Fairline - any news?

petem said:
My question to you and Mike is - if this was all so cleverly choreographed, why does it appear that WB have been stiffed by BC with the result that WB make nothing from the whole saga? From where I'm standing it looks like a shambles.
Click to expand...
Fwiw, I already elaborated a possible explanation of why it could actually be a well organised shambles in my post #486.
But mind, I was - and still am - just speculating.
We all are, if you think about it: also any other theory is just that, a theory.
At the end of the day, you can find the only thing you can be 100% sure of in the last sentence of my previous post. :)
 
Deleted User said:
Mr Ayiaz Ahmed has been a director of 15 closed companies most of which have adverse information against them. To be a director of 1 closed company is unfortunate, to be a director of 2 closed companies is incompetent but to be a director of 15 closed companies is deliberate. Also just one day after he became a director of Fairline, he set up another company called Abundant Marine Group.

Draw your own conclusions, Pete
Click to expand...

Mike, perhaps the assset stripping was plan B? All I'm saying is from what I heard, his plan A was to try and keep the business going. What his motives for that were I have no idea (being of Asian decent, prestige perhaps, or to sell for a higher profit as a going concern)? Whether he tried that with the other 15 closed companies I have no idea. Whether plan A was ever viable is doubtful too.
 
petem said:
Mike, perhaps the assset stripping was plan B? All I'm saying is from what I heard, his plan A was to try and keep the business going. What his motives for that were I have no idea (being of Asian decent, prestige perhaps, or to sell for a higher profit as a going concern)? Whether he tried that with the other 15 closed companies I have no idea. Whether plan A was ever viable is doubtful too.
Click to expand...

Its water under the bridge Pete so its not worth arguing about what WB's real motives were. Maybe I've just become a bit cynical in my dotage
 
Time Out said:
Perhaps I should have put a smiley on my last post ...
Click to expand...

No need for a smiley. They made great boats and still the same family own the company

New-Venture-thames-trad-queens-pageant.jpg
 
petem said:
I agree. I think we've done this to death now but it would make a good 'docudrama'. .
Click to expand...
Yup with George Clooney playing you, the intrepid Fairline club investigator searching for the truth in the murky world of venture capitalism:D
 
MapisM said:
I see your point, BUT (and I'm now replying also to Deleted User post #565) it's the timeframe that makes this or any other possibility extremely unlikely. It was all too fast for not being deliberate and organized in advance, imho.
Click to expand...

Quite, over here in the securities world if something this unlikely happens we know to put the kettle on, get out our finest biccies and await that knock on the door form the SEC and their European friends :rolleyes:
 
What affect will this have on used Fairline values ?

I ask because I've agreed a price to purchase a used Phantom 40 and of course I wonder if my new purchase depreciation will become worse all of a sudden
 
Benny59 said:
What affect will this have on used Fairline values ?

I ask because I've agreed a price to purchase a used Phantom 40 and of course I wonder if my new purchase depreciation will become worse all of a sudden
Click to expand...

I think for an 11-year old boat you'll be ok; your position on the depreciation curve isn't going to be materially affected by some organisational change with the manufacturer.
 
dom said:
Quite, over here in the securities world if something this unlikely happens we know to put the kettle on, get out our finest biccies and await that knock on the door form the SEC and their European friends :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Interesting comparison.
I can't think of any logical reason why transactions as the one which is being discussed shouldn't be controlled by similar agencies.
Looking at that from an historical perspective, I suppose it's just a matter of time: with securities, frauds and their potential consequences have been around for more than a century, while the (actually very similar, in some respects) dangers of M&A/LBOs only came to the surface much more recently - and are still largely underestimated, if not even dismissed as normal "business risks", which is laughable.

Then again, whether the SEC (or ESMA, whatever) actually do their job as effectively/promptly as they could and should, it's debatable to say the least.
In fact, as I understand, you are telling us that it only takes some fine biscuits to make them more indulgent... :D :p
But that's another matter altogether, and I guess that a bit of control is still better than nothing at all.
 
MapisM said:
...SEC...ESMA... In fact, as I understand, you are telling us that it only takes some fine biscuits to make them more indulgent... :D :p
But that's another matter altogether...
Click to expand...
When we British islanders face imminent adversity we make a cup of tea. When we face big adversity we make our finest tea, drink it from our finest china cups, and eat our finest biscuits with it. As a uk/ British Islands native, that's how I read Dom's biscuit comment :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top