We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey 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.
From quese
Buckle in folks it's time for another Ted talk from swe78Wed 19:16
Buckle in folks it's time for another Ted talk ?????. Thought I'd share my latest thoughts regarding EUA..
Since the AGM I've been racking my brain trying to understand why DS left his position as NED. Something related to Deloan? Hasn't been a problem so why now, can't be. Something about an easy exit after sale? Surely that'll be just as easy as before..
Then it hit me, he can't hold his new role whilst being NED because this new role is 100% most definitley an >> executive << role.
So why does this matter? Why not just promote him to an Executive like they did James? According to this link, excluding the chairman the BoD needs to be majority NEDs https://tmsnrt.rs/32UN6Lg
So pre-AGM:
CS : Exec
JN : NED
DS : NED
GF : NED
IR : NED
= ????
If DS was to be exec:
CS : Exec + Chair
JN : Exec
DS : Exec
GF : NED
IR : NED
So excl chairman. = 2 v 2 = ????
With DS stepping down, this makes it 1 v 2 = ????
So trying to analyse this a bit further ??:
-Giving James the CEO role + director role was more important than keeping DS as a director (from what I read you can still be CEO without being a director). Also appointing him on the day of the AGM means he doesn't need to be elected for this position till next AGM = streamlined appointment. My hope is this was a courtesy to the winning bidder that he'll be there as CEO when they take over
-Due to his NED status, so far DS has been limited in the amount of work he can do relating to the sale of the company. Something must have changed which has meant he has had to break free from the shackles of his title. Where is this line? No idea, but I'd like to imagine its somewhere along in the realms of getting his name signed in ink on an official Document.... ?? (I'll let you use your imagination)
So whilst people are in a panic worrying that all these changes mean the FSP isn't as far along as they hope - I think its the exact opposite. Again I really believe this is the reaction to an event, not the attempt to trigger it.
Tl;dr - I think the company are in the stage of FSP where **** gets real, conveniently as we're approaching the peak of time to offer from FSP announcement.
We're on day 85, peak is around 120 days so now gives a little over 1 month for the financial advisors to write the prospectus, the buyer to write their strategy reports/presentations to show their shareholders why they're buying it and for our directors and advisors to sign their irrevocable undertakings ??????
(And of course DYOR I'm just a PI expressing my opinion which may very well be very wrong etc etc)
Buckle in folks it's time for another Ted talk from swe78Wed 19:16
Buckle in folks it's time for another Ted talk ?????. Thought I'd share my latest thoughts regarding EUA..
Since the AGM I've been racking my brain trying to understand why DS left his position as NED. Something related to Deloan? Hasn't been a problem so why now, can't be. Something about an easy exit after sale? Surely that'll be just as easy as before..
Then it hit me, he can't hold his new role whilst being NED because this new role is 100% most definitley an >> executive << role.
So why does this matter? Why not just promote him to an Executive like they did James? According to this link, excluding the chairman the BoD needs to be majority NEDs https://tmsnrt.rs/32UN6Lg
So pre-AGM:
CS : Exec
JN : NED
DS : NED
GF : NED
IR : NED
= ????
If DS was to be exec:
CS : Exec + Chair
JN : Exec
DS : Exec
GF : NED
IR : NED
So excl chairman. = 2 v 2 = ????
With DS stepping down, this makes it 1 v 2 = ????
So trying to analyse this a bit further ??:
-Giving James the CEO role + director role was more important than keeping DS as a director (from what I read you can still be CEO without being a director). Also appointing him on the day of the AGM means he doesn't need to be elected for this position till next AGM = streamlined appointment. My hope is this was a courtesy to the winning bidder that he'll be there as CEO when they take over
-Due to his NED status, so far DS has been limited in the amount of work he can do relating to the sale of the company. Something must have changed which has meant he has had to break free from the shackles of his title. Where is this line? No idea, but I'd like to imagine its somewhere along in the realms of getting his name signed in ink on an official Document.... ?? (I'll let you use your imagination)
So whilst people are in a panic worrying that all these changes mean the FSP isn't as far along as they hope - I think its the exact opposite. Again I really believe this is the reaction to an event, not the attempt to trigger it.
Tl;dr - I think the company are in the stage of FSP where **** gets real, conveniently as we're approaching the peak of time to offer from FSP announcement.
We're on day 85, peak is around 120 days so now gives a little over 1 month for the financial advisors to write the prospectus, the buyer to write their strategy reports/presentations to show their shareholders why they're buying it and for our directors and advisors to sign their irrevocable undertakings ??????
(And of course DYOR I'm just a PI expressing my opinion which may very well be very wrong etc etc)
Posted by quercusrobor yesterday evening just before the board was heavily spammed by new posters talking the share down. Good tactic. Just remember, as the share price rises then the shorts must close which involves them buying more shares which raises the price further. They have already opened their shorts so likely don't have much firepower left to short it aany more. Hold strong!
Now that sterling post in full:
Buckle in folks it's time for another Ted talk ?????. Thought I'd share my latest thoughts regarding EUA..
Since the AGM I've been racking my brain trying to understand why DS left his position as NED. Something related to Deloan? Hasn't been a problem so why now, can't be. Something about an easy exit after sale? Surely that'll be just as easy as before..
Then it hit me, he can't hold his new role whilst being NED because this new role is 100% most definitley an >> executive << role.
So why does this matter? Why not just promote him to an Executive like they did James? According to this link, excluding the chairman the BoD needs to be majority NEDs https://tmsnrt.rs/32UN6Lg
So pre-AGM:
CS : Exec
JN : NED
DS : NED
GF : NED
IR : NED
= ????
If DS was to be exec:
CS : Exec + Chair
JN : Exec
DS : Exec
GF : NED
IR : NED
So excl chairman. = 2 v 2 = ????
With DS stepping down, this makes it 1 v 2 = ????
So trying to analyse this a bit further ??:
-Giving James the CEO role + director role was more important than keeping DS as a director (from what I read you can still be CEO without being a director). Also appointing him on the day of the AGM means he doesn't need to be elected for this position till next AGM = streamlined appointment. My hope is this was a courtesy to the winning bidder that he'll be there as CEO when they take over
-Due to his NED status, so far DS has been limited in the amount of work he can do relating to the sale of the company. Something must have changed which has meant he has had to break free from the shackles of his title. Where is this line? No idea, but I'd like to imagine its somewhere along in the realms of getting his name signed in ink on an official Document.... ?? (I'll let you use your imagination)
So whilst people are in a panic worrying that all these changes mean the FSP isn't as far along as they hope - I think its the exact opposite. Again I really believe this is the reaction to an event, not the attempt to trigger it.
Tl;dr - I think the company are in the stage of FSP where **** gets real, conveniently as we're approaching the peak of time to offer from FSP announcement.
We're on day 85, peak is around 120 days so now gives a little over 1 month for the financial advisors to write the prospectus, the buyer to write their strategy reports/presentations to show their shareholders why they're buying it and for our directors and advisors to sign their irrevocable undertakings ??????
(And of course DYOR I'm just a PI expressing my opinion
So JN was asked to stay when the new company takeover? To get them up to speed? Plausible
"Something must have changed which has meant he has had to break free from the shackles of his title. Where is this line? No idea, but I'd like to imagine its somewhere along in the realms of getting his name signed in ink on an official Document.... ?? (I'll let you use your imagination)"
He is now the direct contact guy for the people who work at a similar level on the buying side. Every big company has someone in charge of M&A, but we didn't need someone in that role until the M&A was to be officially done. Hence the move now. . . .
Dmitry 'Moses' Suschov moves to close the M&A deal -
"The Directors have agreed to release Dmitry Suschov from the Board in order to allow him to focus as the Company's Chief M&A Officer on the M&A work streams with Eurasia's professional advisers."
It is a move in order to have someone in the correct titled position to deal with the appropriate people on the other side of the table -
Example of similar role, but for the other side of the fence. Whoever is acquiring will have someone like this appointed -
https://www.therecycler.com/posts/xerox-names-chief-strategy-and-ma-officer/
NN have a guy, different title, similar job to the lady in the last link -
https://www.nornickel.com/news-and-media/press-releases-and-news/nornickel-announces-appointment-of-alexander-grubman-as-senior-vice-president-for-strategy-and-business-development/
Just as each side have their own legal team, each side also have a senior M&A representative. We didn't need one until there is the M&A to do, similar to how we did not need the legal guy, IAIN RAWLINSON, until there was the legal work to do.
It is very close imho
Great post btw quercusrobor!
GLA
JN's move to working with EUA I would think is because he wanted to get MT into production and WK moving forward from where it was.
He is someone who's background is the production side while others are more exploration and finding assets.
We have assets, they need to be moved to production and I think he would want to be in a position to do so either with EUA or whoever buys us out.
With his experience I would see any potential buyer seeing him as an asset moving forwards and would want him onboard.
His move to CEO isn't coincidental to me and might suggest we are in the end game.
Great post, I like your thinking here. I've always felt like the shuffle was a good sign things are getting close (as we've just been discussing here funny enough) but your theory and reasoning are far better than most of us have managed to put forward! Makes a lot of sense so thanks for sharing it!
Buckle in folks it's time for another Ted talk ?????. Thought I'd share my latest thoughts regarding EUA..
Since the AGM I've been racking my brain trying to understand why DS left his position as NED. Something related to Deloan? Hasn't been a problem so why now, can't be. Something about an easy exit after sale? Surely that'll be just as easy as before..
Then it hit me, he can't hold his new role whilst being NED because this new role is 100% most definitley an >> executive << role.
So why does this matter? Why not just promote him to an Executive like they did James? According to this link, excluding the chairman the BoD needs to be majority NEDs https://tmsnrt.rs/32UN6Lg
So pre-AGM:
CS : Exec
JN : NED
DS : NED
GF : NED
IR : NED
= ????
If DS was to be exec:
CS : Exec + Chair
JN : Exec
DS : Exec
GF : NED
IR : NED
So excl chairman. = 2 v 2 = ????
With DS stepping down, this makes it 1 v 2 = ????
So trying to analyse this a bit further ??:
-Giving James the CEO role + director role was more important than keeping DS as a director (from what I read you can still be CEO without being a director). Also appointing him on the day of the AGM means he doesn't need to be elected for this position till next AGM = streamlined appointment. My hope is this was a courtesy to the winning bidder that he'll be there as CEO when they take over
-Due to his NED status, so far DS has been limited in the amount of work he can do relating to the sale of the company. Something must have changed which has meant he has had to break free from the shackles of his title. Where is this line? No idea, but I'd like to imagine its somewhere along in the realms of getting his name signed in ink on an official Document.... ?? (I'll let you use your imagination)
So whilst people are in a panic worrying that all these changes mean the FSP isn't as far along as they hope - I think its the exact opposite. Again I really believe this is the reaction to an event, not the attempt to trigger it.
Tl;dr - I think the company are in the stage of FSP where **** gets real, conveniently as we're approaching the peak of time to offer from FSP announcement.
We're on day 85, peak is around 120 days so now gives a little over 1 month for the financial advisors to write the prospectus, the buyer to write their strategy reports/presentations to show their shareholders why they're buying it and for our directors and advisors to sign their irrevocable undertakings ??????
(And of course DYOR I'm just a PI expressing my opinion which may very well be very wrong etc etc)