hangon
- 08 May 2007 12:09
Don't panic - it's just a share-split.....bringing the sp to about 2.50
EDIT 31 Oct07:-
- Ooh deary me - ROK warns of lower profits . . . . currently 184
skinny
- 17 Nov 2010 07:10
- 48 of 51
Rok cuts further 1,800 jobs as sale attempt fails
The collapsed construction firm Rok has announced a further 1,800 redundancies after efforts to sell some parts of the business failed.
Administrators PwC said the jobs would go in the maintenance division across the UK and in the construction business in Scotland.
scimitar
- 04 Dec 2010 23:16
- 49 of 51
Hangon - somewhat delayed response to your 9/11/10 post. Yes, it seems Directors either don't know or ignore their legal responsibilies - I think the latter. The Auditors appear to be about the same [or incompetent]. How can investors make informed decisions when companies appear to put out misleading information?
Still, we can rely on the FSA to sort things out - see the recent report into RBS which effectively exonerates the Board members [must be large stocks of whitewash at the FSA at all times I would guess].
Have sympathy for the ROK employees and unpaid suppliers and contractors. And the shareholders who relied on misleading information.
cynic
- 05 Dec 2010 09:35
- 50 of 51
since the announcement of public sector costs in all sorts of areas, i am afraid ROK was always a rocky (sorry!) choice, especially after the collapse of Connaught ..... while it is very easy to blame the directors for what you guys call "misleading info", it would scarcely have been a responsible action for them to have cried, "Abandon ship; we're all doomed" while they were assuredly in the process of trying to keep the company afloat
scimitar
- 06 Dec 2010 20:27
- 51 of 51
noted cynic - guess we wern't cynical enough!
I was slightly sceptical in fact, but the data provided by the company supported the view that buying was an acceptable risk. Other companies in the sector trade still, eg, Morgan Sindall Group, [err - hope this is not the kiss of death simply mentioning them here in this context]. I still argue that company directors do not appear in some cases to comply fully with the legal responsibilities they have as directors.
On a more philosophical note "Oh well. its only money".