Member Info for bluerill

And now, everyone who couldn't help themselves but read this squirrel post is dumber for it. You obviously have no idea what the company has petitioned the Irish court for, nor do you have the faintest idea what a capital organisation is and that that is in fact, NOT what the company is doing here.

Correcting the record after a squirrel coughs up another fur ball is the editing equivalent of getting latrine duty after Glastonbury, but hey, all in a day's work, right?

1. All SanLeon have done is petition the Irish court to recognise that it no longer has any significant creditors and therefore its substantial and growing cash reserves can comfortably be used in part to fund a capital RETURN (not a capital reorganisation), either in the form of dividends or share buybacks.
2. With the pending permission from the Irish court, San Leon can and will proceed with capital returns with some of their cash surpluses. Initially, it has declared a preference for a share buyback, though in no way does that preclude it from declaring a regular or special dividend in the near future as well.
3. A share buyback of the size that has been mooted in the RNS - around $10m - done say, over a 6month period, would add a substantial potential buyer into a relatively illiquid market for our shares every day. Such a prospect would likely bring new interest to the SLE story from professional buyers, attracted by the lower risk/higher return profile created by having such a large and important bidder in the market every day. Likewise, existing shareholders become significantly less inclined to sell since they now have the greater comfort of the company backing the share price in the market every day. The result of course will be a higher share price over time which some legacy shareholders, who may be thrilled to get a 10 or 15p bump, can then avail themselves of. Others however, will see a share buyback as just the start of the company''s efforts to reward long-suffering shareholders and continue to hold. That of course, is how a share buyback benefits shareholders.
Your final sentences, '....Is there any difference selling to SLE or selling in the normal way. Not only that if we sell our shares to SLE we wont have any will we....?' are just too moronic for me to address in any serious way. I'm sorry if that seems particularly harsh, but your overall motives here are profoundly questionable and therefore I simply cannot extend to you the usual squirrel courtesies.

For heaven's sake squirrel, would you give these ridiculous attempts at sleuthing a rest. What in world does it matter in the slightest what the man does or doesn't do for a living, and why would any answer to such a dopey question have any relevance anyway when he can concoct any response he wishes?? Meanwhile, what you're trying to do is so painfully transparent, all that's missing is for you to stand there with your hair in bunches, hands on hips, and sticking your tongue out at Alaric and calling him poop head. If he has greater command of the story with this company, then make your peace with that and make way. We have money to make.

smile emoji

Observe, won't you, as Squirrel1, battered and hungry, sniffs the air and stamps his foot in frustration. 'I'm hungry,' Squirrel1 declares. 'I haven't irritated or frightened anyone in days,' he huffed. 'I need new ways to satisfy my need for discord and bitterness and all the nuts at the Tree of Ignorance aaaand the Tree of Conspiracy are gone. The cupboard is bare!' Squirrel1 was sad. 'Don't be sad, Squirrel1', said Squirrel2 after returning from an exhausting morning of trying hard to be both obsequious and morally bankrupt. 'Why don't you try returning to your favourite tree, where it all started for you?' 'You mean the Tree of Revenge? But surely we consumed her fruit long ago when we were young and impatient to lose any semblance of ethics or intellectual integrity', Squirrel1 lamented. 'No doubt', said Squirrel1, 'but what have you got to lose? Besides everything else, you look like crap mate.' Squirre1 considered what his sad little friend had advised and decided that indeed, he had nothing left to lose and set off to find the Tree of Revenge. Locating it proved far more daunting than he imagined, however. He knew it lay beyond the Forest of Constant Repetition, but when he reached the River of Utterly Meaningless Details, he turned left and had to have his old mentor, Bilious Bear, the great one who taught Squirrel1 avoid the temptation to acknowledge an opposing idea, especially those that effectively refute your own story. 'Never admit the other guy has a point', Bilious would tell him, 'because that's a path to admitting you're wrong, and THAT, my dear boy, can never happen.' Bilious was blind and living alone on benefits now, but Squirrel1 was glad for time to reflect on the good old days when you could just hang a shingle around your neck and walk among the naive natives spitting bile with no repercussions. 'My, how our hearts - and bellies - were full then!', rejoiced Squirrel1 to himself as he arrived at the Tree of Revenge. It was a darker, more barren place than he remembered, but Squirrel1 knew that it was here, at the Tree of Revenge, that his very soul was born, and how can that not fill what's left of one's tiny heart after all?, he reasoned. Squirrel1 got busy scrounging in the dirt - funnily enough, his major field of study at university - looking desperately for sustenance and suddenly, against all the odds, he found what must have been the last nut under the Tree of Revenge. Squirrel1 picked it up and held the precious item to his chest, while something approximating warmth came over him. He couldn't wait and drew the ancient nut to his thin lips, popped it into his twitching mouth and his tiny, razor teeth went to work. The nut went down Squrrel1 easy, like an old friend - Squirrel3 probably - and for a moment, Squirrel1 felt young, vital. Squirrel1 felt like his old self. 'I need to say something objectively false, proven so multiple times, but will annoy anyone around who hears it!' See below

BS - I have zero interest in any back and forth with you, particularly one based on antipathy, or any ill will whatever. However, just taking your last 2 posts, the first one which contained a group of utterly antique misunderstandings disguised as 'key questions' (and again, your credibility is severely tested here as you conveniently forgot to respond to my thorough response at the time) and now this morning's clearly erroneous posting where you have seemingly intentionally confused me and squirrel3. Finally, I have your 'response' below which yet again (!!!) makes absolutely no sense as you simply ignore this structural error and lead with yet another non-sequitur: '.....Blue - you do flatter yourself - it's the scenario most of us had already arrived some time ago ....' What in the name of Elijah, does that even mean??
'....
Finally, finally: '.....about others that you consider mentally inferior - it takes all types to make the world....' This is psychobabble disguised as equanimity. I'll take the hit for being dismissive and/or arrogant at times, but getting to the right conclusion(s) based on the best available group of facts should, and always will, completely dominate. It takes all types to make the world? Maybe, but when it comes to making money in the stock market, I'll stick to being right.

QF - my explanation for the 'under' reporting is the correct one. Let's move on

And here we go again, bs. I know you can read and am pretty sure you actually understand the words, so you must realise that squirrel3's 'post' was a reprint of my own from April explaining the potential upside of an sle-eroton reverse merger, especially as he followed up immediately with a 'post' which attempts to smear me with lots of his favourite mean words and I schooled him. You know, the usual. Therefore, readers must assume that your 'post' crediting squirrel3 with 'a well laid out scenario' (ugh) is simply an intentional attempt to be obtuse, since it very much was a well laid out scenario, but it was mine. My guess - again - is that you're doing this intentionally to wind me up so you can elicit an angry response. If not, you're just plain weird. Either way, it's sad.

Btw QuelF, stop posting these 'price targets'. There is nothing wrong with dreaming, but these are just one of those silly historical errors that get saved in the stock market's vast digital landscape. Sorry

I was writing what might/would happen if san leon managed to merge with eroton, which didn't happen, you troglodyte.
Otherwise, you're (notice the spelling) right about one thing: I do have utter contempt for some. The ignorant can be educated, but a wilful and aggressive ditto-head like you can only be shunned.

first off, learn what a contraction is. you are = you're, not your... that way readers will at least you be left thinking you can spell. as for your response, it is so Trumpian in its incoherence and uselessness, it's almost funny, but there was the semblance of a question in the middle of the word salad, so I'll answer it: Yes, that's exactly the period I am talking about and you are absolutely wrong that there have been sufficient periods where 'nothing' was happening.

Since you've asked a couple of times, QF, and since squirrel3 seems determined to turn this issue of Oisin's shareholding into one of his patented snarky, 'I have no idea what I'm talking about but if I say it with enough ominous innuendo, maybe I can frighten a few punters', I'll explain. The reason Oisin's official holding has not changed over the past few years, despite significant awards from the company as you've noted - which is further explained in the annual report - is because the shares he has received in compensation over that period, are 'allocated, but not yet registered'. In the past, the reason for this has been the pretty much non-stop series of corporate events since 2016, from the acquisition of OML18, to the Chinese approaches, to the more recent attempt to reverse into Eroton. Stock exchange rules prohibit shares issued to company management during such periods to be registered formally in the executive's name until such time that the company is no longer in involved in any such material corporate action.

It is therefore absolutely reasonable to think that the reason Oisin's official holding has not 'changed', is because San Leon REMAINS engaged in negotiations in some kind of corporate action or actions of sufficient consequence to preclude his new shares from being registered officially, for the time being. This is one of a number of small, but perfectly formed positives on the margin for SLE that I have not shared to date lest I be accused of overhyping. However, I hope anyone reading this, who still fancies there is absolutely anything remotely comparable between posters like myself and the squirrels will be disavowed of that notion once and for all.

bs - honestly, sell whatever exposure you have in this company and frankly, any other shares you may own in public companies. If you can ask, at this stage, at any stage actually, something like why did the canadians sell (because MART RESOURCES was bust for christ's sake! They didn't sell, we BOUGHT one of their assets as they were about to go into administration. This is the 'earth is round' of owning shares in SLE) or this deal was done the way it was (for tax reasons, plain and simple. 'earth revolves around the sun'), you never, ever should have bought shares in the first place and you certainly should not continue to hold. I personally wasted an hour of my life explaining why ST (they're not a 'powerful' local company, by the way. Calling them that is quite telling) might be at it in what is clearly a legal windmill tilt. In fact, your 'questions' list is so specious, I'm afraid I will have trouble treating you as a reasonable actor from here on.

bring the poison. 'ol blueroll can take it, but make it quick. I have a life

right here, rocky

Ok then, bs, understood.

jimminey cricket bs, no i wasn't. We established the relevant fact pattern and that the balance of probability vastly favours the conclusion that Suntrust is throwing up a hail mary with this amateurish legal challenge. I didn't even understand your final question, 'what is the essence of the problem here....?' in the context of everything that had just been discussed and so I provided one and made the more general point that ST's actions are reminiscent of a panto villain. There is no argument here that ST's document dump is unhelpful, but I was trying to bring you back to first principles, to acknowledging the big picture here, at least in my view; namely that, from unethically/possibly illegally leaking and then posting a summons-affidavit brought 2 years after the transaction, to arguments riddled with gross errors of logic, Suntrust is not, in any way, a credible complainant.

never mind. i guess you mean what 'problem' remains in your understanding of this assignment issue, in my view. if that's correct, then my answer is that's its not important enough to continue grinding on the details. I think you have the general idea straight and besides, the really important thing here is not who should have assigned what, but whether this is nothing more than an early scene in a business pantomime.

specify. what problem exactly?

I think we're done on this one

This is a wind-up, isn't it??

omg, blackswan. Are you serious? SUNTRUST would be the relevant assignor in this transaction and thus would be responsible for seeking permission from the government. if it had been required, which, as per SLE legal advice, it doubtless wasn't. That's why the whole legal objection by ST is so silly on its face. They are effectively busting themselves. Why are you bringing martwestern into it all of a sudden??