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

Baza,
I have MW down as more astute than that. I really think that he wanted a major boardroom shake up much earlier, but HW was the blocker with his large holding. I think much of the delay has been down to clients not trusting the managements experience and MW knew it. His problem was attracting and affording the right calibre of individual to impress the clients. He did try with the short term sales manager he took on.
I would not be at all suprised to learn that the company was allowed to "mark time" until the instis were needed to bail it out and HW was forced off so that MW could at last afford to attract, and be attractive to, the senior management he wanted, via the institutions. This could all be the result of months of smoke filled room negotiations between MW and the likes of Fidelity.
Alan

Must confess I expected a more positive response this morning - looks like the sp is going to slump on the news in the short term.

I did half expect another RNS this am appointing a new S&M director to the board as well as an insti heavy weight

PS S&M = Sales & Marketing - not sadism & Massochism!!!!

Tony, my daughter says she has been in The Richard Steele a couple of times, I think it must be the same one, although she called it the Sir Richard Steele? Kate Moss drinks there sometimes apparently so it must be for the really hardened drinkers like yourself!
kim

BH
Maybe the chosen candidate upped his demands seeing the opportunity...

S&M director post not attractive now there is no chairman for executive vice.

I am probably wrong but I think maybe HW & IB walked rather than were pushed, would it not require another EGM to force them out?
kim

I assume that IB and HW are still employed by the company under their contracts of employment, otherwise I think the RNS would have mentioned they had left the employment of the company?? But clearly the strategic management of the company has now moved on from the early stages of these two taking the company down the road of IP development.

Perhaps they will remain board directors of subsidiary operations, perhaps they have been given notice and there will be substantial redundancy payments due.

I wonder where Philip Lovegrove stands in all this - I guess part of the new rather than ancien regime with MW, Clive Warner as FD and Terry Robbins as COO - plus new Sales Director?

Could this really have been a done deal pre-placiung without it being mentioned in the placing docs - bit irregular, but I suppose there is no proof of it. Or was it a much more recent confrontation, or simple self-realisation that they would not fit with the new regime?

Perhaps we cannot be told until their final deaprture has been fully lawyered.

SP ticked up on the offer if not the bid to start with. Now slightly down on the offer, bid holding at 1.65 in faced of a few PI sells - v. low volume so far.

SD I agree, I think they are still employed by SEO in some form.
kim

We do not know they have gone, only no longer on main Board. We have seen HW being eased aside over recent weeks but I wonder about IB. Following HW being pushed he may have walked, or threatened to do so and the bluff failed.

Or IB may still be there but just in a technical role on the BioTec side. The RNS issued at 16.09 yesterday said "the Company has been informed by certain persons discharging managerial responsibilities that..". Nothing past in that, yet by the time that was issued the Board meeting referred to less than 30 minutes later was surely over and the Statement prepared.

The Chairman promised last Monday that RNSs would henceforth be clear and unambiguous !!

But then again, did IB cock it up big time over the IP licencing that became aparent with SPhere?

SD - snap !

The Prospectus tells us IB's Service Agreement had a 3 months notice and (interestingly, or is it standard?) "There is no provisions for compensation for early termination, although Mr Balchin may be entitled to submit a claim for breach of contracts should the service agreement be terminated early by the Company."

HW's said "No notice period is specified"

It is possible that SEO's M&AA restricts the number of Directors to 6, and that the company wants to appoint 2 new Directors so that 2 had to step aside?
kim

6?! - hardly likely is it?

anyway, just change the M&A to accommodate more if you want them

The M&AA can only be amended on majority vote SD.
kim

So . . . have an EGM. Oh they had one last week and forgot to include it, silly boys.

They would not need an EGM, the Board would be responsible for a change to M&AA, but my thinking is that they may not want too many Directors "Too many Directors spoil the company" and all that stuff..........oh yes, they already did!!
kim

No mention of Director changes in the press?
I would have thought it would have been reported in the FT at least - especially as it was the 'founders' of the modern SEO.

The Press are probably waiting for the follow up appointments/announcements..
saves paper and ink (in keeping with the theme)

Another possibility, HW & IB's replacements first have to resign posts elsewhere due to conflict of interest and RNS' have not yet been released for them? Or just a case of "I'm not playing if those two are" Step aboard Mr Bond and Miss Moneypenny, we need you NOW!
kim