From a management perspective control, in an operational sense, rests with Peter McGrath, but in a board management, strategic, and business divestment sense, control rests with Peter Shore.
McGrath has 1.0m options @12c, exercisable once they get past certain pricing hurdles (ie: 1/4 @30c, etc), but otherwise holds relatively few shares. McGrath, however, is not a Director, or member of the Board.
Shore heads up the Board, and holds 1.0m shares bought on-market, 578,000 restricted ESOP shares, and 240,000 options exercisable in tranches.
The head of NullaborTel as you so quaintly put it has more to say about UEC's future /direction than the CEO.
And what is it with the quaint SGT (sic) and TEL (sic)?
SGT is the proper ASX designation for Singapore Telecom, just as TEL is the proper ASX designation for Telecom New Zealand.
As for "(t)he AAP(T) Business and Internet segment provid(ing) EBITDA, while I DO NOT HAVE EBITDA for the sub-segments you demand", let's get one thing clear - you took a headline figure and then made a number of pronouncements regarding the relatively inferior EBITDA margins.
Simply put, I have not demanded any EBITDA figures for the sub-segments. What, however, I did point out was that, if you are going to talk about Business and Internet, then you should also have let the HC subscribers know exactly what it is you were talking about.
In other words, Business and Internet includes all of AAPT's revenues towards business and the internet in Australia. It, therefore, includes voice (both mobile and fixed), interconnection, data and the internet, managed services (ie: towards the CBA, etc), and "other" things.
To date, you keep on posting 1/2 the story, and I keep on completing this for you. Perhaps, between us, we get everyone closer to the complete picture!!!
Now, to get to the type of figures you are talking about, just who is going to pay 8, 10 or 12x EBITDA, plus the locked-in financing facility (@$46m, but committed and locked-in to $80m)?
Based on your suggested figures of EBITDA @$30m (etc), someone (you have now suggested SGT /TEL) will pay between $250 - 400m to acquire UEC (including the debt commitment).
But, if this were so, then just how long will it be before any of this will become earnings accretive to either of those organisations?
In years gone by, TEL paid heavily for its Australian forays involving Pacific Star (some of which eventually ended up with RSL-Com). It also paid quite heavily for AAPT and, indeed, may have to take a further writeoff against AAPT's goodwill value as part of FY03 results.
Similarly, SGT has all but confirmed that it paid far too much for Optus and that the goodwill component of this will continue to drag against its earnings for FY03 and FY04.
So, if both of these companies have paid quite heavily previously for Australian based assets, why now would they consider doing the same in relation to UEC?
Afterall, would you yourself be willing to pay between $240m and $400m to acquire a potential earnings stream that may reach $30m at the EBITDA level, but which will not return a profit for a number of years to come? I would suggest anything from 5 -7 years hence.
On this basis, will SGT or TEL really be prepared to: 1) pay > net assets (by a factor of 2x, or more); 2) wait 5 -7 years to begin earning a return on the investment; 3) pump in more CAPEX in order to earn this return?
From my perspective, I continue to hold my doubts on this.
