Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the 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.
Oofy, the declension is your clue here.
Much as I hate to quote Wikipedia, here you go:-
Gerundive expressions widely quoted or adopted in English:
Cato the Elder, a Roman senator, frequently ended his speeches with the statement Ceterum censeo Carthaginem delendam esse ("I also think Carthage to be [something] that must be destroyed", i.e. "Besides which, I think Carthage must be destroyed").
nunc est bibendum (Horace, Odes, 1.37) "now it is necessary to drink!", in other words, it's time to celebrate.
Mutatis mutandis, "changing [only] those things which need to be changed" or more simply "[only] the necessary changes having been made".
A gerundive appears in the phrase quod erat demonstrandum ("which was to be demonstrated"), whose abbreviated form Q.E.D. is often used after the final conclusion of a proof.
The motto Nil desperandum 'Nothing is to be despaired at' i.e. 'Never despair'. Based on this the cod Latin Nil illegitimis carborundum 'Don't let the bastards grind you down'.
The name Amanda is the feminine gerundive of amare ("to love"), and thus means roughly "[she who is] to be loved", "worthy of being loved", "worthy of love", or simply "lovable". Similarly with the name Miranda; mirari means "to admire", so the name means "[she who is] to be admired", "worthy of admiration", or "admirable".
A number of English words come from Latin gerundives. For example, addendum comes from the gerundive of addere ("to add"), and so means something that must be added; referendum comes from the gerundive of referre ("to bring back" [to the people]); agenda comes from the neuter plural of agendus, the gerundive of agere "to do", and so means things that must be done; reverend comes from the gerundive reverendus, and refers to a person who should be revered; propaganda comes from a New Latin phrase containing a feminine form of propagandus, the gerundive of propagare ("to propagate"), so that propaganda was originally something that should be propagated; legend in Latin is legenda, which originally meant things you should read, (from legere "to read") but became a (fem. sing.) word in its own right in medieval times; a dividend is something to be divided [among shareholders].
The expression de gustibus non est disputandum ("matters of taste should not be debated").
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerundive
HITS: nil carborundum is more apt when it comes to Ocelot, I think.
gerund..
Oofy as far as Ocelot and entire absence of ethics is concerned (and since we've reprised gerundives, not gerunds)...
Nil desperandum.
HITS: I agree. The most recent two posts by her on the Angus site are unusual. She must know they’re entirely incorrect. They seem to be influencing the opinions of at least two investors there, both with substantial shareholdings. Her posts seem clearly aimed at preventing selling by such people. She’s taking a personal risk with this, if she’s an employee of Angus or its advisers and it seems to me a bit late in the day to be doing so. Is it desperation?
QED!
Quite correct, Oofy. Ocelot is self-evidently not your run-of-the-mill PI. Today's attempted rope-a-dope is as breathtaking in its brazenness as it is laughable in its lack of supportability.
PS it was still a gerundive.
I see that the poster Ocelot is persisting in pushing the £8mm. “valuation” on the Angus Energy bb. This seems to me disgraceful. I hope no one will be misled by it, it’s simply wrong, both technically and ethically.
My punt was for a reverse takeover and to remain on AIM. That did not happen so regretfully I have written off 100% of my investment here.
gkb47 is correct. The link between the two Forums is Paul Forrest, who was the Filipino company’s company secretary until May 2019. He appears to have had links with Gazprom/Wingas as well.
Once again, this £8mm is not money and the shares can’t be sold to raise money. There’s no market for them, no market price and no means of trading them. They’re aiming to get shares to the value of £8mm., but it’s not the market value, it’s the nominal value that is the basis for the valuation. The shares have a nominal value of 0.1p. £8mm divided by .001p = 8bn. shares. There are 499mm. shares currently in issue, so this would be quite a big dilution. The current issued 499mm. shares have no market value. There is no question of a sum of £8mm. in cash (or any other form of finance) being paid. It’s 8bn. shares with a nominal aggregate value of £8mm. but no market value. An accounting entry. For people on this and the Angus site to extrapolate from this figure a value for Poundland (Saltfleetby, to those who haven't followed this) is not appropriate and some of them should know better. It’s highly misleading.
Forum/SEL’s prospective ownership under this option of 95% of AAOG would give them total control of it. AAOG seems to have large tax losses. How and in what circumstances these might be used to defray the new owners’ tax bills is a mystery to me. I don’t know of any company owned by Paul Forrest that has income the tax on which could be offset with losses acquired with AAOG.
gkb47
I thought both Forum companies were subsidiaries of the same group!
Will have to dig further into this tomorrow.
Sorry, AAOG seem to be paying a notional £9.5 million for 25% of Saltfleetby, which is worth £4million at most, using the market cap of Angus to provide a valuation for their 51%. So paying almost double what it should cost them.
Just correcting my previous statement! Excuse late night fatigue!
Just a late night look at some of these numbers, around the option to gain 25% interest in Saltfleetbygas field, seeing as some faulty calculations seem to be circulating.
AAOG - suspended at 0.3 p and 499 million shares equals a mcap of approx £1.5 m. Controlled by Forum, part of a large Filipino mining/oil and gas conglomerate if memory serves me correctly.
Angus Energy owns 51% of Saltfleetby and has a market cap of £8 million
SEL (Forum) 49%.
So if Angus' 51% is fully captured in their mcap the max value of 100% Saltfleetby is approx £16 million.
If AAOG (also Forum, just like SEL) take 25% of Saltfleetby field for £1.5m+ £8 m (shares) +1m raise =£10.5 million, then AAOG (Forum) have agreed to overpay themselves at SEL (also forum) by £6.5 million.
Isnt this a crooked deal that should be reported to the FCA?
Just asking for a friend.