Stephan Bernstein, CEO of GreenRoc, details the PFS results for the new graphite processing plant. 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.
"The problem with your theory Eddie, is that Mr King isn't on the board, and therefore could reasonably argue had no chance to implement his plan." That argument wouldn't stand up to a small breath of wind. Paul Murray is interim Chairman. Interim to what happening? Yes, you got it, argument settled. It would take 5mins to prove Big Dave has a controlling interest. What is more, it really isn't about Mr King's status at the moment. It is all about what he said prior to the EGM that influenced how shareholders voted. If it can be shown that shareholders were misled, damages would be considerable. The only question would be whether Dave King suffered alone, or the other Board members suffered too. If you can find another reason for abstaining I would be delighted to hear it. Or maybe you actually believe Option 2 or 3 are likely?
"but never got 25K a week in Edinburgh..... " The comment was you cannot buy a player for £4M and pay them £25K per week in the SPL. Celtic did just that, from Hibs as you say, in the SPL. So, clearly you can. What has his pay at Hibs got to do with anything? The statement was about what you pay for players then pay them, nothing to do with what they earned before. Please keep up.
The problem with your theory Eddie, is that Mr King isn't on the board, and therefore could reasonably argue had no chance to implement his plan. Plus the actors threatening legal action look up to their necks in trying to crash the company. Apart form that, its a cracker.
Stuzee its becoming difficult to dent your credibility any further but its you who stated that the purchasing club pay £25k+ a week. No mention of the selling club paying it. Are you still trying to perpetuate the myth that WH Ireland's departure was entirely to do with the ousted Board and nothing to do with the Requistioner's leader saying he would sack them and them saying they would resign if the requisitioners were successful.
but never got 25K a week in Edinburgh..... The facts are Eddie pretends to be a Hibs fan but actually supports Celtic. He should just come clean, instead continuing the charade....
"He is now receiving parliamentary interest, never a good sign." Mr Ashley was "invited" to parliament, and politely told them where to shove it. Parliament were informed Mike was not available for the entirety of March because of "immovable commitments". Immovable is a good word, keep that in mind when you consider what he might do next.
"It looks like it backfired on them and played into King's hands." I looks like King played into the hands of those he appeared to have defeated. You seem convinced what happened at Rangers has been orchestrated. You see a plan behind the events. Do you think abstaining from the EGM vote was calculated? There are 3 possible reasons for abstaining: 1) Had a good reason for abstaining 2) Couldn't decide between Yes and No 3) Couldn't be bothered to vote Given what is at stake, we should discount Option 3. Is Option 2 likely? I would suggest not. So, we are left with Option 1 as the only reasonable choice. Which begs the question, what was the good reason?
Scott Brown signed for Celtic from Hibs?
Just for fun, here's a scenario .... Dave King rides into town with promised galore about new investment, new NOMAD in waiting, Champions League Football, etc. The fans love it, many investors think this is a winner too. Not even the block votes want to vote against and abstain instead. A happy ending? Not quite. Here is the fun part. What if the block votes and larger shareholders knew Dave King didn't have a NOMAD and that delisting was inevitable. How could you benefit from this situation? Simple, you let the vote go through, let the NOMAD myth play out, then pounce with legal action. Lambias was famously collared by press at the airport and asked the question of reporters, where's the money and who is the NOMAD. He knew King didn't have a NOMAD. So what did the Easdale block and Mr Ashley do? Give King enough rope to hang himself. That is the likely scenario. All those who voted for, or abstained, at the EGM could reasonable argue that they didn't vote against based on statements made by Dave King. If his can be argued successfully in Court, this would be catastrophic for the new Board. Court action, if nothing else, would force the current Board to reveal exactly what was happening behind the scenes. What would the damages be? Considerable. Every "yes" voter and every abstainer could make a claim. The fans groups and fans might not. Mr King wouldn't take himself to court so discount his block. Were the 3 bears properly advised? It may be they have something to say (though Mr Park is in a tricky position as a Board Member). Don't be surprised if one or two of the 3 Bears start to distance themselves from Mr King. Some people on here were naive enough to think delisting was no big deal. Delisting is a nightmare scenario.
This bb will soon be defunct, one wonders how will the Gers haters find an outlet to vent their spleen,one feels A&E will be inundated in the near future
You cheer lead a lot for Celtic, given your a Hibs fan Eddie...... strange ???
Eddie, I know you are just trying to twist my point. I didn't mean all the actors had undertaken all the actions, just that all those involved appear tainted with some form of poor practice and/or actions that may represent a conflict for them or connected persons. If you don't think the departure of the NOMAD was orchestrated then feel free to bury your head in the sand. It looks like it backfired on them and played into King's hands. 'Anyone with even a passing acquaintance with Sandy & James would know that they are not the kind of guys that you take advantage of' The above seems to be insinuating some other form of retribution from the Easdales, no mention of other shareholders, amazing you can read SoF's mind. I am impressed ????? :-) CB - It will be interesting if Mr Ashley pursues a case, the more I see of his business practices, the more I see why he is so media shy. He is now receiving parliamentary interest, never a good sign.
"Sandy's case will come to court at the same time as Whytes claim over Sevco. 30th February two thousand and never." What about Mike Ashley?
"it does not take a rocket scientist to work out you cannot buy 4million plus players and pay them in excess of 25k per week to play in the league of Ireland, sorry I mean the SP Hell" That's exactly what Celtic did with Scott Brown. You can do it, as long as you have the income to support it. Celtic do, no-one else in Scottish Football can. You were almost right.
Dear Mensch, this is the staple diet of the masses! I opened up a chip shop near Ibrox and sold both products made a fortune, as I did when this stock reached 18p (bought in then) sold at 32p... A nice tidy 7k profit on my 50k shares... I got tipped off at 18p that the club was being run into the ground by the old board and change was imminent and I dived in great timing.. Anyway I know when the administrators were appointed and their crafty dealings landed this in the lap of Charlie and his cohorts it was another dagger through the heart for the intelligent fans.. who new his dealings with Sheff Utd. Spackman even warned McCoist.. ps I do agree with some of your comments about previous regimes and management they are all culpable.. it does not take a rocket scientist to work out you cannot buy 4million plus players and pay them in excess of 25k per week to play in the league of Ireland, sorry I mean the SP Hell
Sandy's case will come to court at the same time as Whytes claim over Sevco. 30th February two thousand and never .
Stu, a few corrections for you: "They managed the company so badly they, allowed the share price to slide from 93p to 17p and got voted out of power." When Lambias and Leach joined the board they share price was in the mid-20's and when they left it was mid-30's. If you have some other "facts" then please present them. "They burned £70m and most likely questions would be asked." No, they didn't. The board has changed several times over the 3 yrs. The only constant has been Easdale who hasn't taken a penny to my knowledge. Are you suggesting he did? "It was they who let the NOMAD go without handing over to a new NOMAD." You still don't get that the NOMAD has the power to resign with immediate effect. The do not need the permission of the company. In fact, requiring permission would negate the usefulness of such a sanction. Are you still holding to your myth that a NOMAD cannot resign with immediate effect? Is that why you continue to peddle the lie above? If you want to talk about the £70M then you have to look at all the previous boards which included for a time Walter Smith and Malcolm Murray - supposed Real Rangers Men.
"CB - Welcome the chase. Nice pun. If we accept that The Easdales have just lost over £2M due to delisting, solicitors acting on theit behalf will seek recompense. Anyone with even a passing acquaintance with Sandy & James would know that they are not the kind of guys that you take advantage of. A legal case may be the least of King's worries." Before we descent into playground stuff, Stu, I think what Sitonfence means is any legal action by the Easdales is the least of King's worries. Why? Because there are many more shareholders who may also be encouraged to take action. Do you honestly believe Mike Ashley will do nothing now his shares are toilet paper? He is a man with very deep pockets, the best lawyers, and doesn't like to lose. Think about it. The door is open and all the current Directors are liable.
Thank goodness you told him SoF he would never have got it.... Haha so what are you saying?. Now the Easdales are threatening physical violence?, deary me.....
CB - Welcome the chase. Nice pun. If we accept that The Easdales have just lost over £2M due to delisting, solicitors acting on theit behalf will seek recompense. Anyone with even a passing acquaintance with Sandy & James would know that they are not the kind of guys that you take advantage of. A legal case may be the least of King's worries.
I think he once bought a ticket for Ibrox once, he was in the Celtic end....
the pun wasted on you FF - any Rangers fan would have got it. You aren't one.
To be fair to King, he did state that he would know in a day or two on the 4th March. For once he was not lying. He was informed on the 6th that no NOMAD would touch him with a barge pole.
I refer you to the RSL statement. Apparently Toxic Dave was informed on 6th March that his chosen NOMAD would not accomodate him as a director, hence his decision to petition the Court of Session. Was it any surprise that The Glib & Shameless Liar returned to South Africa as this news was sure to leak. In the unlikely event that the Court of Session allows King to be a director in RIFC and TRFC, the ensuing writ from The Easdales should ensure that he is barred from being a director in any UK company for a minimum of ten years. Maybe we should expect a statement from Paul Murray with a postponement of his board's renaissance from 2022 to 2025.
@cambridgeblue - "I'm sure the board will welcome the case." Why ? board will have to fund legal action and wont be "no-win no-fee" basis. Case - Easdale threatens, Prior threatens... wait for Ashley ... who can finance the legal fees and tie board in knots.. As ever you post without even thinking this throu.... troll!