GTP - Great Southern Plantations
- Thread starter Rafa
- Start date
Tiwi Islands Trees
To Preacher and all,
This has only just been set up, so it may require a couple of hours.
Spread the word.
tiwitrees@bigpond.com
To Preacher and all,
This has only just been set up, so it may require a couple of hours.
Spread the word.
tiwitrees@bigpond.com
Sadly I think EDLIW is right: Tiwi plantations have failed in the past so the history is not good and also the infrastucture costs are high let alone the maintenance, lease fees etc to harvest. A forestry economist has also indicted that when the acacia is due to be harvested it will be competing with an over supply of plantation blue gum, arguably a higher quality product. Growers, Tiwi Islanders, shareholders and the ATO have all been dudded. Seems the only entity not dudded is John Young, however he did have a considerable shareholding that is now worthless.
Sadly, I know your right. Emotion taking control after a rather hefty loss. I pity the poor Tiwi islanders who I believe are now left with a enviromental mess waiting for the NT gov to bail them out... again. Apparently McGraphNicol will be contacting tiwi growers in the next couple of weeks.
Strangly I was sent a letter from a solicitor (how he got my address I don't know) wanting growers to become involved in a case against GSMAL/AdelaideBendigo for the change in finance arragements from GSMAL to Adelaide Bendigo and that it wasn't legal? I had also read reports that Adelaide Bendigo had suffered losses as a result of people defaulting on their loans.
I don't hold much faith in this, came with a nice little "pay money now, sign here" ending to the letter. Just wondering if anybody had any insite into it.
Thanks
Strangly I was sent a letter from a solicitor (how he got my address I don't know) wanting growers to become involved in a case against GSMAL/AdelaideBendigo for the change in finance arragements from GSMAL to Adelaide Bendigo and that it wasn't legal? I had also read reports that Adelaide Bendigo had suffered losses as a result of people defaulting on their loans.
I don't hold much faith in this, came with a nice little "pay money now, sign here" ending to the letter. Just wondering if anybody had any insite into it.
Thanks
- Joined
- 25 July 2009
- Posts
- 23
- Reactions
- 0
Great Southern Plantations
Anyone invested in GSP trees needs to also read the offer from Black tree besides Gunns and PPL. I think Black Tree are correct in saying the receivers McGrathNicol are working for the banks. Even though us growers have a lot more invested and a lot more to lose than the banks.
If you want to read the Black Tree proposal visit
http://www.blacktreeltd.com.au
http://www.blacktreeltd.com.au/Portals/16/20091201 BT grower letter.pdf
Anyone invested in GSP trees needs to also read the offer from Black tree besides Gunns and PPL. I think Black Tree are correct in saying the receivers McGrathNicol are working for the banks. Even though us growers have a lot more invested and a lot more to lose than the banks.
If you want to read the Black Tree proposal visit
http://www.blacktreeltd.com.au
http://www.blacktreeltd.com.au/Portals/16/20091201 BT grower letter.pdf
- Joined
- 23 May 2009
- Posts
- 14
- Reactions
- 0
The Black Tree proposal at least gives me some value for my Tiwi Island leased 2006 Plantation. Gunns (and ?PPPL) will not provide any distribution to investors in 2006 Plantation on Tiwi land.
I smell a large rat. My investment has been turned over to the Tiwi Island Land Council, and I still have a large, high interest loan against no investment. The investors in 2006 Plantation had no say on whether their trees would be on Tiwi (leased) land or non-leased mainland land. The Receiver's gave no option for 2006 Plantation investors to make up the shortfall on the lease from September 30th, 2009. I can't believe this is a fair situation, and somebody, somewhere is benefitting...
Any other 2006 Plantation growers on Tiwi land taken any legal steps? What are our rights?
I'm also involved in 2008 High Value Timber. Does anyone know if there has been any bidder interest in this ?
I smell a large rat. My investment has been turned over to the Tiwi Island Land Council, and I still have a large, high interest loan against no investment. The investors in 2006 Plantation had no say on whether their trees would be on Tiwi (leased) land or non-leased mainland land. The Receiver's gave no option for 2006 Plantation investors to make up the shortfall on the lease from September 30th, 2009. I can't believe this is a fair situation, and somebody, somewhere is benefitting...
Any other 2006 Plantation growers on Tiwi land taken any legal steps? What are our rights?
I'm also involved in 2008 High Value Timber. Does anyone know if there has been any bidder interest in this ?
- Joined
- 25 July 2009
- Posts
- 23
- Reactions
- 0
MUGPUNTER you really should take the time to read the Blacktree proposal - the links I posted earlier - however here is a brief summary - note the Tiwi Islands are in bold
The Offer
Black Tree proposes to restructure the 1999-2008 Great Southern pulpwood MIS projects to maximise returns to growers.
The 1997 and 1998 projects, where harvesting is close to being completed, will be managed by Black Tree under the current financial arrangements.
All projects will be maintained and harvested by Black Tree. Growers will NOT be required to provide further funds to maintain plantations.
Black Tree will fund the costs of maintaining plantations, on the basis that these costs are recoverable from Growers at the time of harvest.
The key benefits of Black Tree’s Proposal are:
Returns to growers maximised
All growers will receive an annual cash distribution from harvest proceeds over the next 10 to 12 years.
Grower leases on the Tiwi Islands and on other properties where head leases have been disclaimed will not lose their interests in the projects A modest fee structure directly aligned to growers’ interests
Management team focussed on reducing costs and maximising revenue - not simply attracting new annual MIS sales
The key elements of the Black Tree proposal are:
1. Pooling
The 1999-2008 Great Southern Pulpwood projects will be ‘pooled’, with growers receiving a share of the pooled proceeds of all future harvests. Pooling will enable Black Tree to manage all the projects as one forestry plantation estate and will result in a number of financial and operational efficiencies, particularly in terms of harvest scheduling.
Importantly pooling means the projects are largely self financing, reducing the cost and reliance on external finance, which in turn increases the amount of overall cash available to be distributed to growers. It also spreads growers’ geographic and climatic risk and optimises across-project performance.
The share of the proceeds growers receive will be based on an assessment of the relative current value of each of the projects and will be fixed for the life of the project. Early projects are more valuable than later ones (because harvest revenue is closer and costs to get there are less) and will therefore receive a higher share of pooled harvest proceeds. An independent expert will ensure relative values are fairly determined.
The 1997 and 1998 projects, where harvesting is close to being completed, will be managed under the current financial arrangements.
2. Modest fee structure
Black Tree has proposed a harvest management fee of 2.0% of net harvest proceeds across all pooled pulpwood schemes (1999 – 2008) in addition to the existing management fee of 3% due to the RE (total 5.0%). For 1997 and 1998 projects, the fee will remain at 3% of net harvest proceeds.
These fees are significantly lower than the alternative Pulpwood Plantations proposal of 5% for the 1998 project and 13% - 37% for the 1999 to 2003 projects.
Black Tree’s proposal is structured so its interests and growers interests are perfectly aligned.
By proposing a management fee tied solely to net harvest proceeds payable to growers, Black Tree has every incentive to maximise returns to the investors.
3. Offer fully funded
Black Tree will inject $30 million of working capital into plantation management. The working capital loan will be repaid from harvest revenue and ensures no further financial contributions to plantation management and operations are required from growers.
4. Early cash offer
In addition to the $30 million working capital loan it can inject into the business, Black Tree will arrange a cash offer to growers in early projects who would prefer to monetise their investment immediately rather than extract maximum value over the longer pooled harvest period.
The Offer
Black Tree proposes to restructure the 1999-2008 Great Southern pulpwood MIS projects to maximise returns to growers.
The 1997 and 1998 projects, where harvesting is close to being completed, will be managed by Black Tree under the current financial arrangements.
All projects will be maintained and harvested by Black Tree. Growers will NOT be required to provide further funds to maintain plantations.
Black Tree will fund the costs of maintaining plantations, on the basis that these costs are recoverable from Growers at the time of harvest.
The key benefits of Black Tree’s Proposal are:
Returns to growers maximised
All growers will receive an annual cash distribution from harvest proceeds over the next 10 to 12 years.
Grower leases on the Tiwi Islands and on other properties where head leases have been disclaimed will not lose their interests in the projects A modest fee structure directly aligned to growers’ interests
Management team focussed on reducing costs and maximising revenue - not simply attracting new annual MIS sales
The key elements of the Black Tree proposal are:
1. Pooling
The 1999-2008 Great Southern Pulpwood projects will be ‘pooled’, with growers receiving a share of the pooled proceeds of all future harvests. Pooling will enable Black Tree to manage all the projects as one forestry plantation estate and will result in a number of financial and operational efficiencies, particularly in terms of harvest scheduling.
Importantly pooling means the projects are largely self financing, reducing the cost and reliance on external finance, which in turn increases the amount of overall cash available to be distributed to growers. It also spreads growers’ geographic and climatic risk and optimises across-project performance.
The share of the proceeds growers receive will be based on an assessment of the relative current value of each of the projects and will be fixed for the life of the project. Early projects are more valuable than later ones (because harvest revenue is closer and costs to get there are less) and will therefore receive a higher share of pooled harvest proceeds. An independent expert will ensure relative values are fairly determined.
The 1997 and 1998 projects, where harvesting is close to being completed, will be managed under the current financial arrangements.
2. Modest fee structure
Black Tree has proposed a harvest management fee of 2.0% of net harvest proceeds across all pooled pulpwood schemes (1999 – 2008) in addition to the existing management fee of 3% due to the RE (total 5.0%). For 1997 and 1998 projects, the fee will remain at 3% of net harvest proceeds.
These fees are significantly lower than the alternative Pulpwood Plantations proposal of 5% for the 1998 project and 13% - 37% for the 1999 to 2003 projects.
Black Tree’s proposal is structured so its interests and growers interests are perfectly aligned.
By proposing a management fee tied solely to net harvest proceeds payable to growers, Black Tree has every incentive to maximise returns to the investors.
3. Offer fully funded
Black Tree will inject $30 million of working capital into plantation management. The working capital loan will be repaid from harvest revenue and ensures no further financial contributions to plantation management and operations are required from growers.
4. Early cash offer
In addition to the $30 million working capital loan it can inject into the business, Black Tree will arrange a cash offer to growers in early projects who would prefer to monetise their investment immediately rather than extract maximum value over the longer pooled harvest period.
Further to Glendaw101, the Bunnings family who I understand are the majority shareholders of Black Tree, have a significant history in forestry and have behaved ethically in regard to their enterprise. Unlike some....Sounds like the best deal to date.
- Joined
- 23 May 2009
- Posts
- 14
- Reactions
- 0
Yes, I sent back the form from the Black Tree website prevailing upon the Receivers to allow Black Tree to meet the investors to discuss their proposal. They need 5% of eligible investors to return the form.
Do it now comrades!
Do it now comrades!
Blacktree's devil is in the details
Having read Blacktree's announcement they are desperately trying to sweet talk investors, as all the offers are. If there's one thing anyone can tell it's when they're talking to us they're trying to make money for themselves. Never forget that.
There's one particularly disturbing phrase in the announcement:
"The pooled structure allows the projects to become self financing through the use of a portion of the earlier project harvest proceeds to pay later project maintenance costs. This will reduce the cost of, and reliance on, external finance and will increase the amount of overall
cash available to be distributed to growers”.
So, this implies that maintaining the projects will be paid for by investors, since ultimately all value stems from the trees. The after all the other associated costs of harvest etc Blacktree take their 5%.
My concern is what is this new cost, in dollar or %. Right now it's indefined... a blank cheque. These 'costs' could eat up 80% of revenue, depending on how its enacted. Use companies that overcharge, who could even be Blacktree subsidiaries or have the same directors, and value is funnelled away nice and legal.
As for a pooled structure, GTP dumped all their projects into one bucket when it came to finances and we've been waiting months for auditors to sort the mess. Why vote for the same mess? Pooled structures are just a lazy and cheap way to administer, it only benefits Blacktree. As for reducing costs, GTP claimed project transform would enable them to reduce costs, but they had complete control anyway and could manage how they wanted, so this argument about pooling being cheaper is all smoke and mirrors.
PPPL and Gunns offer a predefined %, and I'd rather continue with this knowing what the costs will be, not Blacktree's blank cheque on maintenance. If they announce a figure it will be worth reading but until then they are acting just like GTP.
Having read Blacktree's announcement they are desperately trying to sweet talk investors, as all the offers are. If there's one thing anyone can tell it's when they're talking to us they're trying to make money for themselves. Never forget that.
There's one particularly disturbing phrase in the announcement:
"The pooled structure allows the projects to become self financing through the use of a portion of the earlier project harvest proceeds to pay later project maintenance costs. This will reduce the cost of, and reliance on, external finance and will increase the amount of overall
cash available to be distributed to growers”.
So, this implies that maintaining the projects will be paid for by investors, since ultimately all value stems from the trees. The after all the other associated costs of harvest etc Blacktree take their 5%.
My concern is what is this new cost, in dollar or %. Right now it's indefined... a blank cheque. These 'costs' could eat up 80% of revenue, depending on how its enacted. Use companies that overcharge, who could even be Blacktree subsidiaries or have the same directors, and value is funnelled away nice and legal.
As for a pooled structure, GTP dumped all their projects into one bucket when it came to finances and we've been waiting months for auditors to sort the mess. Why vote for the same mess? Pooled structures are just a lazy and cheap way to administer, it only benefits Blacktree. As for reducing costs, GTP claimed project transform would enable them to reduce costs, but they had complete control anyway and could manage how they wanted, so this argument about pooling being cheaper is all smoke and mirrors.
PPPL and Gunns offer a predefined %, and I'd rather continue with this knowing what the costs will be, not Blacktree's blank cheque on maintenance. If they announce a figure it will be worth reading but until then they are acting just like GTP.
- Joined
- 25 July 2009
- Posts
- 23
- Reactions
- 0
Great Southern Plantations
Anyone know what would make BlackTree back out? I quote
"The future of your plantation assets is now in your hands. Good luck"
http://www.blacktreeltd.com.au/Portals/16/20091209 BT Letter to Growers.pdf
Anyone know what would make BlackTree back out? I quote
"The future of your plantation assets is now in your hands. Good luck"
http://www.blacktreeltd.com.au/Portals/16/20091209 BT Letter to Growers.pdf
- Joined
- 25 July 2009
- Posts
- 23
- Reactions
- 0
Forenth
Good sound comments
However may I add that although Gunns and PPL say they will only take 55-50% (this is the year my crop is in) of our harvest proceeds they do not estimate what value these proceeds will be.
I cannot find any data on currents harvest values for wood chip or other plantation trees. So it may be 50-55% of something or very little.
In other words do any of these proposers offer value of what the harvest may be?
So even at a predefined %. it may be a little or nothing.
May I quote you: If anyone can predict a figure it will be worth reading but until then they are all acting just like GTP.
Good sound comments
However may I add that although Gunns and PPL say they will only take 55-50% (this is the year my crop is in) of our harvest proceeds they do not estimate what value these proceeds will be.
I cannot find any data on currents harvest values for wood chip or other plantation trees. So it may be 50-55% of something or very little.
In other words do any of these proposers offer value of what the harvest may be?
So even at a predefined %. it may be a little or nothing.
May I quote you: If anyone can predict a figure it will be worth reading but until then they are all acting just like GTP.
Time to move on,vote Gunns....
Western Australian industrialist Gordon Martin has conceded defeat in his bid to take control of Great Southern's timber schemes.
Mr Martin told WA Business News late yesterday that the level of proxy support ahead of tomorrow's vote on his proposal indicated his bid would not attract the necessary support.
"We've taken on the receiver, the banks and Gunns and that's a formidable opponent," Mr Martin said.
"Let's not kid ourselves, we're not going to get there."
The Mr-Martin led Pulpwood Plantations - backed by well known names including the former soccer club owner and fast food magnate Nick Tana and former Great Southern executive director Phillip Butlin - was set up to bid for the schemes.
The fall of Pulpwood leaves one active bid in the market, with Gunns putting its proposal before investors on December 23.
Western Australian industrialist Gordon Martin has conceded defeat in his bid to take control of Great Southern's timber schemes.
Mr Martin told WA Business News late yesterday that the level of proxy support ahead of tomorrow's vote on his proposal indicated his bid would not attract the necessary support.
"We've taken on the receiver, the banks and Gunns and that's a formidable opponent," Mr Martin said.
"Let's not kid ourselves, we're not going to get there."
The Mr-Martin led Pulpwood Plantations - backed by well known names including the former soccer club owner and fast food magnate Nick Tana and former Great Southern executive director Phillip Butlin - was set up to bid for the schemes.
The fall of Pulpwood leaves one active bid in the market, with Gunns putting its proposal before investors on December 23.
