Member Info for GruffJ

Good to see some larger trades going through on the ask side of the spread, hopefully some positive news flow soon. I've been in this name too long already and it's getting painful again!

What we be interesting to see would be what level of information the BOD where able to share with the client prior to the contract extension. These contracts are strategic for GMS's clients and you would think the BOD would have to provide a decent level of comfort that their debt isn't going to get called in and assets swallowed up. If I was a client I'd be after some certainty as to how the future looks before signing extensions. Given the location of this client maybe there were privy to some extra info????

I think the 28th Nov was the end of the close window for SF. Now they have their board in place to approve a bid will they make one or drag it out further???

That's the minimum they can bid for a while as was the highest price paid when they amassed their 29.9% holding. Alternatively they just sit it out now they're in control anyway. All depends what side deal they have done with the other two major holders. Obviously they're not all working together as that would be against the take over code!!

Pop again tomorrow I hope!!!

Somebody has bought as much as they can at market or just over today before they have to issue an RNS tomorrow I expect!

Fully expect RNS from Horizon and Mazrui tomorrow with shareholding triggers. The new BOD surely haven't been in place long enough to jump through the hoops they would need to in order to satisfy Seafox triggering the 30% threshold outside of the 6 month window.

I've written to the Take Over Panel and asked why they haven't formally investigated the actions of these three parties acting against their so call "code"! I doubt I'll receive a response.

Given the direction of travel and trading update, 22p is still too cheap and 10p is robbery. I'm certain the equity raise would have been successful based on the trading update numbers, if it wasn't for the disruption of the three amigos.

Of the volume traded so far today 50% is off book and the majority is market maker driven. Look forward to the RNS on shareholding thresholds

Now that Seafox control the BOD, let's see what capital injections are available to resolve the debt issue. I expect to see a number of RNSs over the coming days as they look to firm up the balance sheet in advance of some form of takeover early Dec.

I think (and hope) they have just been causing disruption to stop the board turning the company around and completing the equity raise. If the BOD had been free and focused to do so then the share price would be north of 30p and SF would have to bid considerably more given the positive platform the BOD would have created. Whereas now, if they bid 22p a lot of shareholders would sell through boredom !!

Potentially a risky strategy, as they would not be the only interested party in the asset sale, plus they would lose their equity investment along with their co-voters, who apparently are voting completely independent of each other!!! Sure.

I hope they come up with something sensible at the end of Nov and we can all move on. They're just too disruptive for this to be the BOD turnaround story I had hoped it would be 18 months ago.

Anyone remember what the date is that SF are free to put in another bid? Assume they want their people on the board in advance of this date - if bidding remains their strategy that is

Lufc - you need to email the corporate actions department at HL and give them your vote, otherwise it defaults to the board proxy. Same with most SIPP etc providers to save them having to request votes for every corp action.

At 10p I'd vote no at 22p I'd vote yes.....simply based on my average in price and boredom in this name. Value aside I've just got too much tied up in here and I'd like to get out with some form of uptick!

Would you take 22p if offered at the end of Nov? Personally, given how long I've been invested here and how messy the management of this company/board is going to be going forward, I would take 22p and accept the discount to NAV in order to move on to less painful and drawn out plays.....

This is what happens when takeovers go hostile.......remember Seafox drew a line in the sand with their 22p purchase. They want two seats on the board so that when they make their next offer the board can't unanimously vote against it...IMO

I’ve got so many spread sheets trying to work it out I’ve given up! I thought we would have a bit of a bounce on the debt agreement but understandably the unknown over equity raise keeps us here. So I ask myself this question...if I hadn’t held this stock for so long would I buy in now, as that is the same thing but without the emotion! My answer is yes, but 1/2 the size! Good luck all, I feel this one has a few twists and turns to it yet.....

This is my understanding (happy to be corrected). Their offer would have to be as a minimum the highest price they paid in the previous 12 months. At the point they trigger the 30% holding threshold there is a mandatory offer rule. The issues they have is there "no increase" statement and then no intention to bid. However, there is some semantics in language to be aware of, plus the take over panel rules allow for an offer to be made if a number of criteria have been breached: GMS board approve (unlikely to happen), a counter bid (possible) or a substantial change in circumstances in the company. It is the latter one that I personally think Seafox are holding out for. The BOD have highlighted this month end to announce the new banking and debt arrangements, which IMO would be viewed as a substantial change in circumstances and open the door to another bid. The BOD are therefore in a tricky spot, as they need to sort the debt out, need the share price to rise for a capital raise, but then are at risk that major holders would sell at the 22p level. For those of us that have felt the pain of a significant mark to market loss on this name over the last 12 months, 22p becomes interesting!!

I think Kasamar specifically noted a 20p or above pricing point that they would sell at in their letter of support and they held 9%

It looked like the trade was cancelled, but as it was off book it was reported to the exchange twice by both the buyer and seller, so it looked like a cancelling trade but wasn’t.