Member Info for HeadInTheSand

The alleged filtering by the cheerleaders is merely so they have plausible deniability and can utterly avoid dealing with and/or countering unpleasant facts and inconvenient truths that others may point out.

The boiler room really REALLY hates facts...

So, after years of complete non-delivery by Sando and the company and thus having next to nothing upon which to base their cries of "Multi bagger opportunity", "3p in a month's time!" yadda yadda etc etc, the boiler room is finally tossed an opportunity to spin... namely the final desperate roll of the dice in the last chance saloon at Basur-3.

They spin the living bejaysus out of this for all they're worth... but then, it quickly transpires that the initial borehole had to be rushed to meet licence terms, was therefore drilled effectively blind and thus unsurprisingly in the wrong place. Damn... that's no longer an opportunity to polish the unpolishable.

But never mind... they've always got the directors' categorically stated (and via RNS) commitment to prove their confidence in the prospects of the company they're being very handsomely rewarded for running by buying shares every month for 12 months starting from July 2nd.

So they gratefully use this as a basis for their substance-free ramping... but then it quickly transpires that the directors have decided - so far at least - to entirely renege on this unequivocally made commitment. Double damn... how the Hell are the cheerleaders meant to continue to try polishing this particular unpolishable?

Well, all they've now got left as the latest piece of jam tomorrow misdirection seems to be the Loxley appeal... yes, Loxley FFS. Never mind that Loxley is so far entirely unproven and never mind that UKOG hasn't got the funds to even conduct testing there (and leaving entirely aside that UKOG would need to win its appeal, something that won't be decided upon for several months)...

I mean seriously? The only threadbare pompoms left available to the cheerleading squad are now merely Loxley ones? Yes... by now it's got to be nigh on impossible to be a cheerleader. Poor souls, eh?

GP, sources are:-

ANGS itself, as per this extract it tacked onto the bottom of its Jun 9th "Approval of Saltfleetby Field Development Plan" RNS

"Finally, the Company regrets that it is engaged in a dispute, disclosed to lenders prior to signing, over a significant invoice from a financial service provider (not the Company's Nomad or Broker) and has sent a letter before action in respect of the same. In the opinion of the Board, properly advised by legal counsel, the net claim is unlikely to be material."

And the law360.com website already cited. This seems clearly to be a resource that keeps an eye on and logs all raised company lawsuits, hence yesterday's mention of the one ANGS has just issued (no doubt along the lines of "offence is the best form of defence", as Mirasol has also opined, given that Gneiss is clearly after ANGS for fees payable as a result of its previous contracted relationship).

I've no idea (obviously) which - if either - party is in the right. However a couple of things are certain. Firstly, Gneiss is a much larger, much better resourced, less slapdash and thus more credible outfit than ANGS. Secondly, this is a distraction and at least a short- to mid-term cost and time drain that ANGS really does not need.

hTTps://www.law360.com/articles/1410659/angus-energy-sues-former-adviser-over-14m-financing-deal

This is obviously related to the pre-action letter which ANGS received a while back and provided very sketchy details about, claiming that it was confident that it was without merit.

It now seems that both sides are going for it with a lot more vigour - and as I stated, this really isn't a distraction or an extra swathe of costs that ANGS needs. How does an alleged financial expert oversee things getting into such a mess?

Well, it looks like Gneiss has sued ANGS for breach of contract in terms of paying fees , and ANGS has just filed countersuit against Gneiss for misrepresentation.

Yes, that'd be the same Gneiss that the ramptastic squad was trumpeting to the rafters when they were mentioned as an assisting partner in terms of trying to find the extra £12 million that George had spent months not telling the market that the company needed to try to get Poundland started.

I know which of the two parties now at each others' throats, legally speaking, has far FAR deeper pockets, when it comes to hiring top-class lawyers.

Oh dear, George... and you a financial expert? However did you manage to bring the company to end up in such a mess? This is certainly an unwanted distraction at best - and potentially a whole heap more serious than that, looking at the sums that are being bandied about....

@Scottyk, you say:-

"Headinthesand .. it’s not the amount of money the board but into the share .. it’s just to show some commitment .. soon as the board announce an RSN regarding the buy of shares, this will rocket regardless of the amount they’ve actually bought"

"Regardless of the amount they've bought"? Are you serious???

With the several millions of PI-supplied funds that Sando and the UKOG board have now trousered over the years in obscenely large salaries in return for utter non-delivery, how can anyone possibly think that if they lob in under £3 grand a month - and that's between them - for just 12 months, this shows any faith at all on their part in the prospects of the company they're running?

There are several rivals, but that has to be the most fatuous, ill-informed, naive and imbecilic comment I've seen posted in a fair while.

Scottyk, I know that maths clearly isn't your strong point, but if an RNS drops, stating that the UKOG board has finally decided to buy UKOG shares as per the maximum outlined in the already RNSed DDSPP (that ceiling level being 10% of NET monthly salary)...

...that would amount to a total value of around £2,700 worth of UKOG shares being bought by the board each month. Yes, maximum total value... between them.

So two questions:-

1) What on God's green earth difference is such a pathetic amount going to make in terms of "proving" the board's belief in the prospects of the company it's running?

2) Given the amount is so small in the first place, why has the board yet again breached the information that it itself released via official RNS? Every month... share purchases on the first Friday of that month... communicated to the market by close of business at the end of the following working day. That's what the May 28th RNS states on the DDSPP, and yet...

No share purchases by any director on Friday July 2nd, so no RNS announcing such on Monday July 5th. Again, no share purchases by any director on Friday August 6th, so no RNS announcing such on Monday August 9th.

How can ANYONE consider this in any way defensible???

Heh.

There's one single and simple thing that the cheerleaders simply hate, because they have no way of handling them... and that's facts.

Whether it's the easily evidenced historic type of fact, where some drooling boiler room pipsqueak was burbling on about "Multibags coming!" or "2p by the start of next month!"... and is reminded of such by gloriously lunatic snippets from his/her posting history being copy n pasted...

...or whether it's the equally easily evidenced highlighting of blatant contradictions in terms of what UKOG categoricaly states it is going to do, and then categorically does not do.

By the way, cheerleaders... how's the directors' RNSed commitment to buy shares in the company every month from the start of July going? Anyone prepared to advance even the slightest and most threadbare of justifications as to why this has not taken place?

It's a tad ironic that Ocelot feels the need to slavishly copy n paste from an RNS "update" that itself was merely a rehash of already previously well-known information.

As before, nothing is set to move the ANGS SP significantly in any direction until the actual production volumes from Poundland become known. That is literally the sole thing the market is now waiting for, it's literally the only thing that matters, with anything else just being irrelevant white noise...

...and we won't hear about this until well into Q1 next year at the earliest. Doldrums till then.

Only when Sando acquires a new licence block somewhere near the North Pole.

(Something I wouldn't actually put past him if he finds himself needing more material from which to construct another Pied Piper serenade, even though the Arctic icemass sits on water, not rock).

The can of Turkish Mr. Sheen that was being frantically used in a forlorn attempt to polish the unpolishable unfortunately suffered from a nigh on immediately obvious severely blocked nozzle, so therefore the polishers had to very quickly come up with a Plan B (regardless of how far-fetched such plan is).

Actually, perhaps air fresheners would have been a better analogy... these need to keep getting squirted every day, for fear of the natural reekish odour of UKOG becoming ever more apparent.

An utter non-sequitur from Ocebot.

Those posting critically on UKOG are primarily doing so because its board of directors never lives up to what it has assured, promised and estimated when it's taken investors' funds.

This is both completely reasonable and utterly justified. In terms of the latest and most flagrantly breached assurance (and can I point out, assured by RNS, rather than the usual empty PR puff and spin), need I mention the ongoing shocking contempt evidenced by the board in utterly reneging on its officially stated commitment to buy shares via the DDSPP?

Cynder, to clarify, what you've missed is the rather important word NET...

Cynder, remember the phrasing was

"...the Company has committed to put in place an annual MAR compliant Defined Director Share Purchase Programme ("DDSPP") in which a director commits to purchase UKOG ordinary shares each month equivalent in value to a fixed percentage of their NET monthly salary. In line with other such schemes, the director's commitment is envisaged to be in the range of 5-10% of net salary, dependent upon individual circumstance."

(CAPS mine)

On that basis, here are the actual figures (presuming that no director makes any personal pension contributions, which would reduce their net monthly take home pay further):-

SS = £297,000 per annum gross = £14,000 per month net of tax and NI. 10% of that = £1,400.

KM = £115,000 per annum gross = £6,000 per month net of tax and NI. 10% of that = £600.

AH = £54,000 per annum gross = £3,300 per month net of tax and NI. 10% of that = £330.

NT = £49,000 per annum gross = £3,100 per month net of tax and NI. 10% of that = £310.

By my reckoning, that's a maximum ceiling total of £2,640 per month that the DDSPP obliges the board to buy. Between them. They'd better buy many multiples more than that if they want to restore any shreds of credibility to this share...

Cynders, why not take a minute to work out what "the full 10%" would actually mean?

Looking at the board's salaries as per the last annual report, it's a minute's work to go to any online take-home pay calculator, plug in the four gross annual salaries... and you'll then find that the board between them take home a total of around £28,000 per month, net of tax and personal NI contributions. That's the total between them (with obviously Sando trousering more than half).

So the ceiling level of 10% of net monthly salaries would be... £2,800. Between them. All in.

On that basis, it barely makes a difference if they put in or not. To make the market pay any attention, each director would need to buy shares to the value of around £20k each (and not £700 each).

And that's never going to happen.

Well, he's either been banned by LSE for posting nonsense and opinions that change faster than a traffic light, depending on whether he's looking for a quick buy or a quick sell... or he's deleted his account because he's become aware that the directors haven't bought in again and doesn't want to look even more foolish than usual.

Geez. Firstly, the Loxley appeal hasn't even been upheld yet. Second, presuming it is, UKOG hasn't got the funds currently to even investigate Loxley. Third, Loxley's ability to produce commercially viable quantities of anything at all is unknown.

So, blather about future gas prices and potential gas shortages is utterly irrelevant... UKOG hasn't got any gas to sell, nor currently the slightest potential of finding any.

What is mildly interesting is the cheerleaders deciding to quickly switch their Turkey pompoms for Loxley ones, now that all has clearly not been shown to be going well at Basur-3. I suppose they really have no other option, when continuing to try to polish the unpolishable...

That phrase is indeed in the May 28th RNS, Raj...

....though I personally chose not to pay it any attention since Sando and the other members of the gang of four have already reneged on their RNSed commitment to buy a pathetically small number of shares at the beginning of July.

Just read this thread.

Will, seriously? Who the Hell is genuinely expecting an RNS on Monday stating that the directors have bought 20 million shares each??? That'd be £30k each? What an absolute load of utter BS.

To remind everyone of those things the ramptastic squad really hates - namely, facts - the terms of the DDSPP as announced in the May 28th RNS commits the directors to spending between 5 to 10% of their net monthly salaries on UKOG shares. Work the numbers out and the only commitment they've made is to buy a value of between £1,400 to £2,800 pounds worth. Between then. In total.

For God's sakes, it's bad enough that Sando has such an estranged relationship with the truth without the cheerleaders spouting an equally farcical and easily disproven load of old cobblers.

Well of course the delay at Basur-3 will help them drill with greater precision, FFS... but only because they drilled the first hole completely blind.