• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

First Group: General Discussion

overthewater

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2012
Messages
8,155
Pretty certain they’ll have a caveat with Go Ahead and I’m struggling to recall Stagecoach and Transdev ramping up competition when the dodgy disposal dossier came out in 2013.

I still wouldn't rule it out, Lothian doing a half arsed job at ramping up competition.

Coast Capital have increased their stake again, up to 10.01% now:

https://otp.tools.investis.com/generic/regulatory-story.aspx?newsid=1272606&cid=858

At what point will Coast Capital have to put up or shut up?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,969
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
I still wouldn't rule it out, Lothian doing a half arsed job at ramping up competition.

At what point will Coast Capital have to put up or shut up?

First of all, you haven’t acknowledged that this would’ve been possible and more likely in 2013 but the big groups didn’t go in against First. The one example I do remember was Webberbus noticeably increasing their competition as Somerset was on the alleged hit list.

Moreover, the lesson of Lothian thus far is that First have battened down the hatches and are prepared to retaliate tactically.

As for CC, they have increased their shareholding but as you know, they are a considerable distance from the trigger point where they would be legally obliged to make an offer.

What they are doing is increasing their shareholding and trying to coalesce a number of other aggrieved shareholders behind them.
 

overthewater

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2012
Messages
8,155
To be fair 2013 is different to 2019, the less we talk about Webberbus the better. I still think there is a chance of some minor land grabs this time around Lothian doing one, to be fair as I have said First are just outsmarting Lothian all over the place. "Dodgy disposal dossier came out in 2013" Was half right, However Stagecoach just let First kill its self in Northampton, While chester was out of the blue.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,969
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
To be fair 2013 is different to 2019, the less we talk about Webberbus the better. I still think there is a chance of some minor land grabs this time around Lothian doing one, to be fair as I have said First are just outsmarting Lothian all over the place. "Dodgy disposal dossier came out in 2013" Was half right, However Stagecoach just let First kill its self in Northampton, While chester was out of the blue.
The rumoured hitlist didn't include London!

The fact that First Bus is for sale will not stop it defending itself from attack. Hence the reticence over the last few years. Whether they decide to close anything else like Northampton can't be discounted but bus wars from big groups? Probably more the continued application of pressure as in Southampton if I were betting.
 

Railman10

Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
32
Location
LONDON
Im sorry but your in cloud coo coo land, Councils have no money for important things let alone buying bus companies. Stagecoach will not be allowed a 100 mile of buying Frst.
I’d rather be in cloud cuckoo land than where you are. The need is for positive thinking. Possibly some Councils don’t have much money but the likes of Greater Manchester are better placed to pursue a policy for better public transport - which can hardly be described as unimportant. I guess that First Manchester could be bought for less than the cost of one of the Tram-Train schemes. The provision of decent bus services for a large slice of Greater Manchester would be well worth the investment!
 

overthewater

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2012
Messages
8,155
Apart from the fact there is NO money, I take it the last three pages on this thread have been a waste?
 

CM

Member
Joined
28 Dec 2010
Messages
667
Apart from the fact there is NO money, I take it the last three pages on this thread have been a waste?

Show us your source saying that there is no money then. You keep making all these sweeping statements but make zero effort to back them up with actuall, reputable evidence.

Councils, if needed, would also possibly have the option of compulsory purchase orders.
 

overthewater

Established Member
Joined
16 Apr 2012
Messages
8,155
Apart from the fact the council budgets have been slashed every single year for the last 9 years, The schools are fallen to bits and Social care is in a mess...
 

Man of Kent

Member
Joined
5 Jul 2018
Messages
590
I’d rather be in cloud cuckoo land than where you are. The need is for positive thinking. Possibly some Councils don’t have much money but the likes of Greater Manchester are better placed to pursue a policy for better public transport - which can hardly be described as unimportant. I guess that First Manchester could be bought for less than the cost of one of the Tram-Train schemes. The provision of decent bus services for a large slice of Greater Manchester would be well worth the investment!
What many of the locations with "good public transport" tend to share is a restriction on the use of private vehicles. That's entirely in the hands of the councils, whether they own the main bus company - Reading, Edinburgh - or not - Brighton, York. I see quite limited evidence of that in Manchester and Salford, neatly emphasised by my Vantage crawling along and taking around 15 minutes for the first mile of its journey on what is a flagship route for bus priority.

It's interesting that there have been very few updates on 'bus reform' in Greater Manchester of late. I suspect that they are finding buses are a lot more expensive to operate than they thought, and your original hope of being "able to use income from profitable routes (of which there are many) to be used to support less profitable but nevertheless essential services" is unlikely to be realised. Operators already do this themselves to some extent, keeping journeys running at quiet times of day, and continuing with routes that are marginal but may offer network benefits. I'd put First's 471 between Bolton, Bury and Rochdale in the former category, but I don't know the network well enough to suggest an example of the second.

What puzzles me is why, using the Campaign for Better Transport's figures, bus subsidies in north west England are generally higher than any other part of England (bar London, of course). Indeed, TfGM is the highest spending authority. Why is it so different to other metropolitan areas? It can't all be First's fault!
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,969
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
Show us your source saying that there is no money then. You keep making all these sweeping statements but make zero effort to back them up with actuall, reputable evidence.

Councils, if needed, would also possibly have the option of compulsory purchase orders.

If you want reputable evidence...

Compulsory purchase orders (CPOs) refer only to the premises of a businesshttps://www.gov.uk/government/publications/compulsory-purchase-and-compensation-booklet-2-compensation-to-business-owners-and-occupiers . They have no means of seizing a business.

Also, First Manchester could not be purchased by the council or local government or any relevant authority as it is specifically precluded under section 22 of the 2017 Bus Services Act http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/21/section/22/enacted

In terms of reductions to council spending, this is well known see https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/future-funding-outlook-co-18b.pdf Particular mention in the summary of

"Based on applying the projections for departmental spending implied by the March 2015 edition of the OBR’s economic and fiscal outlook1, the funding gap will grow to £10.3 billion by 2018/19, before an increase in funding in 2019/20 reduces the gap to £9.5 billion. " and "

With social care and waste spending absorbing a rising proportion of the resources available to councils, funding for other council services drops by 35 per cent in cash terms by the end of the decade, from £26.6 billion in 2010/11 to £17.2 billion in 2019/20. To put this in context, this £9.3 billion drop is greater than the £7.7 billion total expenditure (in 2014/15) on central services, ‘other’ services and capital financing combined. The challenge cannot be solved by back-office efficiencies alone."

Therefore, local authorities get less money, the impact of social care (adult and children) is climbing markedly and so there is less money for non statutory services.... like Transport.
 

In Focus

Member
Joined
13 Sep 2018
Messages
615
No punches pulled in this from the board of Firstgroup PLC

https://otp.tools.investis.com/generic/regulatory-story.aspx?newsid=1278484&cid=858

On 17 May 2019, the Board of FirstGroup plc (‘FirstGroup’, the ‘Group’, or the ‘Company’) received a requisition notice from State Street Nominees Limited (acting as custodian for a company managed by Coast Capital), a shareholder holding around 10% of the Company’s shares, requisitioning a general meeting to consider resolutions to remove six of the current Directors and replace them with seven of Coast Capital’s own nominees.

Accordingly, in compliance with Listing Rule 9.6.1R, the Company will today submit a copy of the documents listed below to the UK Listing Authority and they will shortly be available for inspection via the National Storage Mechanism at http://www.morningstar.co.uk/uk/NSM. These documents will also be despatched or otherwise made available to shareholders today.

  • Notice of General Meeting to be held at 2.00 p.m. on 25 June 2019 at De Vere Grand Connaught Rooms, 61-65 Great Queen Street, Holborn, London, WC2B 5DA (the ‘Notice’); and
  • Form of Proxy and Notice of Availability.
As required under the Disclosure Guidance and Transparency Rule (‘DGTR’) 6.3.5R(3), the Notice will also be available shortly on the Company’s website at http://www.firstgroupplc.com/general-meeting.

As explained in the Notice, the Directors strongly believe that the Coast Capital Resolutions are not in the best interests of the Company, its shareholders as a whole or its wider stakeholders and recommend unanimously that FirstGroup shareholders vote against all of the Coast Capital resolutions.

The Notice includes a letter to shareholders from FirstGroup Chairman, Wolfhart Hauser, which includes the following information.

As previously planned, on 30 May 2019, FirstGroup set out a clear strategic direction alongside its results for the financial year to 31 March 2019. The Board believes that this strategy will deliver best value for the shareholders of the Company.

FirstGroup:

  • has the right strategy to take the business forward
  • has the right Board and the right team to execute it at pace
  • has a diverse, independent Board
  • has renewed the Board with the right experience for FirstGroup’s future
  • will, alongside delivering our strategy, continue to provide safe, sustainable and environmentally friendly travel solutions for the people and communities we serve
Coast Capital:

  • proposes to take control of the Board with the removal of six current Directors and the appointment of seven non-independent directors
  • proposes to appoint directors whose experience is not current and is not aligned to FirstGroup’s business nor its future growth
  • has put forward plans that are inconsistent, demonstrate a lack of understanding of FirstGroup and are rooted in the past
  • has put forward irresponsible plans that would leave the Group with higher debt
  • has put forward plans that are not in the best interests of shareholders as a whole or our wider stakeholders
The right strategy to take FirstGroup forward

On 30 May 2019, after seven months in the role, FirstGroup Chief Executive Matthew Gregory announced a clear path forward for the business, which the Board is confident will deliver enhanced sustainable value for shareholders, having regard to our responsibilities to our wider stakeholders:

  • We plan to rationalise our portfolio with FirstGroup’s future emphasis on First Student and First Transit, our core North American contracting businesses, which have the greatest potential to generate sustainable value and growth over time
  • These businesses are already leaders in their markets and share increasingly similar characteristics and growth opportunities. Together First Student and First Transit generated over 60% of the Group’s operating profits in 2018/19 and are already a solid, profitable platform for growth in the North American mobility services sector. By focusing on our customers’ needs and leveraging the latest technology, efficiency and safety practices as well as partnerships, we see significant potential for long term sustainable value and growth from the businesses
  • Accordingly, a formal process to sell Greyhound has commenced and we will pursue structural alternatives to separate First Bus from the Group
  • We have an existing portfolio of rail franchises in the UK which we will operate in accordance with their contractual terms. Any future commitments to UK rail will need to have an appropriate balance of potential risks and rewards for our shareholders
A copy of our strategy update is included in Appendix 3 to the circular, which is available on the Company’s website at http://www.firstgroupplc.com/general-meeting. An audio file of Matthew explaining this strategy in more detail is available at https://www.firstgroupplc.com/results-centre.

The Board firmly believes that this is the right strategy to deliver the best value to all shareholders, having regard to our responsibilities to our wider stakeholders. It follows a full and comprehensive review over the past year of all appropriate means to mobilise the considerable value inherent in the Group, in a process which recognised the friction costs, regulatory procedures and stakeholder consultations which require careful consideration in the case of some potential options. The best team to navigate these complex issues is the current management team of the Company, which has deep experience of the Company and the industry in which it operates and takes all of its responsibilities with the utmost seriousness. In parallel with the portfolio rationalisation plans we will continue to drive forward the clear strategies now established in each of our divisions to ensure they deliver further progress and growth in the Company’s existing and adjacent markets, underpinned by plans to enhance our cost base further.

FirstGroup has the right team to execute at pace

Matthew Gregory was appointed as Chief Executive in November 2018 after a thorough external and internal search was conducted. Matthew’s experience includes 24 years of financial, commercial and operational experience all within UK-listed PLCs with extensive international operations. This sector experience includes public transportation, manufacturing and distribution, including the largest component distribution division of Essentra plc, where he had a track record of tripling revenue, quadrupling profit and increasing margins by over 500 bps through disciplined commercial and operational management. Matthew also has a wealth of North American and other international experience. His deep operational understanding of FirstGroup gained since his appointment as Chief Financial Officer in 2015 and his drive to unlock shareholder value makes him exactly the right person to implement the Board’s strategic plans.

Under Matthew’s leadership, in 2018/2019 FirstGroup has delivered:

  • Underlying revenue growth of +5.7%, adjusted operating profit growth of 10.5% and EPS growth of 15.2%
  • Adjusted operating profit ahead of expectations at £332.9m, led by growth and margin expansion in First Student and First Bus
  • A withdrawal by Greyhound from its loss-making activities in Western Canada and the formulation of plans for improved operational and financial performance that started to show progress in the second half of 2018/19
This operational performance provides the foundation for the clear strategic direction for the business that is summarised above and detailed in our announcement of 30 May 2019 (which is included in Appendix 3 to the circular), and evidences our management team’s drive and focus, under Matthew’s leadership, to deliver value for shareholders. The Board has also bolstered the management team with the appointment of Ryan Mangold as Chief Financial Officer in May 2019 after a thorough process. Ryan was selected to bring further depth and capability in the areas required to deliver the Company’s strategic plans.

Replacing this team with one that has no working knowledge of FirstGroup and very limited experience of the fast changing and dynamic markets in which the Group operates, in particular the North American transport contracting markets which form the core of the Group, would dramatically reduce the ability of the Company to execute these critical strategic changes.

FirstGroup has a diverse and independent Board that has been renewed with the right experience for FirstGroup’s future

  • This Board has a clear majority (64%) of independent non-executive Directors
  • This Board has the right blend of skills and experience
  • This Board meets all UK Corporate Governance requirements
The Board is focused on delivering shareholder value and is confident that the Company has the right Board with the right experience and plans in place to do so.

The composition of the current Board (and Board committees) is fully compliant with the UK Corporate Governance Code, including the requirements on independence and length of tenure. This is reflected in the strong support that shareholders showed for members of the Board who stood for re-election at the 2018 Annual General Meeting, who received an average vote FOR of 96.84%.

All but one of the current Directors has been appointed within the last five years, and six members of the Board have been appointed within the last two years. The average tenure of the FirstGroup Non-Executive Directors is three years compared to the average tenure of four years for a typical UK-listed public company.

The Board has continued to be renewed with the recent appointments of Independent Non-Executive Directors Steve Gunning and Julia Steyn as well as Ryan Mangold as Chief Financial Officer, all in 2019, following objective and rigorous selection processes.

The composition of the current Board has the right balance of skills as it looks to a future which will continue to be defined by the profound impact of technology on the development of mobility services, as evidenced by the emergence of ride sharing and autonomous vehicles.

A majority of the Board have experience in the transport and travel sectors. This includes Wolfhart Hauser, Matthew Gregory, Warwick Brady, Jimmy Groombridge, Steve Gunning, Martha Poulter, David Robbie and Julia Steyn.

The independent Directors have been carefully chosen to support the Company’s management team with the developments in our strategic direction, bringing experience from across multiple industries, including adjacent industries competing increasingly with public transportation, such as technology, airlines, consumer brands, urban mobility and big data management. For example, Julia Steyn, who was appointed on 2 May 2019, brings extensive knowledge of the US transport industry. Together with the existing US government contracting experience of the Directors (including Matthew Gregory and Jim Winestock), this skillset will be invaluable as the Company focuses on First Student and First Transit, our market leading North American contracting businesses, and builds on the strong and profitable platform we have established in North American mobility services.

In addition, a majority of the Board, including in particular Wolfhart Hauser, Matthew Gregory, Warwick Brady, Steve Gunning, Ryan Mangold, Martha Poulter, David Robbie, Julia Steyn and Imelda Walsh, have extensive corporate finance, M&A or legal experience. This experience and skillset will be key to overseeing the execution of our portfolio rationalisation plan and securing best value for shareholders.

Your Board also has extensive and detailed experience in dealing with complex UK pension schemes, including the management, funding and strengthening of such pension schemes.

In summary, your diverse, independent Board has the extensive experience, skills and expertise for FirstGroup’s future and delivering shareholder value:

  • Transportation/travel
  • Strategy
  • Turnaround
  • Technology
  • Governance
  • Pensions
  • Safety
  • Operations
  • HR/employee engagement
  • Finance/M&A
In addition, the Board has various current and complementary experience and skills in areas such as audit, data management, information technology, legal, logistics and marketing and brand management.

Full details of the current Board’s experience and their specific skillsets are set out in the Directors’ biographies in Appendix 1 to the circular.

Who is Coast Capital?

Coast Capital, founded in September 2017, is a small New York based hedge fund, self-styled as an activist investor. Based on its many interactions with Coast Capital to date and its claims and proposals, the Board believes that Coast Capital is an opportunistic, self-interested player that is only focused on short-term gains.

Coast Capital purports to be a significant long-term shareholder in FirstGroup. However, despite various claims made by Coast Capital, the Company was first formally notified of Coast Capital’s shareholding only as recently as 12 April 2018 at which point it notified a holding of 1.57 per cent. of the Company’s issued share capital.

Coast Capital is a fund with no track record or experience running any business similar to FirstGroup, and it has made a number of scatter-gun, inconsistent and unusual claims and proposals to the Company over the past 12 months. For example, in a letter to the Company in June 2018, Coast Capital suggested that the Company consider appointing four individuals to the Board, yet none of those individuals are being nominated by Coast Capital in this requisition.

A number of Coast Capital’s other proposals are set out in a letter that your Chairman sent to Coast Capital in November 2018 (a copy of which is included in Appendix 2 to the circular), patiently and politely addressing a number of the proposals as being either transactions that simply reflect a lack of understanding of FirstGroup or are skewed to benefit only Coast Capital and not all shareholders. For example, Coast Capital has recently publicly referred to the Company’s “proposed firesale of otherwise good assets”, yet, as recently as last October, Coast Capital wanted exclusivity from FirstGroup for Coast Capital to purchase Greyhound at a purchase price which was much lower than Coast Capital’s stated valuation of the business. Coast Capital also proposed that Coast Capital purchase a ‘minority but controlling’ stake in our First Student business.

Coast Capital’s claims contain numerous factual inaccuracies and misunderstandings. This is notwithstanding the availability of information clearly set out in our public disclosures and numerous communications from the Company to Coast Capital in which we have given detailed, and clear, explanations of various matters that Coast Capital has requested. Despite this, Coast Capital’s recent public statements show that Coast Capital continues to repeatedly misunderstand, or chooses to misunderstand or misinterpret, a number of basic points relating to FirstGroup and the markets in which it operates. For example, notwithstanding our clear explanations, Coast Capital’s recent statements show a fundamental misunderstanding of the valuation of UK pension schemes on various accounting and actuarial bases and, as noted below, Coast Capital has repeatedly failed to appreciate the capital expenditure profile and cash generative capability of the Rail division.

Certain other claims made by Coast Capital have been withdrawn by Coast Capital after the Company reminded it of its legal obligations.

Coast Capital proposes to take control of the Board with the removal of six current Directors and the appointment of seven of its own non-independent nominees

Coast Capital is seeking to appoint its own nominees to the Board in a manner which circumvents established corporate governance best practice and the rigorous and transparent procedures followed by the Company. In particular, the Board is opposed to appointing any director who may favour one particular shareholder over and above the interests of shareholders as a whole. If the Coast Capital Resolutions are passed, only three directors out of a board of 12 members (25%) would be independent non-executive directors.

Furthermore, Coast Capital has stated that it and its nominees have already found a new, unnamed, CEO, who they would appoint if the Coast Capital Resolutions are passed. This is a further abuse of good corporate governance practice and due process.

Through its proposals, Coast Capital is seeking to take control of your Board and the Company. Your independent Directors firmly believe that this is wholly inappropriate and not in the best interests of shareholders as a whole, or our wider stakeholders.

Coast Capital proposes to appoint directors whose experience is not aligned to FirstGroup’s business or future growth

The Board has concerns about the lack of recent experience and the past company involvement of a number of the directors proposed by Coast Capital. For example, in nominating Steve Norris as a director, Coast Capital has highlighted his experience as a non-executive director of Capital CityBus, a small privately-owned local bus operator in London which was sold in 1998, more than 20 years ago, as evidence of his suitability to run our First Bus division. First Bus has a fleet of around 5,700 buses and 16,500 employees. Therefore the scale of Capital CityBus’s operations would be equivalent to less than 10% of the current operations of our First Bus division. Mr Norris was also chairman of Jarvis plc, a large public company in the rail engineering sector, for the six years before it went into administration, resulting in pension schemes being placed into the Pension Protection Fund. This experience has been omitted from the biographies published by Coast Capital.

Moreover, the proposed directors have limited recent experience in the segments within which FirstGroup operates and no experience in the North American transport contracting market, which will be our core business going forward.

Further, Coast Capital is proposing to:

  • INCREASE the size of the Board
  • REDUCE the diversity of the Board.
FirstGroup has been focused on renewing the Board to include individuals with skills relevant for the future direction of the Group. Coast Capital seems more focused on rekindling the past than preparing for the future.

Coast Capital has put forward plans that are inconsistent, demonstrate a lack of understanding of FirstGroup and the transport sector today and would leave the Group with higher debt

As noted above, Coast Capital has made a number of scatter-gun, inconsistent and unusual proposals to the Company over the past 12 months.

The latest plans put forward by Coast Capital are either based on financial engineering with no clear benefit to shareholders, such as its suggested sale and leaseback approach, or are vague assertions, based on old information and lacking in detail. Coast Capital’s proposal to reduce the Company’s pension obligations, or to “exit rail in full” without due regard to the contractual nature of the business, nor the employees or wider stakeholders within the business, are alarmingly naïve. These plans continue to demonstrate Coast Capital’s lack of understanding of the Group and our businesses, notwithstanding the patient engagement that the Company’s officers and Board members have undertaken with Coast Capital.

We have respectfully and constructively engaged with Coast Capital for over a year. Throughout, we have shown an open mind and a willingness to consider new ideas and proposals; but only those that are in the best interests of all shareholders, having regard to our wider stakeholders. We address a number of Coast Capital’s plans below:

Financial engineering with no clear benefit to shareholders:

  • A substantial sale and lease back of property would be irresponsible. It would increase the financial leverage of the Group at a time when the IFRS accounting rules have only recently changed to require this to be reflected as indebtedness. Furthermore, it would limit the strategic flexibility of the Group to respond to changes in market conditions and does not pay due regard to the operational nature of a number of these assets which are inherent in the value of the business.
  • Initiating a share buyback programme funded through a loan from investors procured by Coast Capital would also irresponsibly increase financial leverage at a time of economic uncertainty and would reduce the Group’s strategic flexibility to unlock value for shareholders. This appears to be at the same time as Coast Capital would propose to reduce gross debt by up to £1 billion, but with no clear explanation of how to achieve this. This inconsistency is a matter of significant concern.
  • Introduction of a dividend at a time when the portfolio is undergoing transformational change would not be in the best interests of all shareholders. We believe that the more focused Group, as envisaged by our portfolio rationalisation plans, will be well placed to sustain a dividend in future and this will be considered by the Board at the appropriate time.
Taken together, these short term financial engineering strategies would increase the leverage of the Company to a point that the Board believes is reckless and imprudent. This would risk a downgrade of the Company’s credit rating, which would have adverse impacts on the Company, including increased financing costs.

Naïve and vague assertions with no specific details around execution:

  • The Company and the Trustees of the Group’s pension plans regularly review the plans’ funding requirements, ensuring flexibility and efficiency for the business while protecting the retirement security of thousands of current and former employees. Coast Capital’s proposal to “solve” the plan funding with an upfront payment of £75m and changes to investment strategy shows a fundamental misunderstanding of our pension plans and the role of the Trustees under UK legislation.
  • It remains unclear from Coast Capital’s plan why a gross debt reduction of up to £1 billion is appropriate and Coast Capital has provided no specific details as to how this would be achieved. It would also apparently be achieved alongside the commencement of a share buyback programme and the introduction of a dividend, which demonstrates alarming inconsistencies in Coast Capital’s thinking.
  • Coast Capital’s demand to exit FirstGroup’s Rail business pays no regard to the contractual nature of these arrangements, the dynamic nature of the current environment nor to our customers, employees and wider stakeholders within this business.
  • Coast Capital continues to show a fundamental lack of understanding of the capital expenditure profile of the Rail division, where cash capital expenditure is typically matched by franchise receipts, capital grants or other funding from third parties. Our UK Rail franchise portfolio has generated £330.9m in adjusted profit with net cash and dividends paid to the Group over the last five years.
In summary the Board believes it has the right strategy and the right team to deliver the best value to shareholders and that Coast Capital does not

The Board firmly believes that, based on the progress and momentum that has been built through the operational progress in the last 12 months, the clear strategic direction set out in the Company’s announcement of 30 May 2019 will deliver best value to shareholders, and that the best team to execute these complex strategic transactions is the current management team. This is a team that has deep experience of the Company and the industry in which it operates, and is supported by a diverse, renewed and independent Board with the right skills and experience to support the Company’s future direction. Replacing this team with one which has demonstrably outdated knowledge of FirstGroup’s market places, and no experience in the increasingly valuable area of North American mobility services, would dramatically reduce the ability of the Company to execute these critical strategic changes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,969
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
Indeed not, and as I said on the First Glasgow thread

Gregory denied that Coast had forced his hand: “We’ve been talking for at least a year about how to unlock the value in the group ... We haven’t just concocted that in the last two weeks.”

He also hit out at the US private equity group: “Their plan is really to take over the board of a UK listed plc without paying a premium for the business. They’re looking for us to take on more debt, the plans are incoherent inconsistent with a lot of factual inaccuracies.”

The latter point is the nub of things. Will investors who paid a lot more than Coast for their shares be happy to see CC make a handsome return at their expense (though feeling it's the best they're going to get) OR let First do it knowing that they (First) haven't got the vested interest that CC have

What Coast are proposing makes a lot of sense for Coast but for the rest of investors, what does it mean? Those investors will have bought at a higher level than CC who have come in at a low point i.e. if they buy at £1 and get £1.20 benefit, they've made 20% profit but if you're a long term investor who bought £5, then do you go for the £1.20 (knowing you're losing) or back First's board to make a better first of things?

I did enjoy the broadside at Steven Norris - a man with an interesting record in business and politics!!
 

freetoview33

Established Member
Joined
24 May 2009
Messages
3,721
Location
West of England
Remember a lot of the money for Manchester's trams and transport improvements have come from the EU, I can't see the Government funding further improvements to the extent the EU might have.
 

Robertj21a

On Moderation
Joined
22 Sep 2013
Messages
7,518
Remember a lot of the money for Manchester's trams and transport improvements have come from the EU, I can't see the Government funding further improvements to the extent the EU might have.

The EU funds have, effectively, only come from us in the first place !
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,969
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
The EU funds have, effectively, only come from us in the first place !
Yes, but that £350m a week is something that we could spend on the NHS.... (rolls grenade) ;)

In all seriousness, if people are thinking that there's going to be a step change in transport funding, then they're sadly mistaken given the issues in council funding I mentioned above.
 

freetoview33

Established Member
Joined
24 May 2009
Messages
3,721
Location
West of England
Yes, but that £350m a week is something that we could spend on the NHS.... (rolls grenade) ;)

In all seriousness, if people are thinking that there's going to be a step change in transport funding, then they're sadly mistaken given the issues in council funding I mentioned above.
I know there will be a step change in funding. Downwards! Especially in Manchester.
 

talltim

Established Member
Joined
17 Jan 2010
Messages
2,454
EU funding tends to be distributed differently to that from central government Even if there was more funding available after Brexit*, I suspect that less will be available for things like regional transport.

*<D
 

carlberry

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2014
Messages
3,169
EU funding tends to be distributed differently to that from central government Even if there was more funding available after Brexit*, I suspect that less will be available for things like regional transport.

*<D
That will depend if the local electorate has voted in a mayor from the correct party.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,969
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
Indeed - all of those points are valid. However, still doesn't get away from the fact that should parts of First's empire (or indeed Arriva's for that matter) could be available, then there is neither the funds nor the legal ability for it to happen.

In the meantime. the outward picture will be business as usual (some may quake at that thought).

They have to carry on in terms of new vehicles given the commitments that they have to meet in terms of various bus partnerships (don't know what they have to provide for Sheffield, Leeds or Cornwall in future years though think Portsmouth is due new fleet this year), meeting low emissions zones, other GBF commitments (such as Bristol) and dealing with the continuing legacy of aged fleet, and all that on top of doing the day job and continuing to get margins up from 7.5% to double digit (against Stagecoach at 11.2%).
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
Show us your source saying that there is no money then. You keep making all these sweeping statements but make zero effort to back them up with actuall, reputable evidence.

You won't find much support for a well funded, heavily patronised bus system on here, so the lack of money is actually preferred. Whilst they wouldn't mind a few more quid for concessionary fares and maybe a few subsidised services, they don't want enough funding that would make a centrally planned network viable, definitely not one publicly owned, as it would mean the end of deregulation. Maintaining deregulation is the absolute priority. As long as just enough captive users are forced to pay high fares to keep buses profitable, that is better than getting cars off the road.
 
Last edited:

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
I wonder what if a survey was held in both metro areas and in shire areas as to what the resident electorates wanted in terms of priority local spending from any Government monies forthcoming and where local transport may possibly be viewed in a league table of aspirations.
 

TheGrandWazoo

Veteran Member
Joined
18 Feb 2013
Messages
19,969
Location
Somerset with international travel (e.g. across th
You won't find much support for a well funded, heavily patronised bus system on here, so the lack of money is actually preferred. Whilst they wouldn't mind a few more quid for concessionary fares and maybe a few subsidised services, they don't want enough funding that would make a centrally planned network viable, definitely not one publicly owned, as it would mean the end of deregulation. Maintaining deregulation is the absolute priority. As long as just enough captive users are forced to pay high fares to keep buses profitable, that is better than getting cars off the road.
I wonder what if a survey was held in both metro areas and in shire areas as to what the resident electorates wanted in terms of priority local spending from any Government monies forthcoming and where local transport may possibly be viewed in a league table of aspirations.

Radamfi is sadly misinformed. We've done this loop on previous threads but the reality is that most people on this board are absolute pro-public transport. The idea that people aren't is laughable but, hang on to your hat, we're not exactly typical of the population.

There have been surveys taken in the past and, not surprisingly, transport scores very low in the requirements of the electorate. The areas that the public want money to be spent on are, quelle surprise, the NHS and education, welfare and housing, military etc. I might point out that when Manchester proposed a congestion charge with the monies ploughed into public transport, the electorate in every single council area rejected it. Fact is - there are no votes in it.
 

Jordan Adam

Established Member
Joined
12 Sep 2017
Messages
5,514
Location
Aberdeen
Radamfi is sadly misinformed. We've done this loop on previous threads but the reality is that most people on this board are absolute pro-public transport. The idea that people aren't is laughable but, hang on to your hat, we're not exactly typical of the population.

There have been surveys taken in the past and, not surprisingly, transport scores very low in the requirements of the electorate. The areas that the public want money to be spent on are, quelle surprise, the NHS and education, welfare and housing, military etc. I might point out that when Manchester proposed a congestion charge with the monies ploughed into public transport, the electorate in every single council area rejected it. Fact is - there are no votes in it.

I'm not sure if you'll agree with me, but it always seems that the public constantly demand a better bus service, yet equally as constantly reject or oppose any measure that could see improved public transport.

For example say a new bus lane was built, the public would moan and say it should be en extra lane for cars as this would ease congestion, the reality is bus lanes reduce congestion and speed up travel time for public transport, additional car lanes attract more cars! I don't think fully "banning" cars from the city centre is the answer, but there needs to be some sort of compromise if we really want to reduce emissions.

It would be interesting if anyone could find any recent statistics for Park & Ride use in the UK, certainly from my personal experience in Aberdeen the park and rides are effectively dead, two of the three are now down to a half hourly frequency and there's no dedicated park and ride routes anymore. On the other hand it seems the sites in Fife are now at max capacity.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
We've done this loop on previous threads but the reality is that most people on this board are absolute pro-public transport. The idea that people aren't is laughable but, hang on to your hat, we're not exactly typical of the population.

I am glad to see there are still a few of us on this website who actually take off the blinkers and see life and human nature for what it really is.
 

Top