Member Info for bluerill

Blackswan - muddled you were. hopefully you now understand

Brother: squirrel!!

counter-offer: why doesn't everyone on this board - from the informed to the benighted - who have at least attempted to engage on one topic or another and risk the attendant criticism and even mockery, fart into a bag and gift to your patronising self?

um, you're getting a bit muddled, blackswan. Point 1. sle have provided that their clear legal advice was/remains that because the share transfer was on an INDIRECT share of the asset (basically affording the owner an ECONOMIC share in the returns from that asset rather an a direct EQUITY ownership), that NO permission was required or sought.. That remains the prevailing view; and 2. if it had been sought, it was Suntrust and not sle, that would have been required to do so. In effect therefore, ST are busting themselves, which on its face is ridiculous, and not the actions of a serious complainant, rather someone trying to undo a transaction they now regret.

Sure Alaric, that's a pretty thorough takedown of Suntrust's bizarre action(s), complete with references back to the original offer document, British commercial code (which I believe is largely predominant in country), and then draws a sensible conclusion based on that evidence. But what about Avabone, what about how many of your posts were taken down 3 months ago, what about the phase of the moon?? Will no one think of the children???

Sorry, did you say something? Couldn't hear you above all the banality

God, I'm going to regret this, but you've got my blood up:
1. of course I've seen the share price, Phoney. In fact it has fallen back to exactly where it was before a 25% rally last week took it above 26p, which somehow you shockingly neglected to comment on (imagine!). You know who also failed to comment on the rally? Me, even though I knew some of the buyers and why they were buying. And you know why I didn't? One reason of course is that i'm not a mendacious ditto-head who tries to take every data point and twist a narrative in order to try and 'prove' how clever he is and then the next week conveniently forget what he said as he moves on to twisting the next 'news' item to suit his insatiable desire to be 'right'. No, the reason I didn't was because my view on the value of SLE's share price is based on a medium-term investment approach where I believe I understand the enormous upside potential that is being severely under-recognised because of short-term issues like the one you are mis-representing currently. For me, the risk-reward for year-end is exemplary, but that doesn't preclude the share price swooning short-term on light volume, during the summer market lull in the event of another trumped-up issue like this Suntrust nonsense.
2. Your championing of the Nigerian press is laudable, but the paper is still a rag and prints boilerplate 'stories' like this one all the time. What fascinates me though is that, once again, you choose to ignore all of the far more important portions of that and other posts and focus on the least relevant point, only because that's the one you are able to push back on, in the obvious hope that you can try and diminish my credibility because I ****ged off some poxy Nigerian newspaper. Classic Phoney.

And again, searing insight combined with a casual slur. Love the classics

Good news. Just ran Brother's latest super useful posting through the gobbledygook-to-english spleen venting translator: 'Don't look over there and see the company's growing cash balance, improved negotiating position, $75 brent, or pretty much any news that can even remotely be perceived as positive in any way and instead join me in looking backwards so that you too might see threats that don't exist and ultimately, can feel my pain. Oh please, won't you feel my pain...? Not you Sid, you don't count.....' Wow. Poor guy

I was addressing deadcat

You are making a profoundly inappropriate equivalency. I come on here occasionally to correct seriously inaccurate 'information' proffered by certain posters. I do not belong to any 'ramp it up' team, nor any group for that matter, but try to share real information with readers from a market professional's standpoint. This is not the same as the content that the others you would describe as the 'ramp it down' crew, whom I believe I have demonstrated continue to prefer to offer innuendo and snark dressed up with the veneer of market experience. I will cop to losing my temper in line with some of my opponents, but that is truly where the comparison ends.

What in the bloody heck are you babbling about? i answered a couple of trolls, each soon after they coughed up their latest hairballs. That's all. What exactly are you trying to infer with such a moronic non-sequitur anyhow? Do you also want to share your thoughts on crop circles or the illuminati with us as well? They surely couldn't be any dumber in nature nor more transparent in their purpose to distract from my pushback on blatantly malicious comments, than your cringeworthy attempt at playing message board detective. Move on and grow up.

i omitted a word in 'and/or where San Leon have assets....' should have read 'and/or where San Leon have REGISTERED assets....' My hands were shaking in righteous fury no doubt......

Of course you would guess it was genuine, you cynical nabob. Only problem is, it isn't, and it isn't even close. If it were 'genuine' and Suntrust were truly not 'messing around', then surely they would have filed their 'grievance' in a UK or Irish commercial court which might have standing and/or where the San Leon have assets. In fact, sle have no registration in Nigeria at all, and thus this court 'action' is de facto meaningless - leaving aside the absolutely ludicrous nature of the accusation - which I sincerely believe you know. Regardless, this is pretty much the definition of messing around, though I'll concede that it has probably got a couple of sellers spooked for today. Good news is that it gives you the chance to marinate in the decline though, so I guess that's something.

I'm sorry Sid, but I'm going to have to put your posts on care and maintenance. No one has the time or energy to try and fill your twin empty silos of 'financial knowledge' and 'need for validation'.

Phew, I don't know where to start, Frus. I certainly don't 'mind' answering your question(s) in principle, but I have to admit it makes me cringe a bit that you would ask it in the first place. You do realise that I can lie, rendering anything I might write virtually meaningless? In addition, I sense you're not really interested in my answer as you 'asked' simply as a means to vent and effectively advance the same uneconomic, ultimately redundant, argument that the collection of yappy puppies I've been going back and forth with the past couple of days have: namely, that past poor performance by the Company is self evidently the best guide for measuring future outcomes. Essentially you are saying that because of a history of failed efforts in Poland, etc, by SLE one should discount completely or even ignore altogether, vetted financial information, cash in the bank, and perhaps most of all, a formal commitment to a credible dividend policy that would make a mockery of the current share price. Fair enough I guess, I just think that's uniquely self-defeating. For me, no matter when i first got involved, what my exposure may be, what the phase of the moon is, or yes, even what Oisin and Co's history of failure, that that is an objectively silly way to approach analysing a shareholding/potential investment. I've said before, but I'll point out again: everything your are legitimately but almost exclusively focused on, is profoundly evident to everyone; in other words, your insights are the most likely issues to already be fully discounted in the share price. It is in fact, the upside story, however - largely comprised of the issues I have tried to highlight - that comprises the majority of the outcomes that are much less likely to have been already discounted. That, in my view, is what makes this an attractive, asymmetrical opportunity.
For the record: I got involved on and after the original suspension and placement at 45p, attracted by 1. the deal itself which I felt was a huge value creator especially as they bought the asset with the oil price on its knees; 2. Martin Hughes- someone I have enormous respect for - and his full backing of the deal, management and the shares and 3. the 'special situation' nature of the new SLE's commitment to pay out a material amount of free cash to shareholders, which I believed at the time, and believe more so now, is the only way, broadly speaking, for AIM-sized commodity company's to approach having a publicly-listed share price, as traditional investment pools are increasingly shunning the sector. Take all that as you will....

And the cheese stands alone

And another couple of things Sid/Junk: 1. how is referring to my posts as 'broker notes' throwing shade at me exactly, Sid? Are you suggesting that a professional analyst's work is somehow inferior to your wild speculations backed up by expert cut and paste work? I certainly hope not; 2. I have no idea who Ken Whoever is, but you go right ahead and cut and paste on that one to your heart's content; and 3. my post was not a 'hypothesis', Junkie, and I could give a high hard one whether you 'choose' to agree with me or not. If this loan represented any exposure to San Leon itself or its subs whatsoever, it would have been reported in the 2017 results at the very least as a contingent liability. Period.

Friends ask me why I bother doing these boards. Its a fruitless exercise they insist, and one that inevitably ends up with me punching down with characters like you guys, Junkie and Sid. No, I tell them. In the end, even on a message board like this one, there is merit in pushing back against the needless propagation of fake news and bogus financial analysis.(The implication that I somehow work for the company, rather than perhaps I am just better in knowing about the companies I invest in than you are, Junkie, is a perfect example of the kind of lies your kind carelessly tosses around when challenged). It doesn't mean blindly supporting the company as characters like you 2 inevitably allege in response to being schooled, it is simply an effort to explain why the shares at their current price offer an attractive risk/reward profile for holders or new buyers and if a couple of under-bridge dwellers like your good selves need to be slapped around a bit along the way, so be it. But truly, people like you do test my resolve. For the 3rd or 4th time Sid, it does not matter if the Nigerians EVER get current with Eroton (though they surely will, but that debate is for another time): From a year ago onward, if Eroton/Midwestern miss a single quarterly payment, even in theory by a single day, SLE will be entitled to take control of assets backing their loan that are worth far in excess of the remaining liability (read the prospectus, for heavens' sake). Since the company is already in a significant net cash position, this outcome would in fact be significantly value creating for SLE shareholders. That is doubtless why Eroton have gone to such lengths to insure that the capital is available to remain current on their debt to us. Your rant about the NNPC and likewise all your links and quotes are thereby ultimately moot. End of story

i have no information not in the public domain, you halfwit