CHC LLC purchases Babcock
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dark side of the moan
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Hot_LZ
PHI are setting up a European operation. Weststar and HeliUnion have always been interested in the NS.
LZ
LZ
"You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy."
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dark side of the moan
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mitchaa
Expected response to be fair.
In summary, sell off the UK element and keep the Danish and Australian elements.
https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandga...tition-hurdle/
In summary, sell off the UK element and keep the Danish and Australian elements.
https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandga...tition-hurdle/
Weststar is for sale. Heli Union is downsizing it's offshore business. Unlikely either would want to get into new aircraft types in a new jurisdiction in a hyper competitive market.
Originally Posted by Mitchaa
Thinking outside the box a little,
CHC paid £10m for Babcock which seems awfully cheap, what would stop them winding up OHS, stripping it’s assets and re-bidding for the contracts in the 3 operator scenario?
According to previous posts, Babcock willingly bid on loss making contracts just to get the work. Are CHC now lumbered with these loss making contracts? If so, can they do anything about it?
Presumably, CHC and equally Bristows and NHV would prefer a 3 operator model, the oil companies clearly a 4 operator model. With CHC selling OHS U.K. on to a new owner, it’s a little cut your nose off to spite your face as they still need to battle the new owner for work over the next decade or two. It doesn’t get rid of the problem that they were trying to solve. (Consolidate the market)
I am guessing the CMA could impose a fine of some sorts if this were to happen but wondering if the fine would be worth taking on the chin especially after asset stripping OHS? I wonder if the legal bods at CHC have considered such actions as going down the path of selling on, doesn’t solve the problem going forward.
Just another thought anyway.
CHC paid £10m for Babcock which seems awfully cheap, what would stop them winding up OHS, stripping it’s assets and re-bidding for the contracts in the 3 operator scenario?
According to previous posts, Babcock willingly bid on loss making contracts just to get the work. Are CHC now lumbered with these loss making contracts? If so, can they do anything about it?
Presumably, CHC and equally Bristows and NHV would prefer a 3 operator model, the oil companies clearly a 4 operator model. With CHC selling OHS U.K. on to a new owner, it’s a little cut your nose off to spite your face as they still need to battle the new owner for work over the next decade or two. It doesn’t get rid of the problem that they were trying to solve. (Consolidate the market)
I am guessing the CMA could impose a fine of some sorts if this were to happen but wondering if the fine would be worth taking on the chin especially after asset stripping OHS? I wonder if the legal bods at CHC have considered such actions as going down the path of selling on, doesn’t solve the problem going forward.
Just another thought anyway.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dark side of the moan
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by OGP2022
The new Rumour is that PHI are set to buy Babcock now from CHC…
...and it's OHS-Uk [ltd]. Babcock have washed their particularly dirty hands of the whole thing.
Originally Posted by Mitchaa
Hmm, if the rumours of PHI coming into the market are true (or any big player for that matter) then surely they would buy the Aberdeen business for some/most/ all or even more than the money CHC paid Babcock?
£10m sounded very cheap to me at the time (Guessing big Babcock absorbed the losses and debts and wrote them off) so it may actually turn out to be a very good business move depending on how you look at it?
CHC acquired Denmark and Australia, those contracts and their people and will then recoup £££ from the sale of the Aberdeen business unit. Looks like the deal of the century to me where I actually can’t get my head around the maths but perhaps I’m overlooking something blindingly obvious,
£10m sounded very cheap to me at the time (Guessing big Babcock absorbed the losses and debts and wrote them off) so it may actually turn out to be a very good business move depending on how you look at it?
CHC acquired Denmark and Australia, those contracts and their people and will then recoup £££ from the sale of the Aberdeen business unit. Looks like the deal of the century to me where I actually can’t get my head around the maths but perhaps I’m overlooking something blindingly obvious,
If they believe the core value in the purchase is outside the UK, what's stopping them winding up the UK part?
Originally Posted by helicrazi
CHC have to sell, but another company doesn't have to buy it... this is where it gets very interesting.
If they believe the core value in the purchase is outside the UK, what's stopping them winding up the UK part?
If they believe the core value in the purchase is outside the UK, what's stopping them winding up the UK part?
As the contracts that Babcock have are ongoing TUPE would apply.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dark side of the moan
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Mitchaa
Hmm, if the rumours of PHI coming into the market are true (or any big player for that matter)...
Would PHI and other 'big players' not have been consulted by the CMA and therefore have already ruled themselves out? Chatter from OHS employees indicates that that's what OHS management think.
The Summary of the Final Report appears to be as contradictory as the interim report: The CMA states that they won't allow the merger due to concerns about Significant Loss of Competition and that the OHS part of the Fisher business must be divested...but twenty five paragraphs (and a lot of guff) later they indicate that no one is interested in buying OHS.
So, my learned friends, what happens when no buyer is found and CHC gets fed up with pumping cash into something they can't control or, presumably, make money from? Wouldn't OHS fold and all the contracts go back to tender anyway?
PPI Zulu - exactly what I put a few posts ago, just because CHC have to sell it, doesn't mean there's a mad hatter waiting to blow his/her/gender neutral fortune. And if no buyer, then what?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dark side of the moan
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by helicrazi
PPI Zulu - exactly what I put a few posts ago, just because CHC have to sell it, doesn't mean there's a mad hatter waiting to blow his/her/gender neutral fortune. And if no buyer, then what?
.....
Join Date: Mar 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ericferret
There would be TUPE issues for a start.
As the contracts that Babcock have are ongoing TUPE would apply.
As the contracts that Babcock have are ongoing TUPE would apply.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dark side of the moan
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by dustycraphopper
Don't hold your breath or bank on this statement - definitely not always been the case ....
