Tanfield Group is the new company name of Comeleon. As I understand it, Comoleon was getting into trouble so TAN (paerent company?) took over. Since this has happened the share price has dropped by 0.25p each day for the last week or so (on average) and are now around the 3p mark with very little activity.

Does anyone know much about this company or previously held stock in Comeleon? There is virtually no info out there other than on the company website.

cheers

Mike

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtml?xml=/money/2008/07/06/cctan106.xml

goldfinger - they stopped showing the 'on loan' data a couple of weeks ago!

Cheers Skinny.

Not one I have invested in fortunately, but just to rub salt in the wound, have just found the following aticle:
"T1PS AWARDS: Who is the worst broker?

It was you, dear Sharecrazy readers, who nominated the five companies up for this award. This would not have been my short list and so I can see no particular reason to vote for four of the nominees, that is to say WH Ireland, Evolution, Hoodless Brennan and John East & Co. During the last year none of these four have done anything too bad and some, John East in particular, are run by thoroughly good blokes. But there is one name on the list which gets my vote and that is St Helens Capital. In fact it would be a travesty if any other firm won this award.

Now I can hear people pointing out that St Helens is a rival as a PLUS adviser to RSCF which is owned by RSH the owner of Sharecrazy. But that is not why it gets my vote. Nor is it the fact that the patronising twerps who I meet from St Helens annoy the hell out of me and when the revolution of the meritocrats comes along they will be first up against the wall along with the person who runs the jobs section at the Guardian. What makes St Helens, IMHO, a shoe-in for this award is that its biggest deal of 2007, by far, was raising vast sums at a hugely inflated price (150p) for Tanfield.

Tanfield shares now trade at 5.5p. The company is bleeding cash and my target price is not a lot above 0p. Of course the man who runs Tanfield (Mr Roy Stanley) was a major shareholder in the firm so I suppose one favour deserves another. But when such a large percentage of profits come from commission earned on this rotten placing you deserve stick."

So now we know from the Telegragh article that although TAN is a good idea, the cy is a load of crap and Stanley has little credibility left in the market. Misleading the market. Ummm. Now where have I have heard that before? For TAN read SEO and WNG etc etc .

Only goes to show you should trade Aim stocks and sell when in profit.

If you stay in long term you are at the mercy of dodgy management.

One for the graveyard unless total management change.

Luckily not one I lost on unlike other Aim shares I could mention.

Telegraph article ......

Tanfield tumbles from the green bandwagon
Last Updated: 12:34am BST 07/07/2008Page 1 of 3



In its heyday, the maker of electric vehicles was the biggest company on Aim. Last Tuesday, the shares careered to a low of 5p. Louise Armitstead looks at what went wrong

Eighteen months ago, an embattled Tony Blair was looking for a worthy distraction. With his admission that he'd become the first prime minister to be questioned by police as part of a criminal investigation, the "cash for honours" scandal had reached fever pitch.

A few days later, on a blustery February morning, Blair's advisers carefully staged his first public appearance after this latest storm: the opening of the new headquarters of Tanfield, a company set just outside Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

advertisement
Tanfield ticked the boxes: founded by Roy Stanley, a local entrepreneur, the London-listed company was pioneering the production of electric vehicles and attracting the attention of some of Britain's biggest companies, equally keen to board the green bandwagon.

Blair's visit would also coincide with Tanfield's announcement that Marks & Spencer planned to use Tanfield's electric vehicles for local deliveries instead of petrol or diesel ones.

Tanfield calls in PwC
The implication was not lost on Blair. "This unique company is a prime example of UK manufacturing innovation at its best," he told the gathered crowd.

"In just three years, Tanfield has grown from a small enterprise with a good idea into a thriving global manufacturer, with its heart in the north-east of England. This will be a company that will really make its presence felt, not just in the North East, but actually throughout the world."

Tanfield's Stanley, who'd quit teaching in local comprehensive schools to follow his dreams of being an entrepreneur, murmured that the company was already the largest maker of electric vehicles in the world.

In London, the smart money was already on Tanfield. Some of the best-known investment brains, including M&G, Lansdowne Partners, GLG Partners and Pictet, piled in. Over a year, the stock had soared four times from 20p to 85p.

With the endorsements of Blair and M&S, followed by orders from J Sainsbury and DHL, Tanfield's shares took off. At its peak last summer, Tanfield was worth about 700m and was the biggest company on the Alternative Investment Market (Aim).

One investor said: "Stanley told us that this small company was best placed to storm the world and lead in electrical vans. It seemed unreal but exciting."

But for some, Tanfield was beginning to seem just that - too good to be true. Late last year, analysts started questioning Tanfield's reporting procedure and its figures, then the sustainability of its business model.

The indomitable Stanley brushed aside any criticism. Just a month ago, he told The Daily Telegraph Tanfield was "one of the best growth stories that's ever taken place on Aim".

But the shares started to slide at a sickening rate. From 203p 12 months ago, Tanfield shares fell to 120p in April and then halved to 60p towards the end of June.

Last Tuesday, Tanfield released a dismal trading statement, confirming that the growth strategy was having to be severely curtailed. Investors reacted with extraordinary violence and fled. By the end of the day, shares tanked a further 80 per cent to close at just 5p.

This weekend, the company has secured a new loan facility to ease cash flow while attempts are made to get it back on its feet. But investors are still reeling in shock at one of the most fastest falls from grace in recent stock market history.

Tanfield, who refused to comment this weekend, has told investors it has just been hit by unforeseen market difficulties. But how can a company worth 700m suddenly collapse to 18m almost overnight?

Even as the London Stock Exchange last week started its investigation into the implosion, analysts are pointing to a raft of peculiarities for a public company - ranging from the position of St Helen's Capital, which is part-owned by Stanley, as house broker, question marks over Tanfield's sales figures and then the sudden departure of the US boss three weeks ago.

When did Stanley, his chief executive Darren Kell, - both of whom sold large stakes in the company last summer - or his advisers find problems? And what exactly has gone wrong - is this a case of over-hyped expectations, an over-reaction by investors, gross mismanagement - or worse?

advertisement
More on transport
Roy Stanley, who grew up in working-class 1950s Liverpool, always felt he was an entrepreneur. Telling his story recently on an aspirational website, Stanley wrote: "My first-ever business venture was when my dad won enough money playing cards to buy a television. I was about six at the time and my friends used to sit along the back wall outside our window where they could look in and watch the TV. I used to charge them a penny each and if they didn't pay the penny I would close the curtains."

He worked hard, won a school scholarship and started work in industry but quickly dropped out to become a teacher. After 10 years, his ambitious nature was frustrating him.

He said: "I wanted to be a head of a really bad school, and I'd applied for the worst school in Middlesbrough. I didn't get the job, the reason being that I didn't have enough leadership experience.

"I thought about the best way of getting the amount of leadership experience that would prepare me for a job like that. So I decided to set up for myself in business."

He added: "I've always believed that if you can control a class of 30 kids, you can do anything. If you can keep them interested, motivated, and get them performing at a higher level, it's a skill set that's very similar to running a business."

Although when telling his story, Stanley jumps straight to Tanfield, an earlier venture for him was the Fin Machine Group, a Sedgefield-based manufacturing firm that Stanley bought into in 1992. At the time, he told local reporters: "We have a great opportunity to create a world leader in a very competitive industry."

A year later, Stanley was claiming he was well on his way. But by 1994, the company was in trouble and new buyers had to be found. One person involved in the deal spoke to The Sunday Telegraph this weekend: "[Fin] took some sorting. It had nearly run out of money and was in a bit of a mess."

Undeterred, Stanley started Tanfield as a sub-contracting engineering business but it quickly developed as a jumble of websites and industrial ventures. The most significant was Comeleon, which printed mobile phone covers, which he decided to spin off in 2000, just as the dotcom bubble was bursting.

Amid much hype, the company soared and Stanley became the inaugural winner of the County Durham Lifetime of Achievement Award. But just a year later in 2003, Comeleon collapsed too.

Stanley used the Comeleon shell to complete a reverse takeover of the rest of the Tanfield group, which had 200 staff, and immediately predicted rapid growth.

After several acquisitions, Stanley, with Kell who had joined him, developed the group as three parts. To the original engineering business, he added Smith Electric vehicles, a milk-float maker, for 3.2m in 2004.

Stanley also bought Aerial Access, a small firm that developed powered platforms for the construction industry. To this, he added a rival, UpRight, for 10.5m. gaining 23 per cent of the global market which, he claimed, was growing at a rapid rate.

As Tanfield's stock soared, Stanley and Kell's confidence grew. In hindsight, analysts believe their exuberance began to show in company statements. For instance, the much-hyped deal with M&S announced at Blair's visit was a trial for just one vehicle.

Last summer, when the stock was at its peak, Stanley and Kell embarked on their most ambitious deal yet. They announced the acquisition of Snorkel, an American aerial access business worth 55m, and a 115m placing to pay for it.

Excited investors pounced on the placing, hardly even noticing when shortly afterwards Stanley cashed in 14m by selling 8.5m shares at 163p. One commentator said: "Tanfield bought Snorkel with highly-rated stock at the top of the market. Not only was the construction industry about to plummet, but Snorkel itself was in a mess.

advertisement
What were these guys, based in Newcastle, going to do about this cash-guzzling business in Kansas? This was typical of their over-confidence in their abilities."

Stanley and Kell insisted there was no problem and, in its September interim statement, reassured the market that business and the capital position was in good shape.

Tanfield's shares began to slide, along with the rest of the Aim market. The management reacted with increasingly upbeat public statements, which began to jar with analysts.

In December, Tanfield announced "the largest new customer order to date", 100 vehicles from Ireland. On investigation, the order was from a vehicle distributor rather than an end-user - that is, the vehicles had yet to be sold.

Analysts, in particular Chris Dyett at Investec, began to question the nature of Tanfield's customers, a position that became more intriguing as Tanfield refused to answer because of "customer confidentiality".

By April, the stock was down but still the market was shocked when the company said that, contrary to its guidance, the capital position had been significantly hit because of costs at Snorkel.

Stanley tried to pad the blow by claiming the business had sold 406 vehicles - only he again refused to disclose to whom. The shares continued south.

A month later, Tanfield released arguably its most ambiguous statement to the market with the news that TNT, the Dutch delivery firm, had ordered a further 100 vehicles from Smith. Chaos followed as checking calls by analysts could find 50 vehicles ordered by no one who could confirm the second 50.

Behind the scenes, Tanfield's advisers began to panic. A letter obtained by The Daily Telegraph from Cenkos, the company broker, to Kell dated May 16, starkly laid out the group's shortcomings.

Cenkos argued for a complete overhaul of Tanfield's financial operations, reporting, board membership and advisers. It demanded the immediate appointment of a "top four" accountancy firm and the sacking of St Helen's, the broker that Stanley owned.

Insiders say Stanley reacted angrily and started looked for a new broker. But in the process, news of the reality of Tanfield's financial position began to leak out, hitting the stock hard ahead of its expected results.

Then suddenly and without explanation, Frank Scarborough, head of Snorkel in America, quit Tanfield.

Last Friday Tanfield claimed that the stock was being hammered because an American rival, Osh Kosh, had warned on profits.

But the results on Tuesday surprised even the most suspicious commentators and destroyed the loyalty of the faithful - even a buy note from Investec was ignored.

One investor said: "Ultimately we had taken a view on electric vehicles and nothing had changed this philosophy. But on Tuesday, everything changed because the management were discredited. It's got nothing to do with vans and everything to do with what else is going to come out."

The panic spread to Stanley's new Aim-listed firm, Darwen Holdings, which builds buses. Last week, the stock plummeted by more than 30 per cent.

This weekend Tanfield has a new set of accountants poring over the figures, trying to establish what went wrong and how to move forward.

An insider said: "It's going to take time to sort out. But there's a real business here and it's worth rescuing."

We are going to see (Stanelco like) sp movements here with the ups and downs !.

Yes but look at the spread.

Do you get the impression MM's don't want us to make any money atm lol

They never want us to make money!!

New DS note :


Tanfield - SELL

Price: 7.3p Target price: under reviewp
Code: TAN.L Analyst: Mike Stoddart | 0161 830 1892


Lifeline?

The company made an announcement on Friday:

New Bank Facility The Company announces that its wholly owned subsidiary, Snorkel International Inc., has agreed a five year revolving credit facility of up to $35 million with JP Morgan Chase Bank NA ('Chase') secured over Snorkel's assets. The facility will bear an interest rate of the greater of prime rate of interest announced by Chase and the Federal Fund's effective rate plus 0.5 per cent., subject to a cap of 5.25 per cent and a floor of 3.67 per cent.


There may be some relief today that Tanfield has been able to secure a credit facility. It had repaid all its debt (except about 1.7m of finance leases and 81,000 of invoice discounting) with the proceeds of the share issue that was done to pay for Snorkel in mid-2007. If the group can halt its cash outflows, then this facility may give them sufficient time to be able to stabilise its finances and survive the downturn in sales of powered access equipment. To put the amount in context, $35m is about the same as the cash outflow that the group suffered in H1 2008. Hopefully, the cash outflows should slow down from now because of the reduction in the need for working capital.


There were also press reports over the weekend that PWC is being brought in to verify the accounts and check the working capital assumptions. It is difficult to know whether to be worried or relieved over this news. Our biggest concern would be that PWC would find that not all of the amounts which had been ascribed to working capital should have been. This could lead to a restatement of the accounts and a further collapse in confidence (if it can get any lower). As far as we can see there has been no official notification of their appointment or the reason for it which, once again, is an example of poor communications.

We would still sell Tanfield. Until the group can demonstrate that it has reversed its cash outflows we could not recommend the shares except on a speculative basis.

From across the road......

Tanfield & St Helens Capital Lets Get the Record Straight
I declare my interest first. The largest adviser to PLUS Markets companies is St Helens Capital. The fastest growing adviser to PLUS companies is RSCF which shares an owner with Sharecrazy. So were St Helens to collapse I cannot pretend that I would not be delighted. As it happens I think St Helens deserves to collapse and the reason is Tanfield.

Let us just get the facts straight. In late 2006 Roy Stanley who is CEO of Tanfield started building a stake in St Helens. Tanfields then broker was Daniel Stewart but Stanley had a very close relationship with a few key employees of Danny Stewart. On February 6th those employees jumped ship to St Helens where they are now in charge. On February 19th 2007 St Helens was appointed joint broker to Tanfield and with St Helens stock flying on 23rd February Stanley started to sell his holding. By April 2nd Stanley has sold all his shares at a tidy profit.

In May and June St Helens acted as joint broker on a 130 million share placing at 150p for Tanfield. St Helens does not break down its income by client but assuming it earned a 1% fee then it will have made 1.3 million on the transaction which all goes to the bottom line. In the half year to September 30th St Helens recorded sales of 2.3 million and a pre-tax profit of 990,000 which was the springboard of a move to AIM but if there had been no Tanfield that would have been sales of just 1 million and a pre-tax loss.

The relationship between Stanley and the pukka establishment fellows who run St Helens is no doubt totally above board. No doubt Roy had no idea that St Helens was about to get a new injection of talent when he bought his shares and no idea that he would appoint St Helens to such a lucrative brokership so pushing the shares up allowing him to make such a tidy turn. And his selling of St Helens shares was, we must remember at all times not something he wished to do but an altruistic gesture designed entirely to satisfy institutional demand. It says so in official announcements made by St Helens so it must be true.

The fact that the St Helens chaps and Stanley have done so well from these remarkable coincidences will, no doubt, be of great comfort to those who bought into the Tanfield placing at 150p. Tanfield shares are now 6.1p to sell which is exactly what any remaining shareholders should be doing. What is important to remember is that St Helens is run by well bred, well educated good City chaps while Roy Stanley was an acquaintance of Tony Blair and on that basis any suggestion that anyone involved in this episode has done anything which is remotely improper is clearly 100% wide of the mark. The whole story leaves the City and all concerned bathing in glory.

Tom Winnifrith

I have read all these doom & gloom postings but day after day purchases reported exceed sales by a clear margin, today for instance it is 12m to 3m so someone is selling and not marking the sale .... it would be very helpful if anyone could give me an explanation.

hopefully tipton11.

not necessarily true at all ..... sp is up and in any case, MMs must have swathes of shares on their books to shift

tipton the Buy-Sell is an ancient Art - no-one knows what it means - only when the ratio is 10:1 does it mean anything...yet the real interest is the price- as it moves during the day.


I thought the 200 unsold stock was cherry-pickers, not electric vehicles...which is fairly bouyant, although a small part of TAN's projections, it could be the driver of New-TAN*'s fortunes.

It was 80% industrial lifts
and 20% vehicles.

I suspect we can cut the (access)80% to about a quarter of projected figures -and- ( e-vehicles) to about a tenth. ( that's half projection)...making New-Tanfiled about 20% of the hype. Sure that's a big jump - but let's be realistic, not all those Orders were going to happen . . . . and we don't need the extra materials, so a few savings there.

*New-TAN - i.e. as of 6-July market close, has changed everything...
1) RS must go
2) along with St Helen's - - - and I hope the FSA and SFO have a field day with them. Some change is necessary and I suspect Shareholders would be the ones to do it - probably for free.
3) Applegarth must not be allowed into their car-park

The Government needs to change Corporate Governence...more like that in Australia . . . following their implosion some years ago.
That would be a good legacy for GB to leave....something that would benefit UK plc for many years to come.

On the basis that New-TAN can still serve their customers, their sp is probably right somewhere about 20p with dividends some way away. The company must face their customers and satisfy them that New-TAN can deliver, along with spares, etc. This sort of blood-letting is easily mis-handled.

To reach 3x (the current sp) will need some hard-evidence of prospects. Removing the bosses will go some way towards this and the sooner the better. Let's hope it's before the AGM. This should be re-scheduled and arranged in London, with a DVD showing current production in the factories. It won't be the end, but should signal a new beginning. I expect the recovery time-scale to be 3-6 months.... but this is partly tied to the General Market woes and in particular the housing and warehousing where these Cherry-pickers are used. That is why I've cut the "access" annual production by so much in 's.

DYOR

Goldfinger . . .arrgh . . . . just how bad can CEO's get?

Collars and Felt spring to mind.

Tipton, I think the consensus is this stock is on the rise, but we've not had the PWC Auditor's report and their fees! ( See above Post earlier ).

hangon many thanks.

Going down again.

.. and out if they aint careful

Hangon, ceos.....

after reading that telegraph article not much worse I wouldnt have thought, mind ive got an online pal who swears by stanley.

Rally short lived on tan.

What we need now is the auditors report from the new guys.

Gone long at mere 25 per point no stop loss, so not much risk if it goes tits up! Telegraph certainly did some thorough research, Stanley certainly has a bit of history of company blow ups but then that's normal for entrepreneurs! My missus is a secondary teacher and I wouldn't buy shares in any company she was running but Tanfield does surely have more potential than most and seems oversold we shall see...