Member Info for discopablo

Morning folks. What dates are we saying H1 2016 are? I assume not any period in the 18 month period to 31 Jan 2016. Are we talking 1 Feb 16 to 31 July 16? Again I'm not sure because usually I thought companies described the half in relation to when the year end. I would personally describe 1 Feb 16 to 31 July 16 as H1 2017 because that's a 6 month period that is part of the accounting year ending in 2017. I'm a bit confused. Also does the growth and revenue mentioned in the RNS represent certain sections of the company or all the company? Thanks guys. All help gratefully accepted! I bought a lot more at 0.12 4 weeks or so ago in a bid to average down because this mcap is silly. It was an interesting discussion about the receivable.whilst I certainly think that this point will have been included on the letter of rep that accompanies the signed audit report, there's no reason to assume it won't be repaid. Another point in favour of this argument is that if it wasn't receivable then there would need to be a provision made in the accounts. Due to the small profit, almost any provision would have converted the profit to a loss which is a material adjustment regardless of how trivial the value being provided for. The auditors will have been well aware of this I'm sure.

A really encouraging number of voters though. Should in theory bode well for next week.

The 142k loss is the holding company only, whereas the 2k profit is the group performance as a whole. The group position is of course more important as it removes any intra group transactions. Hope that helps.

If it makes you feel better I had to get the calculator out 😉

769m shares not 769k. I still think it's fair to extrapolate so let's go at least 0.4p. Remember that's a minimum too. I'm not so sure we can then say 29% = 0.4p and extrapolate up for company value, though having said that why not? If that wasn't a fair approach then presumably WED would have requested more shares...... Over 30% and they'd have had to make an offer though.

0.2p I think Mr E.

I've been pondering the numbers whilst making play doh cookies with my youngest. The pilot project saw 500k invested and the benefit to magp was 200k. 75k in revenue and 127k in PV9 uplift. Crudely then every 500k invested seems to be worth at least 200k in combined value. WED has a minimum to invest of 10m so that's 20 times. 20 times 200k is 4m. That as far as I can tell is the minimum. 769m shares issued is the equivalent of 769k value albeit in pounds and above is in dollars. Seems like good business to me. Effectively sold 29% of the business for at least additional value of 4m. Is that right? Back to play doh.....

Mr E - i guess use this as a start point ref additional value but dobt forget the added bonus of extra PV9 value. 'For comparison using the pilot project as a benchmark, to equal the new well inventory that Magnolia could secure under the minimum capital contribution in the Agreement, we calculate Magnolia would have had to raise approximately US$2,500,000 in new equity.  On top of this we will receive cash fees along the way.'

I think more pressing is whether or not these shares can be used to vote in the meeting. Am I worrying for nothing? Logic would suggest that they can vote right?! I'm just conscious that there was a deadline I believe for holdings and therefore voting rights.

I'm thinking they'll be voting against the resolutions too ha ha ha!!!!

Voted - envelope posted. 32.5m for Rita.

Yep - don't remind me. Still feeling the pain my friend.

Just to clarify the protagonist position is that it would be a better direction - DEFINITELY NOT MY VIEW.

Regarding your comment ref there is no suggestion that they want to takeover MAGP I'm afraid that i would have to disagree with that. The legal form is indeed not a takeover but the substance of what is being proposed clearly is. Cutting off MAGPs head and replacing it with other people who will presumably lead it in a better direction is a takeover of sorts. There is no getting away from that - it's plain as day in the rhetoric being employed.

I get what you're saying but this challenge is being mounted from NTOG. If you're saying that the issue at stake is whether or not the remuneration package for RW is ok given the loss making state of MAGP I would suggest that NTOG is absolutely no different, indeed worse as a turnover proportion as I've clearly demonstrated. People who live in glass houses really ought not to throw stones, let alone boulders in their case it seems.

I think over the last few weeks or so a lot of mud has been slung. There are some who believe that RW is paid too well and as a result believe she is taking the mick with regard to the company, shareholder value etc etc. The miracle cure to this is to apparrently put in place 2 other directors from NTOG. I've looked at remuneration from my own opinion of mickey take factor. NTOG dir rem last year was 178k on revenue of 282k - 63% of revenue generated (not profit) went on paying the directors. MAGP was 453k on 1273k representing 35%, of course a much lower proportion. Now of course directors must be remunerated that's not the issue here. However, I fail to see how the accusations against RW can be seen in any light other than completely hypocritical. Make the revenue and take a higher salary. Current ratio of remuneration to turnover in NTOG is imo beyond excessive and certainly does not appear to be in line with shareholder interests.

No - totally separate document.

That's an excellent post dkw.

Okenia -as you say, 'arguably'. I'm just not interested in anything share prophets have to say, based on prior experience. Simple as that but I'm happy with my position. I hope you're happy with yours.

Still red. Too much hot air from share prophets. It's a bit rich for SOS to kick back and let them do his dirty work imo.