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

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

Alan, 'I have absolutely no evidence of this'

Thanks for clarifying that. My own view is that the contracts referred to in the LOI's are dead and that the current plans to build plants have replaced the plans contained in the contracts because, for reasons we can only speculate upon, Stanelco were unable to meets conditions in the proposed contracts - possibly because of SPHere.

The very fact that we are having to debate this - i.e. that we are not sure - is indicative that SEO have put up their usual smokescreen when things go wrong. The position should be clear, and what I pick up from the fact that it isn't is that they have something to hide. Particularly when they wont answer simple shareholders questions!

The investors stumping up the 12m cash couldn't have seen anything very amazing because if it were that good it would have to be announced in an RNS. I believe the 12m of investments may be for a short term profit, and we could see a big sell off once the SP settles down after the offer.

As you say 'All opinion' and, in my case, not intended as a bash, just my view on why things are the way they are and what is likely to happen next!

do not think loi's are dead at all, but will be subject to either EGM finanacing approval and/or starpol 3000 fda approval

A gentlemanly disagreement. What a refreshing change!!
I think the investors have seen something damn good, otherwise why catch what they would consider a falling knife.
One of us will be right (probably) and if we ever find out, what do you say to loser buys winner a pint???
Alan

Alan,

Agreed - and I sincerely hope the drinks will be on me.

At present, my pint looks half empty, yours half full!

I will happily buy the winner a pint - cos both scenarios are winners in my book.

I once thought that we would get news after the closing date for the issue and before the EGM (ie they have got your money - but want to minimise any hassle at the EGM from disgruntled shareholders - and I do think from what I have heard that this will be a lively meeting).

However - as seems likely, the contracts will be dependent on the vote at the EGM - so isnt it just possible, that after announcing the vote (and assuming it is positive) - that they announce new contracts to dampen the ardour of those who want to complain !!

Otherwise - the crowd could turn ugly.!! - thinking about it - they weren't that pretty last time

Just a thought

Are you implying that the shareholders are revolting, Baza?????

They were - and they will be !!

Yes bhunt I agree. Rumour has it no glasses or plates or bottles at EGM. Just Starpol 3000 like bottles and trays that don't shatter when lobbed on stage.

hewittalan6
Alan, i am amazed that SEO couldn't awnser your question about LOI still existing, all they had to say was yes(if they still are) no secret, but i think i will leave it there

For the sake of clarity, the exact question I asked SEO was;

Can you please confirm that these letters are still valid, or if they are not, why the market has not been informed.

Alan

Yes it's good to have disagreements,without any back biting. Good posts of late.
Heres my take for what it's worth.

LOI's...Not dead as they were LOI's for the sole purpose of intending to sign future agreements (contracts) if certain conditions, also already agreed are met. It would be impossible in a business sense to sign an LIO not being fully aware of the aforesaid conditions.

CONTRACTS.... Cant see how these could have been signed, for two reasons.

1 If contracts signed, they would/could be used in place of the LOI's, so LOI's would not have been required, re the funding.

2 If contracts signed, they would have to have released an RNS asap, as this would have had dramatic effect on the sp.
They would imho have no chance of keeping it quiet.

Of course only time will tell.