Member Info for bluerill

From the other board, and I have to say, it 'echos' my thoughts:

Genuinely see this as a positive step. For me the restructuring into the 3 core businesses is tantamount to getting the share price up as the value will be so much more transparent, so this re-branding is far more than just symbolic; I reckon Moti is signalling something much more important to the market. For now, I agree the market won't see it that way as Moti has been so slow to deliver the promised divestments/acquisitions to date, but for a company which is not known for engaging in promotional stunts, I think this RNS makes it even more likely that, come the summer/Q4, we will see a slimmer, cashed-up company that Zvi will hardly recognise.

Maybe because they're focused on Senegal instead:

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/ECOB/operational-update-on-senegalese-subsidiary/17020321

If your bloody dog already knew that, then why in the h*ll didn’t you listen the pooch when he told you that posting that was utterly pointless misinformation?? I pontificate?!? How about you focus on being relevant before you try yet another limp comeback. Hint: googling and sharing a useless link in aid of making a completely empty argument, is not relevance. It’s known as bs

'....Plantir seem worth holding if we can complete the share swop even better if we could have completed earlier this year...'

Again, huh?? This isn't a 'share swap', Google, for more than a few minutes anyway. If this gets resolved as per the original deal, they get SLE shares and San Leon gets Palantir shares for about as long as it takes for the shares to settle in its account so THEY CAN BE SOLD FOR CASH because the company needs to progress its oil conveyance project and pay off outstanding creditors. I've already speculated in a previous post that the most likely reason the deal was set up this way was because TRAM has some sort of tax incentive to transfer shares instead of cash for its SLE investment. San Leon is not an asset management company and fanning is not a fund manager

Honestly bs, do better

It's exactly that kind of sudden, drive-by, oh-so-casually delivered misinformation posts, complete with dopey smiley face emoji, that prevents me from ever treating you as anything other than a witless gadfly. par example:

'...What are we going to achieve with only US50 Mio...?' Seriously? I can think of a hell of a lot of things and they're all to do with producing and selling oil.

'... it's probably only going to clear existing debt on Eli...' Um, no it won't

'...German bond was to cover US500 Mio and OF...' Huh?!? The need was never the entire 500m, nor would you be able to borrow the entire face value anyway. That's just financial illiteracy.

'...and OF was expecting originally US250 Mio from Tram...' That's the wrong quantum and irrelevant anyway. Maybe SLE will sue TRAM for the original deal (which was c173m if memory serves, not 250m), but right now, its the 2nd one, for 50m that's being litigated.

'... go figure🤔...' As a result of every single claim you make before it, this typical smarmy, self-satisfied sign-off is entirely invalidated of course.

Finally, what is overall, painfully obvious from your pile of pish post, is that you don't seem to understand that the 500m bond deal is still very much alive (which will NOT, btw, mean 500m to sle, but more like 200-250m) as per releases from the company to-date and the recent press, and the 50m deal and now lawsuit is a shorter-term, partial capital aide. Ffs man, how can you be so casually ignorant after all this time and high-level googling. Do better.

Stick to googling. everything you wrote in both sentences is not just wrong but painfully so

'.....Bluerill and sam245 were right after all. Things looking upwards for SLE heading into court...!' No, number10, I presented well-considered theories on what SLE was facing based on the evidence as we yet know it, a long-term knowledge of the company and the industry in Nigeria, a bit of legal logic and a sprinkle of experience with how misinformation trolls operate on these boards, while you, on the other hand, did and/or demonstrated none of that. I wasn't 'right' as much as you were dead, f-ing wrong.

We both had a moderate take on the company's prospects and market position in a tough environment prompted by today's announcement, without any attempt to exaggerate its importance. You on the other hand, do precisely what you shamelessly accuse us of, except in the opposite direction, gleefully highlighting bankruptcies elsewhere in the sector in a transparent attempt at a dry run for your dream of celebrating Eco meeting the same fate. Ghoul.

Focus on developing markets with profound lower-cost housing needs (pretty much all of them) and minimise exposure to the supply chain by producing near-site with largely locally-sourced materials. By luck or design, Eco's business model is not just lean and efficient thereby allowing the company to leverage limited human and financial capital (far too slowly thus far and thus the distressed share price), but as per today's announcement, it also AVOIDS the landmines of operators like Ilkey, ESS and even TopHat with the support of Goldman Sachs, who barrelled into highly-regulated, litigious/NIMBY-influenced developed markets like the UK with ambitious production capacity built on leverage, believing the demand for the product and government support were limitless, only to find the latter assumptions exaggerated, which then made the resulting decisions crippling.

[editor's note: anyone else wonder how much our resident ghoul would have loved for the latest bankruptcy story he so joyously shared about ESS, to have been about ECOB? His malignant desires practically leak out of his every message he posts, where he just rejoices in reporting that another company in the industry 'bites the dust.' Classy].

Thus far, though production delays and tight capital have slowed ECOB materially, at least we can acknowledge that the ECOB business model - combined with its high-standard building material produced at industry-low production costs - is objectively superior to its far larger, better funded competitors. As a result, we continue to get announcements like today's which, though they may not be immediately impactful and only constitute a potential contract in the future, at least they're not anywhere near the ESS Modular variety either. And we know that that helps Nobby eat his heart out just a tiny bit more in disappointment. So there's that....

https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/ECOB/new-senegal-subsidiary-with-local-partner/17002648

Excellent googling as always, bs. This is indeed, by all accounts, an unreconstructed positive for sle and most of the Nigerian O&G industry in general. Kyari was apparently deeply corrupt even by Nigerian standards, and worse still, from what I'm hearing, believed he was untouchable given Tinubu's razor thin parliamentary margins. Apparently not and that is a good thing, not just for the industry, but for the political future of the country generally. But, thinking selfishly, does this then make it a bit more likely - at least on the margin - that OF, with or without a resolution with TRAM, is able to close on a major funding deal? I think that's a reasonable take, yes.

Not that you had anything of relevance to say until now, but my lord, you are one empty barrel. Anyway, no thanks necessary. Qualified investors only.

Good thing you're interested in fairness, Tried-to-get-to-37k-but-failed-bc-only-posters-40k-and-above-can-go-on-this-ride. Otherwise, you might end up writing something stupid again. Of course, if you had truly a clue what you were talking about, you would know I hadn't really posted on sle for yonks until sometime well into the suspension, when I started again to help shareholders be a bit more hopeful that all was not lost as I saw it. In fact, I posted most on this name way back when during the massive capital return, which eventually came in the form a significant tender, and which turned out to be very lucrative, allowing long-term shareholders like me to reduce our holdings organically, which I did. After that, I was far less involved so I posted far less.

Meantime, I never fight back against anyone's right to criticise management. Even when drive-by googlers like bs want to have a go at OF's management of the company, the poor comms, the miserable fall in the share price at the time of suspension, etc., be my guest I say, even if I may offer a word or 2 in disagreement sometimes. I rarely, if ever, take issue with that legitimate airing of grievances. It's just when bozos like you think the share price decline gives them carte blanche to spout wild, ignorant, often defamatory screeds (eg,., remember your classic? Screaming that "sle's current share price is nil bc it says so 'to the left' of the messages on this board!!!!!'" Still one of my favourites) that I get involved, set people like you straight, only for you to end up all hurty and resentful.

Finally, even if I were a 'plant', (and I'm not though it would be very nice indeed to be paid for once in a while to provide information to ungrateful morons like you on these miserable boards), how is that remotely relevant to, for instance, whether what I have gone to great lengths to explain about how a bond transaction like this one might work, why, potentially, OF is able to pursue such a deal in the first place, or most immediately important of all, how parties like TRAM often end up using message boards such as this one to manipulate public opinion in their favour, and thus why an already suspicious contributor like no9 is highly suspect? Answer: it isn't. Relevance, Never-37,000, relevance, is the. coin of the realm in these 'discussions', and NOT the ability to lose your nut every time you post, call everyone running the company a crook, just so you can demonstrate how really, really angry you are. That's called a therapy group and it meets next door.

For the uninitiated to these kind of situations (and if you are, you are blessed), probably the most damning of the circumstantial evidence favouring the theory that no9 is a plant of some kind (and I am still prepared to be proven wrong), is how he immediately fastened on to the Irish Times stories, and in particular, quotes from TRAM reps as 'evidence' - treating angry comments from players highly incentivised to exaggerate or even lie yet face no consequences for doing so - as if they ushered forth from Warren Buffett himself. Especially if they are too cheap or unsophisticated to use more advanced means like fake websites, outfits like TRAM - let's just say ones that no one is at risk of confusing with elite fund managers - will inevitably be advised by shady consultants to use the popular press first by exploiting journalists' insatiable appetite for scandal and the pressures of deadlines, to start by feeding the article writer(s) with controversial quotes they know are unlikely - or simply can't - be fact-checked, but nevertheless help sell newspapers, which obviously applies thus far to the way the Irish Times's has covered this story. However, these 'consultants' then go on to advise the TRAMs of the world that it is important for them to try and elevate the status of those uncorroborated quotes in the news stories, to be somehow on par with, or even more important, to evidence-supported information like legal documents derived from testimony under oath. That's why on-line hired-guns will start off by 'screaming' about the most outrageous claims in the story, from either of the parties, almost immediately when the stories drop, as if the journalist was quoting from a legal document or judge's opinion.

Is this behaviour - along with others discussed already - necessarily 'proof' that our no9 is a plant? Couldn't say for sure. Maybe I'll first wait to see if someone is quoted making that accusation in the Irish Sunday Times.

'.....The below is part of the article on the Irish times. Clearly San Leon has misrepresented facts and or have done the exact same thing in 2023 which have led to things where they stand today. Maybe the bond is a faux or maybe San Leon need this in a claim as they look for an examinership in Ireland.....'

See, here's your problem, no9, notwithstanding your (far too late) attempt to try and establish your 'good actor' bone fides by kissing up to redeye, the above quote is literally the first thing you ever wrote on this board when you rocked up - completely coincidentally I'm sure - just when TRAM were about to lose Round1 in the Irish court. Funny, but I don't see a lot of equivocation or nuance to the phrase '... Clearly San Leon has misrepresented facts and or have done the exact same thing in 2023 which have led to things where they stand today...'. Seems to me you're absolutely asserting SLE lied and you were basing that assertion on what source exactly? Court documents? Affadavits? Nope. Your only source was quotes from a news article which, even beginner AIM investors know, is so often the most biased, most manipulated and therefore least reliable resource which prudent investors are always suspicious of. You, on the other hand, based your conclusions on the TRAM evidence-free accusations as if they were gospel, and you did so, you just explained in your post to Redeye, '...only done that because I was accused of being sponsored from TRAM by Bluerill in the first place...'. Little problem there, mate: your initial post was BEFORE I made my claim that you are likely a TRAM stooge. Oooops.

But wait....it gets worse. You go on in that same first post to not just speculate baselessly that the evidence-free TRAM quotes that SLE were simply using the lawsuit in some kind of examinership effort (!), but you also included the rather suspiciously out-of-place claim that perhaps the 'bond was faux', which readers doubtless took to mean 'fake'. I thought at the time that was a weird, unrelated, out of nowhere, utterly baseless but nonetheless very serious slur against the company that I didn't at the time, remember having read anywhere. Fast forward to today, and what do you know? The very same accusation that seemingly sprouted fully formed from your furtive imagination out of absolutely nowhere, is now the headline quote in today's Irish Sunday Times's story on the dispute. You're a fortune teller! Or both. Couldn't possibly be that you already knew TRAM's argument beforehand and you wanted to put it out into the world and maybe sow dissent among shareholders?

So, let's review: you rock up suddenly on a de-listed company's chat board making serious, baseless accusations against management and in favour of the defendant, trying to claim that 'quotes' in a news story is a quality source, and you then share further accusations that the defendant suddenly unveils the following week. You're so right: surely nothing to see

Yss, redeye. thanks

Why do you bother trying to have a go at me, no6, when you know I’m just going to spank your ignorant butt in front of everyone? What does ‘being blue on this one’ even mean, and why should I comment on a 2 week cooling off period offered by the judge? Unlike you, I make sure my comments are relevant and don’t expose me as a complete tool. And finally, if you really want to tangle, instead of attempting the occasional drive-by like bs, try and at least to come up with your own insults. Ask your sponsors if you’re having trouble sounding out the words. Relevance, no6, think Relevance.

And during this blissful post-court success period, Mr. 5-messages-all-time-but-def-legit-nonetheless, allow me to be the teeniest bit petty and respond to your cringe attempt at bulletin board equivalent of 'I know you are but what am I?', accusing me of knowing nothing about bonds. In short, never claimed to be an expert; I'm an equity guy to my core. However, as with the hunter who doesn't need to be able to outrun the bear, just his fellow hunter, I don't need to know much about bonds to be useful here, just more than you, which as you've demonstrated well, is not difficult. Cheers.

Simple, qf: to enhance the yield. Clearly, the San Leon's of the world have to pay a fee to the bond holder in order to gain the legal means to borrow against the designated bond portion which then bumps up the yearly interest income. And then of course, the bond holder's interest in this yield enhancement goes up significantly if their bond position already carries a low coupon, which is where the demand for these types of transactions is highest.

First off, props for the bullet points. They definitely help organise the blather. First one: this type of bond assignment is rare and the transaction sle is attempting rarer still, therefore there is no 'normal' here for you to so confidently toss out 'red flag' (ie., you don't know what you're talking about, aka 'blather'). We do know that the 500m has been assigned to San Leon and that they can therefore be used as the company explained in its previous RNS. Would it be better to know the assignor? Of course, but my first assumption was that it is the assignor, not SLE, who want their name kept private because they can and the company followed their requirement. Second point - here you're on firmer ground I reckon, but I think I can take a stab at it. These bond assignments, according to a friend who is familiar, do in fact give the assignee the legal right to borrow against them. However, such deals are massively complicated (read: sh*t tons of lawyers, a multiple of the sh*it tons needed on a more vanilla transactions) transactions and while in vanilla deals, where the lender's rights in the event of default are relatively straightforward, in this case sle's direct lender I assume would have to be able to enforce their rights through the bond assignment and that must be massively complicated, especially across jurisdictions. So all that, and likely lots more that I - and clearly, you - don't know about such transactions, certainly translates into the rarity of such deals, the high degree of difficulty getting a deal of this size and complexity over the line, and thus likely explains the interminable time it is taking. I certainly never said I thought it would be easy.

Ffs, can you even read? I specifically said that the injunction may not be enforceable in the US. Right there, in black and white in one of my responses to redeyemines, before I go onto to explain that one hope is that San Leon can use the temporary injunction as an incentive to get TRAM to come back to re-negotiate or perhaps release the securities altogether.

Meantime, your 'comments' on the bond demonstrate you know and/or understand nothing about that transaction or how it would work as there has never been any indication of improprieties revealed from due diligence, etc, while the rest of your comments about 'material change' and 'flawed agreements' was unadulterated blather. You're like some kind of trumpian cultist just trying to wind me up. Is that impartial enough for you?