Member Info for addicknt

'position it (Casacbel) as a turn-key asset'.

Couldn't be clearer - the aim is to present it as oven ready to a buyer.

20 ndas in place. 5 site visits and follow-up visits planned.

Update.

Kat, thanks for the link.

Incidentally, they didn't 'spunk away' 900m. The fund had already seen significant withdrawals and stood at 575m, according to the article. However, it's obviously the case they performed very badly. They were likely to have been operating the two and twenty fee structure, so were initially drawing 18m in fees annually. Not bad for a man-and-his-dog operation.

Did they do us a favour? I think so. They agitated for much needed change, which many of us were hoping for. Still, I don't think the world will be mourning the loss of yet another hedge fund.

1984, have a look at the definition of an off-book transaction.

There are many sources, but this one from IG is useful: 'An off-book transaction refers to the process of trading shares away from an exchange or regulated body. Off-book transactions are made directly between two parties, outside or 'off' the order book.

Once a price has been agreed between the two parties, it is typical for one of the participants to report the trade and its parameters - and wider market - in order to bring the execution 'on market'.

1984, indeed, but an off-book deal is different and is between two parties and is not done via a mm. The recent deals are interesting but are small in the context of our shares in issue.

Fort, for the nth time, the large trades have all been off-book. In other words there is a buyer. Apart from the x2m trades today the rest have been away from London, which may suggest they weren't Berry.

DBW, yes, someone is selling, but someone is buying the shares from them in off-book transactions.

RK, there wouldn't have been a market maker involved.

Although the trades were off-book, this time they were transacted in London.

Fort, interesting that the IEA is predicting that peak oil will occur before 2030.

All of the recent large trades have been off book and away from the London Stock Exchange. In other words one party has been buying from another in private transactions. The obvious question is, who are the two parties?

Sjn, that's a good point, but the implied sp was 4p so I don't imagine they've broken any covenants yet.

Orthern, indeed. DGR have been in a mess for some time and this smacks of desperation and may in part explain why NM changed his mind about our direction. However, since they haven't defaulted on their loan, I don't think Equities first would be entitled to sell the shares.

Sjn, thanks. I missed it.

Sjn, I just had a look at the latest report and accounts and can't find any reference to a loan against our shares. It's not even mentioned as a post balance sheet event. Do you know which page it was on? There hasn't been an announcement on ASX either, which I'm guessing would be necessary. Of course, I may have missed the relevant section in the report.

They do have a loan against Atlantic shares and have ceded control of the relevant number of shares.

And to me it doesn't. No matter how small the amount he invested, do you honestly believe that either he or the others would be prepared to chuck away cash? Sorry, but I'm not buying it.

Orthern, could it be that Stackhouse may not actually have much spare cash? He's still a youngish man and, like many people of that age, has not had a chance to accumulate capital. Personally, I think your conclusion is very wide of the mark.

Because the only person I have filtered is nal, I know when he posts. What I've discovered is that you don't need to be able to read his posts to know exactly what he's going to say.

First, it will contain an insult to one or more other posters. It will be factually incorrect; it will demonstrate that he hasn't actually read or understood what the other poster has said; he will wilfully misrepresent someone's views and, if challenged to back-up his accusations with evidence, he ignores it.

Additionally, it will be illiterate and will contain many spelling and grammatical errors. If figures are involved, you can forget about it - he can barely count the number of digits on one hand. Has there ever been such a worthless contributor to these boards?

It's difficult to see how anyone selling at the moment is doing so at a profit. There are many circumstances when you should take your losses, but I'm struggling to see what's driving people to do so here.