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 and have access to Premium Chat. 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.
JTMacs has taken his ball and gone home sucking his thumb.
Who suspended the shares
'the company's nominated adviser'
Will that be Nomand or W H
How do you deduce that the company suspended trading?
The exchange did not suspend trading.
The company did.
Why distort that very very basic fact ?
Don't answer - not bothered in silly exchanges here.
TD2 - you carry on.........
I guess that merely confirms why AIM felt it necessary to suspend Eurasia. These sorts of statements "following the addition of the new 'Flanks' areas" imply without confirming anything. The NOMAD let this go when maybe they should have insisted on wording that made it clear that the flanks were still subject to approval and that the 15m oz. still subject to further drilling. The only surprise here is that the Nomad did let it go and that AIM took so long to start requesting clarification on other equally ambiguous statements from the company.
for all the good it has done!
Christian Schaffalitzky, the Chairman of Eurasia commented: "The board is pleased that major banks such as CITIC and VTB Capital, the largest investment banks in China and Russia respectively, are interested in Eurasia's PGM deposits including the ones in Kola which are much improved in size following the addition of the new 'Flanks' areas (see announcement dated 26 September 2019). Our total resource with the account of areas within the flanks contours is about 15 Moz of PGM (mostly palladium) that we believe puts us in a completely different league of major palladium companies already in production stage."
That's the bit that I love !!!!
Just refering to the titled wording used from the RNS in October, but my main point was my belief the Russians
will buy MT, however that may be done and what the deal would consist of would be I could only speculate but as a long term holder I remain confident of a positive outcome.
Engagement with CITIC and VTB Capital RNS Number : 0151R
Neither Herbie or lefthandedgolfer will give you a response because they, like so many on these bulletin boards, once invested will only accept views that reinforce what they believe to be true and what makes them feel good about their investments.
You need to do is look at the history/track record of this company when it comes to news and RNSs. They've made various statements in the past on things they were going to do which haven't transpired. In essence you can say whatever you like about what you are going to do because that's a statement of intent. If that's what you say you are going to do at the time you release the RNS your NOMAD can't say otherwise. That's something to keep in mind when considering the function of the NOMAD.
You could be right Tricky but we could still be in talks with nda’s signed causing the silence.I am assuming the clarification of the so called relationship, as I have always thought, goes in tandem with possible talks or there would be no need for clarification in my opinion. If bad news was on the horizon we would have known by now in my opinion and nomad resigns etc
That’s my take for what it’s worth!
One thing to be clear on, nowhere does it say that VTB has been engaged to broker a deal. The wording, unless I’ve missed something, says to assist the company with strategic options.
Quite possibly. I don’t see the asset, if it is sold, going to anything other than a Russian entity.
VTB were also one of the banks brokering a potential deal, given NN close proximity I am of the opinion they are favorites to succesfully bid for the resource and I am fully confident of a succesful outcome.
Herbie, As you're so convinced TDT is wrong, please can you let us all know what the truth of the matter is
Spouting crap TDT
“Of course I could be completely wrong but that's the way its looking to me.”
Yes you are.
I think you need to go back to the RNS and read them in conjunction with AIM rules on suspension. I think it clear that AIM suspended Eurasia pending clarification on the statements they had made, which were directly responsible for the rise in the share price, about their relation ship with the banks they named. It,s specifically their relationship with the banks and nobody else.
24th. October RNS said this:-
"Eurasia.......is pleased to announce that CITIC, one of China's largest investment banks and VTB Capital, one of Russia's largest investment banks"
The share price took off and almost 4 months later they were suspended pending clarification on their relationship with these banks.The shambles surrounding the release of RNSs on 11th. February culminated in:-
"......pending clarification of its relationship with CITIC."
We're almost 2 months into the suspension and Eurasia has still been unable to clarify its relationship with CITIC.
Don't forget what these banks are supposed to be doing,
"......as they continue to explore possible strategic options for the Company's current mining assets (the Company's Kola and Urals assets (the "Assets"))."
They were engaged to explore options not to broker a deal.
The simple reading of this is AIM asked Eurasia to clarify their relationship with CITIC and they've failed to do so because there isn't one or at best there is an informal relationship (something like Suschov used a CITIC ATM during a night on the pizz in Moscow late last year).
I just think they've been caught with their pants down and they're waiting for some good new, the flanks, to help them bury the bad news, no formal relationship with CITIC. We should then see a return to trading with the flanks news helping to consolidate the rise for 0.5p on the 24th. October when these "banks relationship" story started.
Of course I could be completely wrong but that's the way its looking to me.
I hear you but in most situations where the obvious infractions have occurred, the nomad resigns! I get a sense here that the timing of news is related to matters being final and complete that was alluded to in a email to one poster on here .That final and complete comment could refer to talks or say flanks news
"The nomad wouldn’t risk compromising their reputation by backing a company that had committed misdemeanours! "
First off a misdemeanours is not something that would even register on their radar, second you're assuming that W H Ireland Limited has a reputation to defend and lastly, its AIM. The almost complete absence of sanction being against any AIM players, with the exception of the most serious infractions, should tell you something. I don't know much about W H Ireland but I do know that there are nomads on AIM you go to if you want the loosest of interpretations of AIM rules.
The potential of large amounts of money has an awfully funny habit of making regulators and the regulations very flexible.
Can someone explain why hasn’t the Nomad resigned if EUA had done anything untoward?
The nomad wouldn’t risk compromising their reputation by backing a company that had committed misdemeanours!
I can only conclude that the news could be related to ongoing talks as implied in the media (Russia newspaper for example) .These possible talks relate to the clarification issues the board are still trying to resolve in my opinion! Perhaps I am wrong but surely we would have known by now if bad news was imminent and the nomad was going to resign!