In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

'voluntarily'

ROFL

Good find .

Edited by RobertoS (Fri 10-Mar-17 12:10:07)

It's not only misleading people, it's wrong. Pick up any corporate finance text book and it will explain that the term 'flotation' is the process by which an company's privately held shares/bonds become listed on the Official List and tradable on an exchange.

In reply to a post by AndyHCZ:

Rather interestingly, it looks like Adrian Kennard of AAISP had already been running a dormant company called Openreach Limited.

This entity was 'voluntarily' dissolved by Adrian Kennard last year.

Even more interesting is this search, the second result. Either someone else who has been forced off the non-Limited version, or a stooge. The new name certainly suggests a non-voluntary name change and the new one is of RevK's style.

Some example definitions of flotation:

Flotation is the process of changing a private company into a public company by issuing shares and soliciting the public to purchase them.

Definition of flotation: Offering a firm's shares for the first time to the general public, by listing them on a stock exchange.

I can't find any that suggest it can be used for a company that has not sold shares to the public - maybe Bob will admit he is using the wrong term?

Not quite Bob, but close. Alex Bloor is director

I hate to disturb the dispute above, but I was rather more interested as to whether or not this will actually mean a more responsive openreach and a reduction in the foulups that seem to happen when a fault develops.

I am sure that very few people will take to the airwaves when something good happens under the current arrangements, but I do wonder about the number of disasters I read about.

It's going to be to protect the rights of the staff being moved to the new OR as otherwise any more pension right they accrue would not be covered by the Crown guarantee. I suspect that the opposition of those staff and, possibly, the trustees of the funds would could have caused a judicial review, especially if it had been forced. Most likely BT insisted on it too.

I can't believe Ofcom would have agreed to this condition unless Sharon White had already cleared it with the government. I imagine it will be a quick bill, and I can't see much Parliamentary opposition as Labour certainly won't want to be seen as damaging workers' pension rights and only a few die-hard right-wing Conservatives might oppose It also doesn't increase government liability over what the courts have alread determined is the scope of the Crown guarantee.

The Crown guarantee might be a useful card in the future too as I cannot imagine any government wanting to pick up a deficit which will surely be way over £10bn on the next auditing. They had to pick up a huge deficit liability with the Royal Mail pension fund. They will not want to see BT fold.

That is manifestly not what a flotation is. A flotation involves a public share issue. This is just the creation of OR as a wholly-owned subsidiary.

Here you are

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/flotation.asp

Incidentally, the new Openreach will not be a very attractive flotation target anyway as, even though it will make the investment decisions, the new agreement means that BT Group will be the legal owner of the network (and any future additions) and any Intellectual Property. OR will, in effect, be a management and services company, albeit in the odd position of making investment decisions on assets which belong to its parent and without any direct involvement of the same.

Yes, I got that far, but was working on an iPad in bed! It listed him with 4 directorships and no resignations.

I assumed therefore there was no connection with Adrian. I think I also checked resigned directors for AA but maybe those don't show on CH beta. ....

Checks elsewhere, no better.

So digging because of your post, I found an old blog, which after ploughing through some verbosity about a furniture shop, came up with "We (A&A) spend millions a year with BT ...".

So what's the relationship? Is/was he just a senior employee?

It will not be a diivision of BT Group. It will be a wholly owned subsidiary of BT Group. as a private limited company. A rather odd one to be sure - it will have none of its own network assets; legal title will be to BT Group, as will be IPRs. What it will not be is a division.