Member Info for cbaron

16.21
GS,
That's most likely connected to why they sold in the first place. Needed some cash either because they simply needed some cash or they wished to explore another opportunity and keep skins in two games.
Don't forget the 'concert'. It is the concert that is being monitored in the RNS not merely one of the parties. It could be that certain parties wish to sell whilst others don't.
If they sold the lot then that might be a huge tell tale but they're keeping at significant skin in the game. They were only allowed to sell at all in January 2020, they were limited to sell in an orderly manner - I take that to mean without doing so in a manner which does not negatively affect the company from January 2021. They still hold a little under 18% and so are retaining a very significant stake.
cb

GS,
Acting 'in concert' takes a group of companies, entities and/or individuals who might otherwise be connected and treats them in specific circumstances as a single entity.
In this case the 'concert' were defined in the original Agreement to acquire Golden Bear (GB) as being GB, Lavallon and certain other individuals including Rosenthal. The Relationship Agreement as part of that deal defines who the 'in concert' group are.
Apologies if you already knew this.
cb

JofH,
Once again, you miss the point.
Were a conversion of 'B' shares to take the holding beyond 30%, the conversion notice will be cancelled by the company and thus the trigger cannot be reached.

A minor reduction in the holdings of the 'concert' taking them further away from JofH's assertions about controls (25%) and mandatory offer (30%). Though as recently pointed out, these are complete red herrings in any event.

Ha ha!
You missed one
10. A choir of people singing from someone else's songbook without any clue as to the words or the tune, but in the mistaken belief that they sound OK.

Oh, right, Brom's words - buck passed with a sleight of hand redolent of a top class scrum half, or, was it a hospital pass?
A nod and a wink then.
Priceless.
So to value the prospects of the company it's NPV and potential future, we don't bother with any form of valuation of assets, whatever they may be, and not that we know what they are ,we just rely on our ability to read between the lines.
So much for all of the valued research.
Why not just state that you should attempt to pin the tail on the donkey, double blindfolded of course as we wouldn't want any cheating! ;-)

Keefy,
These were your words. Answer the question about your own words. What is above below and between the lines that I'm missing?
Don't answer the question with another question.
You see, I don't think you know. Brainwashed by the cult.
Smacks of the Emperor's New Clothes.

20.46
In the absence of calculations built on NPV of proven resources, cost of delivery to market and the usual business fundamentals, including management skillsets and company track record, then there's not much else on which to to base the success of the company.
Spin the wheel...........

15.57
Keefy,
I'm sure I'm not the only one who might not understand the unsaid and have a very hazy crystal ball but what exactly am I missing in,
"read(ing) above, below & between the lines. That is certainly the case with 88e RNS announcements, for the past 2 years."
All I can see, in fact, is a few failed drills and a recent SP leg-up from social media.
Are you able to explain?
Thanks
cb

A lot has been said to dispute what JofH has said on multiple aspects of his ridiculous posts.
They contain either flagrant imaginings in his own head, repeated to confuse. He tries to make a case using only half of all of the relevant facts, clarifications and amplifications, all public available and written in the same documents, when use of all of those things he omits leads to a wholly different answer.
Don't waste any more time. His silly claims have been rebutted.
For everyone's sake, we need to move on.

Earlier, I said,
"Hopefully, we may have reached a better understanding here."
How naive was I?

Alaric,
Hopefully, we may have reached a better understanding here. As to the other place..................???
What's important for both is good results. Fingers crossed.
cb

22.18
You would benefit from looking at the recent PANR presentation to fully understand where the resource lies in relation to Talitha. and hour and 45 minutes of your life , but if you don't spend it you won't know what you don't know. If you 're committing your hard earned to an investment, you'd be wise to understand what you're investing in, otherwise the charlatans are always going to be able to mislead you and not for reason of altruism spouted by some. There are plans and stratigraphic sections explaining the whole thing, the pay zones and their locations.
You will see that much of the benefit and certainly the obvious upper level sweet spot in in PANR leases, one's which I hasten to add are only recently acquired. Where from? Our neighbours! What were they doing divesting of those acreages? Who knows? But, I think I would be a little teed off if I was across the boundary and the company I have invested in have given away, or rather not renewed, leases containing a few crown jewels.
Don't believe me, go and have a look for yourself. the presentation is very informative not just about PANR and its excellent potential, but also the whole process in general.
More than enough from me.
Good luck.

19.35
If this is not meaningful and balanced debate then what is. The expletive at the end of your post most certainly is not.
Stand up for what you believe in and be prepared to support it with justified and factual commitment.
A lot of people don't know what they don't know and are grateful for researched contributions from others. Take the nonsense I replied to about the terms of the deal and the misinformation peddled by JOfH - completely selectively to paint a jaundiced picture. When you add the missing links (facts) it gives a wholly different view. It might be that we give the author the benefit of the doubt for not understanding what he was reading and/or that he was too lazy to read and interpret the whole thing. Whichever, a quite disturbing picture was painted which bore little relation to the truth, suggesting that the GB concert had effective control of the PANR business.
I note, in relation to Talitha that certain individuals on the 88e bb are referring to it as a potential asset of theirs, as it is, yet woe betide anyone with a balanced view across the two companies going over there to discuss it!

16.28
Interesting order that posts are being answered, perhaps he's taking a sneaky peek now and again? ;-)

And so, a bean counter or advisor to those who count beans! But not just any old beans, of course, BIG beans, FTSE 100 & 250 beans. 'Some' beans, as Baldrick would have derived!

So clever, of course, as to have got to the relevant answer ahead of his own appointed company accountant - why bother with one?

At 16.16 one does wonder if any lock out period would be effective, deliverable and, if contravened, could sensibly be actionable in an industry where everyone is seeking the same holy grail by the same methodologies. He could end up at PANR ;-)

16.01
I know that Ddraig has me blocked, but would some kind soul ask him what it was exactly that he did? Where was this experience which was 'a fair amount more than most'. Which industry and in what role? He admitted to being a 'programme manager' a few weeks ago, whatever that is - could have been Bill & Ben and the Woodentops for all we know (age showing again!).
Whatever it was he was clearly very important - at least in his own head!

OK, given that Scot is not here today to have a go at, the sect will tie an Accountant to a wooden stake and set fire to him.

A couple of weeks ago it was Project Managers.

Next week? Who knows?

This whole matter is a firestorm created to confuse and concern, using very selective extracts from formal documents at the time of the Pantheon/Great Bear deal in January 2019. I refer to the RNS dated 21 December 2018 which JofH kindly links us to in his 08.37 post below. The RNS goes on to over 40 pages and the description of the deal structure is very lengthy indeed, but I refer you to the section headed 'IMPLICATIONS OF THE PROPOSALS UNDER THE CITY CODE', which provides a great deal more practical context in terms of what can and what cannot happen.

The consideration payable to GB was part cash, part Ordinary Shares and part 'B' shares. The latter hold no voting rights.
The structure of the deal provides that GB and the others acting 'in concert', including Farallon and certain named individuals, including Rosenthal, will hold less than 30% of the Ordinary shares, the trigger point for a Mandatory Offer and also the level at which, under the City Code, a general offer is normally required. JofH makes a big play on the 30% but it is no different a position than any other company would be in under the City Code.

Additionally, in regard to the 'B ' Shares, these can be converted to Ordinary Shares by agreement with the company and so, as JofH would have us believe, they could theoretically convert sufficient 'B' Shares to increase their Ordinary Shareholding to in excess of 30% thus triggering an offer. However, what he doesn't tell us that there is a protective condition which will instantly cause a conversion notice to be revoked should that notice potentially result in the 'in concert' holding being in excess of 30%.

Should we be worried in any event? Not really as, in any event, Ordinary Shareholders have the right to reject any offer. At that point the 'concert' will hold less than 30% and so the balance of Ordinary Shareholders will still be in the majority.
JofH tries to make the point that GB and/or Farallon can exert control or influence the decision-making and strategic direction of the Company, and the RNS does allude to this, but again he neglects one significant fact and that is that The Relationship Agreement requires GB, Farallon and their affiliates (I assume this means the wider 'concert') to ensure that Group is managed for the benefit of the Shareholders and business of the Group, not solely for the benefit of GB, Farallon or affiliates.

Finally, as Scot points out, there were two 12 month Lock-Out periods, the second of which expired in January 2021 and therefore the 'concert' are now free to dispose of their shares in the market as they see fit. JofH is keen to tell us that there have been TR1 notices issued which suggest that shares have been sold and holdings have reduced. This is nothing more than the deal provides for now that the Lock Out periods have expired and is counter-intuitive when expressing concerns about over holdings, Mandatory Offers and controls.

Hope this helps.
cb

20.48 addresses 20.11, for the record.

Explain it in lay terms (if you can?), otherwise it appears you are just passing wind - and not, by any means, for the first time! IMHO. Your point is?