George Frangeskides, Exec-Chair at Alba Mineral Resources, discusses grades at the Clogau Gold Mine. Watch the full video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
HH my initial thoughts were oh god rushing to resolve complaints = let’s just pay them out, but I guess they will have simply reallocated lending staff to complaints which makes sense in the current environment.
You might also think the board would be keen to prove they have actually been lending responsibly and there’s no foundation to JB’a claims, as without a doubt he will investigate them.
I don’t see him running the book down tbf, I think he’s just posturing over the underlying value when he’s talking about that
I very much doubt it B, I promise you jobs like that are few and far between.
oh i'm sure they will get a job on any AIM listed company for about a million a year + bonuses, it's all about which snakes you hang around with.
Bit like Dave Sefton, biggest crook going but still manages to bank multiple jobs
Fraud aside - I wonder if the BoD have considered what this ill judged battle will do to their credibility and indeed employability in the future - not everyone is in as strong a financial position as JB.
Very pleased that you have managed to play this one so well HH - I must stop going in with Big feet and regretting it later - small gains make a lot more sense to me now. As far as acting improperly, I do not believe this will have been at the corporate level but with payment of expenses and allowances etc - how can you justify spending £325k to move from London to Bournemouth? Who knows what arrangements have been made with regard to allowances, consultants, family connections let alone the very suspicious share trading that has gone on throughout. I was taken aback by JB’s original action but have always wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt but he has consistently contributed to the unfortunate turn of events - he could have handled many things much better, not least if he had made a bid himself for the £1 he values the company at months ago rather than gripeing from the sidelines whilst always having enough control to bring the matter to a close - I note that he has lost a lot more than me or the rest of us but that only makes it worse - but I do want to believe that even now he can make things right.
All I can add is that I am massively disappointed with both sides. In my view JB was very badly advised to go on the attack the way he did and to make comments In such a public and damaging way - actually I do t believe he took any advice just acted as his own ego dictated. As things have developed especially sense the pathetic offer that the board have managed to conjure at the last minute to further muddy the waters my views on the board could not be worse - I now do believe that they are trying to cover up some potentially damaging or possibly fraudulent actions as suggested by JB. I am massively down the board are useless and the major shareholder is a jerk. What next?
i'm not convinced they'd consider selling anywhere near these prices, longer it says at 20p though the better a deal 50p looks etc.
What's the news with the "Bid Situation"?
Likely takeover? not really read up too much on the latest, always thought it was a good buy before i noticed that.
We've only £170K traded so far today (including MMs and algos).
At these volumes even 20% swings don't really have much of impact.
Whatever happens with sp atm can't be taken seriously, although it might play on nerves..
It's all about moves of large players in the end.
I know what you mean, but don't fear.. I'm a novice Investor to say the least.
I was 40% down on my Portfolio when the markets crashed due to C-19, slowly i have made progress by doubling down on shares that have lost large %'s., reduced my liability on these and got better weighted costs.
I have also been playing the markets buying and selling making a quick buck here and there and as off yesterday I had made back the 40% loss and was 0.4% UP!! :)
Although today, I am 2.5% down again.. So swings and roundabouts.
Been looking to get in on Amigo and when i saw that 10% drop went for it, although by the time I got my trade in, it was only 7% down.
Anyway, keep the faith - the market long term will always rise up; just don't put too many eggs in one basket, although I made back my 40% loss, i still have stock in my portfolio that are 40% and 65% down!!
GLA
God we down 10%
I just cannot get a lucky break recently with shares
My Last 12 months losses with my share investments is shocking to say the least
A small shareholder maybe like you who invested and lagging the price paid for but only at 52p as hedge in the past
pop corn out waiting for fire works tomorrow
Wow that will rattle The CEO of amigo
We urge you to vote yes to all proposed motions for a company that can start to take its first steps towards recovery. Vote yes to leave behind the leadership values which destroyed over £1Bn in equity value and led the company to trade at something like 20% of post-debt collect out value.
RG are deliberately not proposing further candidates beyond the CEO and Chair, and are only proposing interim replacements. Immediately on appointment of the interim Chair, we expect him to appoint suitable interim INEDs and CFO. Quickly after the vote, the company will not be in breach of UK Corp Gov code. Instead, it will have an interim board which has been appointed more independently, if such a measure could exist, than the current board. The current Amigo board knows this to be the case, but are knowingly misrepresenting the situation.
The board seems to be claiming that their removal may trigger the need to repay the bonds. In a recent conversation with Glen Crawford I was told that this is not the case. Irrespective, we disagree that the company should retain the stockpile of cash it is currently amassing. Amigo have admitted to be holding over £115m in cash, an amount which has accumulated in a few months since they stopped lending. Even with their spending on lawyers, and habit of awarding themselves outlandish bonuses (such as Hamish Paton’s £325,000 ‘relocation expenses’ for moving from London to Bournemouth) it is difficult to see what purpose they have for this money which justifies the almost 8% interest that Amigo is paying on this.
The board claims that their removal will have a negative effect on the sale process, but at the same time have failed to come up with an offer which is higher than the cash held in the company bank account. The sale process, like all other processes conducted by this board, has failed not because the company is fundamentally weak, but because it has accumulated a group of the most corrupt, incompetent and spineless parasites we have seen in charge of a company in our professional lifetimes.
On FCA governance and the need for pre-authorisation of the interim candidates, SUP 1OC.3.13 (the “12 week rule”) states that authorisation is not required for candidates taking up a Senior Management Function
If:
• the appointment is to provide cover for an SMF manager whose absence is:
• (a) temporary; or
• (b) reasonably unforeseen; and
• (3) the appointment is for less than 12 weeks…
the description of the relevant FCA-designated senior management function does not relate to those activities of that individual.
The dismissal of the board is certainly unforeseen by the company, as they chose to make no mention of it to the market prior to the announcement of our notice. The vacancies and appointments also meet the criteria of ‘temporary’, having clearly been stated as interim. These roles will exist only for as long as is necessary for the recruitment and authorisation of suitable long term SMF managers, and not for longer than 12 weeks.
The current board have been incredibly damaging during their time, but there is light at the end of the tunnel. If you are an Amigo shareholder, we feel your pain. We have all been screwed over so badly by current leadership.
JB on Twitter, the last para is the best he basically puts a 500m mcap value here.....£1 per share. That will do me nicely:))
————————JB tweet—————
If, like me, you’re unlucky enough to be a shareholder of Amigo, you’ll know that the board has finally released a statement and, at the latest possible date, called the board meeting for shareholders to vote on their dismissal and replacement. In their statement, they listed a number of reasons that shareholders should vote against their removal.
The board state that there is no need to remove them; we disagree. This board has managed the company in a negligent and haphazard way, but has been reliable and constant in their willingness to do or say absolutely anything to cling on to control of the company for as long as possible, at any cost to customers and shareholders.
Our best guess on their motivation is that they know that the proper unencumbered investigation which will take place after their removal will yield evidence incriminating them all, and lead to significant financial and regulatory action against them as individuals. Their primary motivation is to control the transition and hire a board that is friendly to them.
In the last few weeks that they still have control of the Amigo bank account, they will no doubt continue to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds of shareholders’ money to try to personally protect themselves. Expect there to be no expense spared on offensive, as well as defensive, legal action.
The board claim that shareholders appointing their replacements give RG, as shareholder, too much control. They neglect to mention that I personally appointed each of the current Independents. If they genuinely believed that an Independent appointed by a shareholder is unsuitable, then they should be happily voting for themselves to leave.
It’s also interesting that ‘keeping the board independent of shareholders’ is such a concern for a board which, together with their appointed ‘consultant’ Glen Crawford, are the third largest shareholder group. This is not a board with independent oversight; this is a significant minority shareholder consortium running a listed company for their own personal ends, at the expense of customers and other shareholders.
On the suitability of the proposed individuals, the board have chosen their words very carefully. Sam Wells has not previously been CEO of an FCA regulated, listed company precisely because he has spent most of his career as director and CEO of Amigo. His time away from Amigo was spent founding and running the world’s second largest guarantor lender, regulated by the PFSA in Poland, where it operates. They will remember that they themselves hired him as COO of Amigo, an SMF Role, in January and that he was the only executive who took action to bring lending and complaints polices into line with each other, an achievement which got him dismissed by them.
I can honestly see a bidding war and final take out price of about 60-70p a share
It's is a laughable offer 20.90p. let's be honest
A bit of a **** take of a low ball shot.
Maybe to upset the shareholders in general
All it takes is a canny investment company ( and there are loads out their off shore ) to bid say 50p and us shareholders will accept this IMHO and they can run off the business and bank 100s of millions of pounds in the process.
Ok I lost big time here, but I now happily accept 50p down from 150p
This in house fighting is generally getting childish now I accept that getting back my original 177p buy is mission impossible.