain that LSE rules would force SEO into a statement to that effect. Therefore the only other explanation is that they have been converted, but that would need to be subject to a statement unless they were signed subject to specific performance, because unless the performance were met then no contract could be said to exist.
I also appeal to the discussion on this board many times over of how if contracts were there, there would be little difficulty in raising the finance required. The 12 million acceptance of the share offer leads me to believe that the investors stumping this cash up have seen the contracts and the conditions of them. I think the condition is the EGM resolutions being passed and to ensure this happens, PI's like us have been offered a sweetener of the 0.8p deal, to buy our votes. That kind of neatly answers the question of why so much money being raised when there is enough just with the 12 million.
It all fits very well, and much better than the idea that SEO have blown the LOI and are running around looking for money to look for other contracts.
All opinion, and not intended as a ramp, just my view on why things are the way they are and what is likely to happen next.
Alan