Member Info for ChirpyCheep

I understand that and if there is a mortgage of course that will have priority.

I am simply saying intention, certainty etc are vital components of contract law and if that mortgage is an error it will have no validity.

Different ball game of course if its not an error and HV have been less than honest

Personally I think you are both making too much of this £10m mortgage.

It simply wouldn't be enforceable; there would be no valid contract.You can look at a host of things certainty, intention, completeness etc and it wouldn't even close to being valid.

If I had a £100k mortgage and there was a typo which made it £1m, would I really owe £1m, absolutely not.

IvR-in the RNS 06/05 on Greenswitch 80M referred to an "extension of options" in terms of the purchase of HV.

I took this to mean a renegotiation.

Not sure what the cash position is; £3m plus ?

I can't see that hanging around so 80M are in a prime position to renegotiate

Three choices to me; HV, existing assets eg Disko or an acquisition.

If HV/GS is all it's cracked up to be and it's generating as much revenue as people are saying ( which I personally very much doubt) you'd think it makes sense to renegotiate as speedily as possible. If it's generating cash why wait until next year to complete the transaction. ?

IvR, didn't they pay a bit more for that, that is only the stage 3 costs ? Its difficult to read Rach's posts because of her agenda but she has a point that GS/HV seems too good to be true.For a growth company what can you multiply earnings by to get a valuation 30 x ? Can anybody suggest why HV have in effect reduced their price ?

Rach

It's a disappointing RNS; Myself and people like EB and Blowster and have been outlining how " lucrative " 10% of a recapitalised Met1 could be. We can't say that now

However, people like yourself, and indeed the market, haven't seem it the same way; I don't see much correlation between the Met1 and 80M share price.

I can't see how on the one hand you have always disputed the value of this transaction and then claim when it doesn't materialise 80M that have taken a significant hit.

80M have bigger fish to fery.

Perhaps I am missing something but it seems simple to me.

You are a £60MC company and you can reduce your shares in issue by 10% by selliing two small Finnish assets.

Should you do it; no brainer.

In a lot of ways it made sense for Met1 to rescind the deal.

In effect, as the purchase is made up of their own shares they're getting £6m for something they though might cost them as little as £1m

Rach, agreed a potentially good deal is no more.

Not sure why you are crowing, though you said it was a bad deal in the first place.

Lets's hope they follow your suggestion and sell it for book value.

EB, how do you get £2.1m please ?

Rach

I never used the word lucrative.

My point though is that I am relating the sale price of the assets to the MC not their book value. In this context the sales are perhaps lucrative.Personally I feel that one can only sell assets for what somebody will pay for them. If you wish to llok at historical book values to demonsttate how poorly the share price has performed and how poorly the BOD have executed their plans well nobody is going to argue with you

Nobody doubts your central point that value destruction has been astonishing and yes this can be aimed at the BOD.

Where we differ is that I prefer to look at the instrinsic value of the assets rather than the BOD; you are the opposite and I can see why you are not invested.

As far as I can see 80M has a top up warrant so that they are entitled to 10% of Met1 and that is valid for a year. 10% of £60m is £6m , plus £0.25m cash and we're nearly up to the MC with the sale of the original Met1 holding.

I know you will add that the Met1 shares are not currently tradeable; true but how else do you value the holding. ? As far as I can see the higher the price of Met1, the more likely 2p warrants are issued and the more likely 80m's holding becomes more secure and more certain.

80M paid £2.75m for JL, not much more than the original Met1 assets and probably less than the sale of the Finnish assets. That's a more fitting comparison than book value.

As it stands 80M have sold their Finnish assets for nigh on £6m.

If that's not "lucrative" can you please outline what you feel they should have got .

They also sold their original Met1 holding for £2m.... substantially higher than the value now. Are you saying Met1 is going higher than 30p ?

I'd offer a wager but you wouldn't take it

Add in Kangerluarsuk that's the same ish as the MC.So are you saying that the sale of three non core assets should yield more than the value of the whole company.? I may not understand accounts but I can count to 10.

Ashton, to my mind an even more pertinent one

Our National Carrier and household name.

https://biofuels-news.com/news/ecoceres-and-british-airways-ink-saf-agreement/

CB, but thanks for posting.

You don't though paint a very positive picture; they need commodity prices to rise ( whch seems unlikely so that they can sell an asset they haven't even finished purchasing !?

It gets tiresome arguing with Rach and she made a fair point about the population of Greenland- which we all know!

What she didn't point out is that to get to 8-10 mines is going to take a lot of projects!

Another conceited post .

I don't pretend to know financial accounts I do know however that assets are not necessarily amortised. So you may look at one years accounts to further your agenda .I won't .

You're falling for the Rach trap .She would have you believe it's BOD salaries.

Yes, it was rather a smug comment.

Outlook-no mention of metals.

Perhaps Zinky is right ?

Ashton , apologies any news of the Finnish gas assets.

Ashton ( and Cheshire )

From the AGM

What were RM's views on the other key assets JL and G

Re Disko, any indications as to why K wouldn't spend any more money.

Anything on Met1

Plenty of cash, any indications where that will go

Any macro or strategic points made

Thank you.