Member Info for addicknt

Fort, if such an agreement existed surely it would have to be disclosed?

I certainly agree with your final sentence.

Fort, as is the way with all Report and Accounts these days. Endless drivel relating to ESG carp and way too many pretty pictures. Bring back Arnold Weinstock in his GEC heyday.

As far as the working capital situation is concerned, there would have been much discussion with the auditors about the shares issue and I have no doubt they would have sought a great deal of comfort about the price at which they might be issued. Our boys will have been required to prove that the assumptions are fair and reasonable, which wouldn't have been easy - who knows what price they'll be when we need the cash? Either that, or they disclosed to the auditors information which suggests we'll never need to sell them in the open market - and they'd be required to back that up.

From what I've read so far. the two most salient facts are that we've got sufficient cash for the next 12 months and the accounts have been given the Going Concern opinion.

However, I don't believe for one moment the board has any intention of letting this get anywhere near the cash deadline and we can expect a major development of some description well before June next year.

It's not a mind blowing conclusion, but at least we can take comfort from the fact we won't be grubbing around for more working capital.

Have been announced. MD&A is also available. Some light reading for this morning.

BBG, thought not

BBG, are you going to admit your error?

Whatever the company, as soon as the share price comes under pressure people on these boards start talking about manipulation. You could set you watch by it. No evidence is ever provided and yet somehow it enters the narrative until such time as the price recovers - at which point it's conveniently forgotten.

Incidentally, if we're asked to approve a new options programme, it won't get my vote. And I don't care who the beneficiaries are.

DM, fair point, I'd forgotten about the options. He's got even more reasons to deliver value.

Eloro, share price stability/appreciation comes from corporate stability. And I disagree that he doesn't care about the sp - he has 19million reasons why he does.

BBG, I thought so! You completely misunderstood my post. I suggest you read things more carefully in future.

Just to help you, I was not advocating Caldwell should go, in fact I was arguing the exact opposite.

BBG, what on earth are you talking about?! How in gods name does my post represent "deramping"? It's a statement of fact and I should have thought you'd agree with my conclusion.

I just had a quick look at the web site and note that James Clare is still listed as being an NED. For some reason I thought he'd gone? I'm obviously mistaken.

This led me to look through the various announcements relating to director appointments/resignations/sackings. When you lump them all together it reveals just how dysfunctional the company has been. Actually, it's astonishing and it's no wonder we are where we are.

Against this backdrop it would seem bonkers to even think about another change. Our market credibility must be in the gutter and the Ecuadorian government must wonder what on earth has been going on. Or perhaps given their own situation they regard this as normal.

I suspect that when Caldwell was appointed he found an even bigger mess than he thought and he's had to do a great deal of firefighting as well trying to piece together the strategy which will deliver his promises to shareholders. We may not like the apparent slow progress, but I believe he must be given time. Another change would see our sp collapse even further and to ditch him would be an act of self-harm.

Obviously, many of you disagree, but this is just my opinion.

No.

Bozi, you speculated that I may prefer Citi to be in the driving seat - I really wouldn't.

This is how these things often go.

If approached by a potential client the investment bank will put its team together to create a pitch document which it will present to the client. The presentation will be led by the senior man who will do most of the talking. The problem which may then arise with the large investment banks is that once they've won the pitch, the top man recedes into the background and the number two will run the transaction. The boss only emerges towards the end of the process, or if the solids hit the fan, to ensure everything is as it should be and to collect the accolades. This doesn't happen with a small boutique, where the boss will be very hands on throughout. This explains how boutiques came to thrive, as the clients came to realise they weren't getting what they thought they were paying for i.e 24 hour a day access to the boss.

It used to be the case that blue chips would always take the 'IBM option' and select one of the main merchant/investment banks - that has all changed.

I apologise if I'm teaching granny to suck eggs, as I suspect I may be.

I'm pleased we've got both firms on our side and don't care which of them brings someone to the table, but my money is on Sangha winning.

SM agreed. We need stability, not another change of leadership, which would make us look even more vulnerable.

Bozi, absolutely, particularly if you work for Goldman's. However, very few of my contemporaries stayed with the big players, with only one or two notable exceptions.

I understand your point about Citi, but Sangha is used to dealing with large transactions and in any event we've been led to believe that both parties are still very much engaged.

Bozi, it's often the case that the best corporate advisors don't work for the major investment banks. They start their careers there, build up a client base, establish their reputations and then move on to set up their own boutiques where the rewards are far greater...provided they get it right. Sangha has done just that.

The other factor to bear in mind is that if it's your own shop and you don't have the luxury of a large salary coming in every month, you'll work far harder and will be more motivated to get the best outcome for the client.

There are plenty of questions which need answering, this isn't one of them.

I fear you may not understand how boutique corporate finance firms work. He will have been involved in one way or another in virtually all of those deals.

Your intentions may be honest, but you are wrong. But if you harbour serious doubts why don't you ask him? I get the impression you're trying to dredge up any negative you can find, and for me, this is you scraping the bottom of the barrel.