'Fix Ardent' website

[GoGoBoy]

Check out - http://fixardent.com.au/

I'm sure most of us would agree with the sentiment expressed by these guys, and I'm hoping they are able to take control of the company. In my opinion, Ardent has been terribly managed for many years now, and the current board should be removed. I speak from personal experience after losing a significant amount of wealth from having once invested in the company's shares. But more than anything, I want to see Dreamworld succeed, and it sounds like these guys do too, and have an idea of what it will take to make that happen.

[joz]

I couldn't find any mention of Dreamworld, aside from a supporter of theirs saying Dreamworld should be sold.  I don't support the sale of Dreamworld because i think the only potential buyer would be a land developer.  What am I missing here?

[GoGoBoy]

4 minutes ago, joz said:

I couldn't find any mention of Dreamworld, aside from a supporter of theirs saying Dreamworld should be sold.  I don't support the sale of Dreamworld because i think the only potential buyer would be a land developer.  What am I missing here?

I didn't know anything about them wanting to sell the park. Have a read of some the articles in the 'media' section - they mention that they want to focus on Dreamworld and other Australian assets, they recognise the importance of the park, and condemn the current directors for failing to re-invest in the park.

[joz]

I didn't read the media section because I wanted it more 'from the horses mouth', but if they think that those are representative articles then I'll go off that.  I must admit I had got my lines crossed about their supporters saying they think Dreamworld should be sold; it was apparently analysts who think that.  I don't know if those quotes are included because they think they're incorrect or correct.  Actually depending on how you read it they could be saying they want to sell the place or invest more in it, they're the investment equivalent of a newspaper horoscope - broad and vague enough that people can read whatever they want into it. 

 

I'd love to see someone who owns Dreamworld who sees the value in developing the unused land themselves rather than selling it off, which is what the people agitating for change seem to want to do based off their own media reports.  However if selling of excess land assured the future of the park that would be preferable to the park closing. I guess what I'm getting at is I want more information on what they want to before I publicly say I support them.  Same goes for Main Event, they don't point to anything specifically wrong with the Main Event rollout that they're doing aside from it's bad.  If they come out with a manifesto about what their plans are, particularly if those plans guarantee the future of Dreamworld, then I'd be all for it, but for now I'm waiting on more information.

[Mark Shaw]

20 hours ago, GoGoBoy said:

Check out - http://fixardent.com.au/

I'm sure most of us would agree with the sentiment expressed by these guys, and I'm hoping they are able to take control of the company. In my opinion, Ardent has been terribly managed for many years now, and the current board should be removed. I speak from personal experience after losing a significant amount of wealth from having once invested in the company's shares. But more than anything, I want to see Dreamworld succeed, and it sounds like these guys do too, and have an idea of what it will take to make that happen.

hmmmm.  Interesting

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

Why is it @Mark Shaw that lately, no matter what you say, I feel like you have a lot more to say that you can't, and you're just teasing us all with your seemingly benign comments?

[New display name]

I get he thinks it's interesting.

[New display name]

Dear Ardent securityholder

 

 

 

ARDENT RECOMMENDS THAT SECURITYHOLDERS TAKE NO ACTION IN RELATION TO THE COMMUNICATIONS FROM ARIADNE

 

 

You will by now have received a notice of a general meeting of Ardent Leisure Limited (Ardent) securityholders which is scheduled for Monday 4 September 2017 (Notice) together with a supplementary letter dated 6 July 2017

(Ariadne Communication).

 

What is Ariadne trying to do?

 

The Notice and the Ariadne Communication were sent to you by two Ardent securityholders (referred to as Ariadne) who each respectively hold 3.94% (together, less than 8.00%) of Ardent securities1.  Because Ariadne holds more than 5.00% of Ardent securities, it is entitled to convene the general meeting without any input from the Ardent Board.

 

At the general meeting, you will be asked by Ariadne to approve resolutions which will result in the appointment of FOUR directors that Ariadne has nominated to the Ardent Board, as well as the removal of any directors that are appointed to the Board since 15 June 2017 (if any).

 

If all of the resolutions are approved, Ariadne, Kayaal and associates2, who collectively hold less than 10% of Ardent securities, will have nominated 40% of the directors on the Ardent Board, which is disproportionate to both their individual and combined securityholdings. This would represent an even greater percentage if, following the general meeting, the Board was reduced to more appropriately reflect Ardent’s size and complexity.

 

Why are you receiving this letter?

 

The Notice and the Ariadne Communication were NOT sent by Ardent and they do NOT reflect the views of the

Ardent Board. The general meeting was NOT called by the Ardent Board.

 

This letter is being sent to make you aware of the Ardent Board’s view that the Notice and the Ariadne Communication contain statements that are misleading and which are intended to encourage you to vote in favour of the resolutions.

 

It is very important that you vote with the benefit of all material information. You will receive the Ardent

Board’s detailed response in the coming weeks.

 

The Board recommends that you TAKE NO ACTION in relation to the proxy forms provided to you in the Ariadne Communication and the Notice until you have received the Board’s detailed response, which will be sent to Ardent securityholders well in advance of the general meeting and which will ensure that you have all the information that you need to make an informed vote on the resolutions.

 

 

 

You can go to https://www.ardentleisure.com/investor-centre/investor-resources/asx-releases/to read the whole thing.   "COMMUNICATION TO ARDENT LEISURE SECURITYHOLDERS"

Edited July 19, 2017 by Skeeta

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

I'm just picturing all these board members running around the boardroom shouting 'battlestations! battlestations!'

 

it's somewhat comical - at least for people who aren't securityholders i guess...

[New display name]

If you were a shareholder which way would you vote?

If the coup succeeds would you sell DW?

[Reanimated35]

2 minutes ago, Skeeta said:

If you were a shareholder which way would you vote?

If the coup succeeds would you sell DW?

Depends on who it was selling to

[New display name]

Would you care if you were the CEO of Ardent who purchased DW?

[Reanimated35]

Yes. 

If I was in a position to sell it, I'd want to ensure that the person/company who was buying it actually had intentions on continuing to build, refurbish and expand Dreamworld. 

[New display name]

That's comparable to me selling my house and telling the new owners not to paint any of the rooms blue.

[Reanimated35]

Well their plans for the site would have to be shown before the sale and it would form part of the sale contract. 

[joz]

Would I sell it?  No I love the park and want to ensure its survival.  Does it make financial sense in the short to mid term to sell it?  Probably.

[Richard]

The documents on the website indicates that they think that the Gold Coast tourism and theme park industry is a viable one with solid projected growth. They also note that Ardent have significantly under-invested in development CapEx for their parks.

From a stakeholder's perspective, the question is whether the capital required for Ardent to turn this division around is best served in that capacity, or would be better put to use fixing the botched Main Event roll-out in the USA.

As it stands Ardent's current management want to have their cake and eat it too; they insist that they couldn't possibly want to sell the park (despite doing everything possible to indicate that is in fact on the cards), yet they are also doing nothing to suggest that they realise the kind of investment Dreamworld needs to rectify not just the fallout from what happened on Thunder River Rapids, but from a strategic and deliberate starving of capital for their 20-odd years of ownership.

[GoGoBoy]

My thoughts exactly, Richard. I have always been extremely underwhelmed by the Ardent board. I remember watching the value of my shareholding plummet while the director's voted to increase their salaries. Maybe I would have been more sympathetic if I felt they were willing to truly invest in Dreamworld and do the right thing by the Gold Coast. But, that wasn't the case.

Edited July 19, 2017 by GoGoBoy

[New display name]

Ardent's latest plea to shareholder why not to vote.  I've only attached what involves DW.

Increase in Theme Parks Attendance Ardent has stated that the Dreamworld recovery will take two years and continues to support this recovery with an event and capital investment program;

Sale of Potential Surplus Land at Coomera: Ardent has previously announced a review of the Dreamworld Master Plan to identify potential opportunities for unlocking value; and

Ardent's says before the vote they will issue a detailed report.  I’m not holding my breath but hopefully it will show the direction Ardent will take DW.

[Redboost]

Has there ever been a value placed on Dreamworld if there was a buyer interested in it? Either pre or post TRR?

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

You could probably look at the financials \ annual reports published each year to see what the company values the property at.

Sure you only get what someone's willing to pay for it, but their valuations tend to be a good indication...

[New display name]

Latest update.

The web site is no more.

After further discussion with securityholders and between Ardent and Ariadne, both parties have agreed that the most important outcome is the ability of the Ardent Board to have absolute focus on executing its stated strategy and to deliver securityholder value. This is best achieved by the establishment of a collaborative and unified Board. Accordingly it has been agreed that the EGM will not proceed and that Dr. Weiss and Mr. Richmond have been invited to join the Board effective immediately. In line with Ardent’s previous commitment regarding the retirement of Australian non-executive directors, two directors will now step down no later than the 2017 AGM in November.