REMINDER: Our user survey closes on Friday, please submit your responses 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.
small hold here but added as requested
What a plonker. Excuse me I meant II etc. Thats where I used to be.
Hi G..r. Presumably you've been on the various other platforms...LSE etc? Just checking. Well done by the way and here's hoping for an outcome.
I wish you good luck with your endeavours and admire you for taking this on, sadly I only own 1,170 shares so consider my contributing to your cause not worthwhile doing.
Sadly I bought 400 shares at £5.06 in Sept/2010 and made the mistake of topping up with a further 770 at £3.87 in Oct/2010
AS a LTH I have waited 11 years for something to happen with this donkey of a share, watching those on the BOD noses in the trough being paid out of proportion salaries to decimate the shareholder value in the company .
Now these shares are just parked in my portfolio to sell at a substantial loss to offset future CGT on a gold mining share I have great faith in for big gains in the future.
That is the only positive I can see going forward.
Buzzard, you say: "You are just doing more harm than good at this late stage".
Please tell us what more harm can be done than hasn't already been done by this greedy, incompetent BoD.
Easy for you to make such statements, but I'm asking you to explain.
It is difficult, but we must ignore the past, and past share drop, and ask the difficult question of what is best for the share price from now and in the short, medium and long term.
If we forced renumeration to £100k, and the BoD lft/replaced by newbies, would that benefit the share price.
I am not saying I approve of past actions/renumeration. I do think that whilst inactive over many years, renumeration should have been lowered, by the renumeration committee (but this is AIM). My Qn is is it best to stick with things as they are for the time being, painful as it is, or jump into the unknown. The past is the past.
Cubane
@Glenrothes, you have plans including to find time to make yourselves known FI, Harbour, Navitas, potential funders, familiarise with options, including capital raises and implement in short order? Along no doubt with quite a long list of things to pursue any other options there might be. Not heard that
'fraid I'm in the "not the right time" to undermine board's position in front of counterparties just for now camp.
Jaceorge, learn to read please. I said more harm than good at this stage.
Where were all you saviours 2 years ago!?
Cubane … I do understand your concerns but the BoD’s track record is clear. The lack of clarity is glaringly obvious and has been used to line the pickers at shareholders expense. Sam could well face made efforts to address this but that would mean putting shareholder concerns on the same level as his concerns over his remuneration. IMHO he has not delivered. Staying silent is NOT an option.
I really hope there is a lot going on behind the scenes over the next few months, and agree with Buzz that now is not the time (not in shareholders interest). Two years ago, or later in Autumn if the BoD are still asleep by all means.
However, I am all for shareholders actually being noticed, especially against the large shorters and dozy selfish BoD's.
Cubane
Glenrothes, too late bud. You are just doing more harm than good at this late stage.
I'm sorry to say that taking shareholder action against directors pay at this stage of proceedings is futile.
Jaceorge - calling me a “wind up merchant”. No.
I simply ask questions to try to understand true motivations. It seems to me control is being sought here without paying a control premium. History tells us that usually plays out very badly for ordinary shareholders - Bowleven/CrownOcean, Petroceltic/Worldview, etc.
Personally jaceorge when somebody makes a comment I think is strange I prefer to interrogate them for their reasoning.......most of the wind up merchants then just go quiet, but some will dig themselves an even bigger hole.
Daddypig, I take it you believe the company has been well managed and company funds justifiably spent?
“Stewards Enquiry”? The company is listed, has been for over a decade, gives a breakdown of cash spend every year and is audited by Big 4 firm. All the info is in the Annual Reports. Just read them. How much do you think a forensic accountant will cost - won’t be cheap for sure. Thought you wanted the company to save money???
I've spoken today to Glenrothes and they are genuine in their endeavours. Fill the form in, etc. to get that magic 40 million shares.
If RKH did fail in their due diligence I wonder if a claim against the directors for negligence could be considered. I believe this is the sort of scenario covered by Directors and Officers Insurance.
If you haven't done so, please reply to Glenrothes email below, as he's doing a terrific job from which we could all benefit greatly.
Yes I know, he's not a philanthropist, but he could do with our support and he isn't really asking us to do very much.
Filled in your form. Sorry missed earlier threads not been on here for yonks. What is the main plan here ?
Thanks
Ditto
Hi Glenrothes,
Really appreciate the effort you are putting in to this, I have sent my details and confirmation of shareholding via the link.
Thanks
LTT
Hattip Cookietpb, looks like a wY forward.It would be an EGM and vote would require 75% in favour, is my guess.
As you know I don’t pay much attention to this board much these days, but am supportive of your moves to remove Sam or at least restrict remuneration packages. I think you might be interested to look at 2 RNS on block energy (bloe) today. Forest nominees representing legal ownership of 5% of the company have forced a second general meeting and are also demanding a forensic review of the accounts (I think, might need to re read). It strikes me that as there is no longer sufficient interest from the retail investors reading the bulletin boards to force a position that the potential way to further your ambition is to makes approaches to institutions with your proposals to gauge if there might be any appetite from them. Hope this helps