Member Info for Elartu

"Vamousse, you varmints!" http://www.vamousse.co.uk/vamousse_tv_ad.html

RedLeg is a 3 year old blended rum. The majority of the rum comes from the Appleton estate in Jamaica. They use only natural vanilla and ginger with no essence chemicals. I believe bottling / distribution in the UK is done by the Hi-Spirits group whose head office is in Walton-on-Thames, Surrey. Hope that helps.

11 page research note. http://www.progressive-research.com/tearsheet/research/distil-plc/distil-a-year-of-significant-progress-in-the-uk FY16 marks a year of major progression for Distil with a substantial increase in turnover and a dramatic reduction in the operating loss, despite a marked step up in brand marketing costs and difficult trading conditions in Eastern Europe continuing to adversely impact sales of Blavod, the black vodka brand. Following its TTB approval, shipments of Blavod have been resumed into the USA, after an absence of several years. RedLeg Spiced Rum achieved a significant breakthrough in the UK, winning listings at two of the Big Four supermarket chains in the UK. These gains contributed to a 350% volume increase for RedLeg in its domestic market. The March placing has further bolstered the balance sheet and introduced the highly regarded Miton investment group to the shareholder list.

Reported after close today. Actual trade date was 27th May - last Friday. 27-May-16 14:58:39 1.20p 4,850,265

Late trade from last Friday reported after hours. 4.85 million this time. 27-May-16 14:58:39 1.20p 4,850,265.

Resistance at current price with a following run up to 1.65p according to a very good chartist friend of mine. As for the big trades - they probably were buys. Small sell trades yesterday never got beyond 1.1755p so doubtful that those larger trades would have been able to get 1.191p.

Arguably Mike, not that much at present which is why you need to think longer term. Profit from all brands last financial year was around £406k I think. Say there's a 70% increase on that for this year's results then you get £690k and therefore a likely valuation for all brands - I don't have a breakdown by brand but I think we all know RedLeg is way out in front - is somewhere between £13.8 to £24.1 million. If RedLeg accounted for say 60% of this then you can see why Don thinks one brand is worth more than the company right now. £13.8 x 60% = £8.28 million. £24.1 x 60% = £14.46 million. I suspect Don believes the company should be valued at around £10 - £15 million market cap right now and a whole lot more once sales of RedLeg into the US are well under way.

I agree with you Heywindom. 5p+ with emphasis on the +.

There are currently 499,333,488 shares issued. At 2p the market cap would be a fraction under £10 million. At 3p it's almost £15 million. And at some point in the future I expect both those figures to be comprehensively passed.

Personally I'm loving the current situation. They've got US approval for RedLeg - this is a market which has absolutely massive potential, they've had Miton Group take a 10% holding at a premium, they've had Don Goulding give a great talk at the UK Investor show (see link below), their last trading statement showed impressive increases in volumes and revenue and no debt, and they've even got Baron Eric de Rothschild as a shareholder. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_x_IND2DvA I don't even attempt short term predictions but long term - and by that I mean more than 1 year - I am looking for a share price many, many times the current one. Stick these shares somewhere you won't be tempted to play with them and watch as they grow up strong and healthy.

Absolutely nothing of interest about Distil on twitter. Just a couple of blokes talking jibber jabber. You just can't get an in depth conversation about share prospects going in 140 character chunks. Do a twitter search using #DIS and you will see just how little there is regarding Distil plc amongst all the other guff. Far better sticking to these boards where you can get immediate news items that can provide proper topics of conversation. Just my opinion.

Someone has just bought 500,000 shares, must be ultra confident. :)

Some of the Friday buying was me BFFM but I wasn't at the investor show so can't shed any light on what might have been said there. Good luck to holders.

No, it was a small spread all morning at 0.96p - 0.98p. This continued until approx 13:30 when it changed to 0.9575p - 1.04p. Towards the end of day the spread tightened to 0.9625p - 1.025p. The majority of share trades today were buys not sells - 2,182,141 bought, 454,027 sold.

...in the last hour. Has something leaked?

No idea if this is what Sain is trying to show you guys but it is interesting as it opens up sales to squash, French beans, peas, and flowers (roses). http://www.lachlanafrica.com/products/organic-pesticides-fungicides/hawk-16-cs Could be good, after all every freezer compartment contains a bag of peas.

http://www.sipcamiberia.es/noticias/ARAW_uva_sin_botritis_PHYTOMA_274_diciembre.pdf

Part 3. I'd be grateful for any comments you or others may have, particularly on the first aspect above regarding my alternative interpretation of the TT deal structure in case I've missed something. I note your comment regarding Globo, not a company I've followed. If Winnifrith discovered something wrong there then credit to him, but are you sure he was the first to spot it? Incidentally, I know ERT (ENRT) very well being a shareholder and having lost a lot of money through the company's ineptitude (my personal opinion) over many years. However, the common link between ERT and Eden was Ken Brooks (with whom I think Winnifrith has his vendetta, and who was a former director of both companies) but Brooks has since retired, though I would imagine quite probably still holds Eden shares. My belief is that Eden is now a very different company under Sean Smith, with the progress over the last year or so quite remarkable. Redhill

Part 2. Perhaps two points on the above interpretation worth mentioning: first, there has been debate as to where TT got the £0.6m cash to give to Eden - the answer to that is it is TT's business, so long as it was actually paid to Eden. The second question that has been posed is did TT sell the Eden shares to fund the £0.6m or do they still own some or all of them, and again I'd suggest that is TT's business as it would be with any other shareholder taking-up a placement (so long as TT complied with any restriction on selling that Eden may have imposed with the share issue, but I doubt there was any such restriction). Moving on to the second aspect, whether the deal was above board (and this is where Winnifrith is expressing doubts, in a not very coherent way). I would say that my own concerns on this aspect were largely allayed once I'd thought through the commercial aspect above, as my own concerns on the veracity of the deal centred around not being initially able to understand the commercial attraction for Eden. However, when I heard that Winnifrith was complaining to AIM about this deal (amongst other things) I spoke with Paul McManus at Walbook, Eden's investment advisors, to express concern at this development. I hadn't expected to get much from PM but I found him very open and willing to discuss the situation and answer any questions I had. I discussed with him a number of things, but specifically regarding the TT deal. In summary, he told me that Eden had done appropriate due diligence beforehand, that an independent valuation had been made of the 29.9% stake in TT, that the Nomad and auditors had both been closely involved and had signed-off on the deal, that there were no common directors between the two companies and the deal was done at arm's length, and that Eden were very confident that the deal would withstand any scrutiny from AIM. He also told me in this conversation the point I made in my earlier post about Sean Smith having offered to meet with Winnifrith in Greece last week to explain and answer any questions, but Winnifrith had declined the offer. Overall I was reassured; obviously it could be said that Walbrook are paid by Eden and therefore PM will be presenting things in their favour, but the impression I got went much further than that and it was of someone who knows Eden's business and dealings well, has nothing to hide, and is confident there isn't a problem. You may or may not be reassured by the above, that of course is for you to decide. I accept that nothing is certain and maybe I'm deluding myself and Eden is a big fraud that will never sell anything, but I don't think so. I also think the various production and marketing that currently is happening for real in Kenya, Greece, Bulgaria and Italy is reassuring - companies like Sipcam/Sumitomo don't waste their time with tiddlers, they clearly expect Eden's products to sell well or they wouldn't be remotely interested in dealing with them

Part 1. iasike, as I said earlier I completely understand why you would have doubts about the TT deal so I'll try to explain the reasons for my own change of mind. I think as an Eden shareholder there are two aspects of the deal to be considered - was it a good business deal commercially for Eden?, and was it "above board" (both legally and ethically)? Firstly, looking at concerns with the commercial structure of the deal when it was announced, the RNS presented it as two pairs of transactions, as follows: 1. TT was given the rights to use Eden's IP in the field of 'over the counter' head lice treatments in exchange for license fee of £0.6m. and 2. Eden took a 29.9% stake in TT for £0.92m, through the issue of 4,615,385 million new Eden shares at 20p per share. The first part of that made commercial sense to me - TT pay a fee to Eden plus later royalties to take on the IP rights, very straightforward, but it was the second part, the exchange of shares, that I (and others) found odd. Why would Eden give shares with a market value of £0.9m in exchange for TT shares which on the face of it appear to have no value? This puzzled me for quite a while until I thought about it differently, not as two pairs of transactions but looking at the overall net position. The best way I can explain it is to suggest looking at the four transactions in different pairings, as follows: 1. TT give Eden £0.6m cash for issue of 4,615,385 million new Eden shares (a pseudo share placement for cash, implying a price per share of 13p). and 2. Eden give TT the IP rights to the head lice treatments in exchange for 29.9% of TT. Why the RNS wasn't presented this way I don't know as I think it would have averted a lot of confusion, questions and suspicion but presumably it was to do with the new Eden shares. Anyway, if as an Eden shareholder you can accept the first pairing of shares for cash (remembering that Eden needed cash) then the second pairing makes much more sense (to me, anyway) as if TT are successful in marketing the head lice treatment Eden will not only receive royalties on sales but (crucially for this deal) also own 29.9% of the future net profits arising within TT. The assumption has to be that Eden would only licence the IP to TT if they thought TT could make a success of it, but if TT are unsuccessful then TT would have borne the cost of attempting to market the IP (and I'd guess at some specified time the IP would revert to Eden). Why the concern at TT's own cash position? If TT go bust the net effect of the deal will have been that Eden issued 4.6m shares for £0.6m and the head lice IP will revert to Eden - hardly a disaster for Eden?