Jump to content

Flybe nosedives on profits warning


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, b4mbi said:

For a private company, the market cap = market value, so what a buyer is willing to pay and seller willing to accept, so £124m!

A consideration when arriving at market value is the company's net assets , but also the expected net present value of the future cashflows, which when the owner can control these....

I don't need a lesson and I specifically said as a public company immediately before the transaction took place. Even at a private valuation of £124 mil, the debt position will very shortly be in excess of the purchase value of the company. But you say they’re not loading it with debt? That’s like buying a house for cash and immediately getting a 110% mortgage on it. 

Edited by The Amazing Ronrico
Spelling
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 2.1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As predicted, when his holiness the Chief Cockwomble was interviewed on BBC Breakfast this morning, his only reference was about TT visitors being able to get here. No mention of the effect on residen

I think when most people hear of a contingency plan being in place the expectation is for that contingency plan to kick in immediately upon the happening of the event the contingency was planned for.

Writing the adverts now, ‘Steam Packet Airlines, if there ain’t a boat in the morning, there probably won’t be a plane either’.

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, The Amazing Ronrico said:

It looks to me that it’s about hiding taxpayer costs as otherwise why would they repay the £78 million with new external debt so soon? Probably so they can go back to the taxpayer By election time and say ‘this is now costing us nothing the taxpayer got it’s money back in 18 months’ while they’re stacking future debt inside the business instead. As I said above I’d like to know how many shares were in circulation before the sale to work out the likely market cap of the company relative to the £150M debt it’s now taking on. 

My post you quoted from answered that, because  overall government finances will be better off by £2.3m (in my example) by doing it like this.

How else do you pay for a new ferry, which I think everyone can agree is needed? Government quite rightly don't want to put an additional £74m into IOMSPC to purchase the new ferry outright in cash up front when the company itself can finance the purchase over a longer term by having access to cheap finance via a private placement.

Seriously, stick to hypnotism.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, b4mbi said:

Yes, of course the users of the service will pay. That's how business works.

The new debt will not be unsustainable, if you'd bothered following and understanding my previous post, which links to the audited accounts and reading for yourself the publicly available report on future financing options for IOMSPC.

Having a brand new vessel and control of the company is not "zero reason" 

Your trolling is a bit tiresome tbh.

its loading debt on to users........just another reason to delay dealing with iomg pension fiasco.......

£400-£500m of debt passed onto island residents in the next few years.......no different to the trams, trainsand buses are run.....

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, woolley said:

But it's a profitable company and always will be. A real asset.

ETA: I appreciate that if anyone can turn it into a loss making venture then our government would be the go to experts, but even for them it's highly improbable with a monopoly business that they control access to.

I only put that up for comparison purposes with Aurigny and I said in a later post that I supported us buying the SPC and I still do. But you have to admit whether it’s a cash cow or not a huge amount has been spent already. Upto £40M on a new terminal at Liverpool that can’t even handle freight and now the proposed borrowing of up to £150M on commercial terms for new ships (which is more than we actually paid to buy the business). If the TT is cancelled it’s going to leave a very big hole in this years bookings. No different to a lot of other leisure groups and companies in the holiday sector who are going to take a real hit over the next few months. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

In other news. £2-3m to set up a 3 aircraft, govt owned airline. Locally based, 3x leased Q400, crews, maintenance and ticketing system. Flying to Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham to start with. 

From a very credible source. 

Oh Jesus

 

The most expensive electricity

The most expensive ferry crossings 

The most expensive airline 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

In other news. £2-3m to set up a 3 aircraft, govt owned airline. Locally based, 3x leased Q400, crews, maintenance and ticketing system. Flying to Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham to start with. 

From a very credible source. 

Not in a million years. Sorry Derek. Do you think if was that easy, there would not be hundreds of small airlines fighting for the work ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

In other news. £2-3m to set up a 3 aircraft, govt owned airline. Locally based, 3x leased Q400, crews, maintenance and ticketing system. Flying to Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham to start with. 

From a very credible source. 

Can you iiiimagine the new government department they'd need to set up to administrate that size of operation! 

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Derek Flint said:

In other news. £2-3m to set up a 3 aircraft, govt owned airline. Locally based, 3x leased Q400, crews, maintenance and ticketing system. Flying to Liverpool, Manchester and Birmingham to start with. 

From a very credible source. 

Excellent attempt to get the thread back on topic - I'm sure there's one about the IOMSP elsewhere.

The Island could have it's own airline for relative peanuts compared to the disgusting waste of money this parish council has wasted - on the airport alone!  We have a radar that doesn't work; a runway extension (£40M plus) that wasn't needed and actually reduced the margins for making a successful approach, a control tower that 'controls' a dozen flights a day that would have graced an international airport and instead had become a blot on the landscape blot - the list of governmental waste is endless with no culpability.

Your idea of cross-subsidy with the ferry services merits consideration.  But OMG!  We might be talking about a transport strategy,  an alien and unintelligible concept in Tynpotwald.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...