Member Info for HeadInTheSand

PS Yanis,

Given Aleph's bizarre "no win, still fee" sweetheart deal with ANGS, one does wonder, if the funding can gets booted down the road yet again as you and I both strongly suspect it will - and bear in mind, Aleph's original 90 day period of exclusivity expired at end Feb - one does wonder whether the amount of "reasonable due diligence" fees that Jason J and his cronies can invoice ANGS rises commensurately with the ever-stretching timescale?

Gallifreyan (another who's waking up and smelling the decidedly bitter coffee, perhaps? Anyhow...)

The trouble with voting against Res 3 & especially Res 4 is that if ANGS (as seems to becoming more and more likely) are nowhere near securing anything like enough of a funding deal, by voting against Res 4 at least, PIs would be removing the BOD's last possible avenue of raising any more cash to keep the lights on (and fund the various ongoing fairytales). If Res 4 is voted down, that might well cause the entire foundation-free house of cards to collapse even more quickly.

As an investor, one's kind of damned if one does and damned if one doesn't... gee, thanks George. Boy oh boy, how you and your fellow board directors have fully earned your obscenely large self-awarded pay rises...

James, you're not alone in your thinking - as gkb has commented, it seems that, solely based upon the unmistakable evidence before all, more are coming round to a more realistic way of viewing ANGS. I'd say there can be no doubt that the performance of the ANGS BoD has been significantly less than competent and they've been significantly less than transparent (and that's being unbelievably charitable).

However, given that a fair few here have held such evidence-based opinions for a long while now and have been accused by the faithful of being members of some anti-ANGS action group, I have to say that your own mention of now considering a class action does cause an ironic eyebrow to be raised.

However,

Yet again, it can't possibly be £20 million. Do the blindly positive never actually read the RNSes?

The only confirmed (and thus hopefully vaguely reliable) information issued via RNS by the company has stated there's one very nebulous offer of between £8 and £9 million and another very nebulous offer of £11 million. If both offers actually become concrete (and let's hope so, but not hold our collective breath), it's still either/or... ANGS cannot take up both.

Sounds like the consensus of opinion, even from those who have been largely unswaying in their positivity, is that ANGS has 17 calendar days to go to pulls its irons out from the fire.

Me? I'm freely expecting another announced delay on raising of the much-required funds as we near the latest in a long series of lines in the sand drawn by George. It's also worth mentioning as an aside that - as James2nd said a while back - it's rather tricky to justify why a whole £12 million is being sought...

...and again this morning Ocelot (who I am ever more convinced is either directly or indirectly on the ANGS payroll) repeats his deliberately disingenuous piece of misdirection about an alleged £20 million of funding offers having been received by ANGS.

This is known as an untruth. As the company itself has been obliged to state, it has received two separate, utterly unconfirmed AND MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE funding offers against the £12 million that George apparently had no idea was needed, when he first started flogging the "potentials" in Poundland Gas to PIs.

One nebulous offer is £3 to £4 million short of what's required and the other equally flaky "indication" is £1 million short. As both sketchy offers have been made against the same requirement, it is impossible for the company to take both up.

How many times will this particular piece of studied dishonesty be repeated by those with ever more obvious self-serving agendas, I wonder?

We all know George is not at all accurate in his chosen words. "Imminent" being a prime example of this.

I think he misspoke and actually meant "value excretion".

Re-reading the Feb 22nd RNS re the "45 day exclusivity period" on the mandate mentioned above, this conditional mandate has seemingly nothing to do with ANGS's engagement with "no win, still fee" Aleph. According to that RNS, the latter seems to have only brought to the table "indications and soft commitments" of an entirely separate facility.

Can we therefore assume that Aleph's own 90 day period of exclusivity (as announced in the Nov 30th RNS) did expire at the end of February? Also, if Aleph did have this stated period of exclusivity regarding all things funding related, how was this alternate conditional mandate even sought and found, prior to said exclusivity expiring?

As ever with ANGS, not much makes sense.

"We know from the past that when GL says "immediately", he means it..."

Huh? Seriously? He certainly doesn't know the meaning of "imminent", or "at this stage the Directors are confident that reconnection at commercial rates is possible within the £2.5 million budget and advised timescale of completing work between May and August 2020" for that matter.

I don't think there's the slightest evidence - let alone guarantee - that George has the slightest clue what he's talking about. In fact, from looking at repeated previous company assurances and estimates issued via RNS, there's an ever-growing mountain of evidence to the exact contrary.

No matter what else this means, this is going to require either a TR-1, or ANGS updating its list of major shareholders.

What can be said without a doubt is that this is a sizeable trade in ANGS terms. It's not every day that over 2.6% of any company's entire shares in issue get moved in one transaction.

gkb, there are (yet again) two curious things about today's large share dump.

1. That's not an insignificant action. Who knows or thinks they know what? Especially given we're all being assured by George and his acolytes that funding's in the bag, "imminent" and just awaiting i's to be dotted and t's to be crossed. So why bail out so categorically now?

2. Entirely on the other hand, who soaked up these share and why?

Fine... but one surely has to ask oneself why would someone vote so decisively with their feet when this "new dawn" is literally so "imminent"?

I'm not at all sure it's Tidswell - if it was, I wonder if that would be reportable? Not under TR-1, but in Angus's "major shareholders" list.

However, I do think it's reasonable to assume that someone deciding to divest themselves of that many shares either knows something or thinks they do. That is a concern - I doubt that all is as well within the House of Angus as some are still trying to assure everyone.

That's a fair chunk if accurately reported. Over 2.6% of the company's issued shares...

I wonder who? Will we shortly see a TR-1 (of the wrong way type)? I'd guess that someone certainly knows something that's not too encouraging regarding ANGS... or at least thinks they do.

One would think it somewhat counterintuitive to see such a large apparent sell, at the exact same time as the cheerleaders are frantically brandishing their pompoms for all they are worth and assuring anyone who'll listen that millions of pounds of financed funding are already in the bag and just a day or two away from being announced as cast-iron...

Highroller that's a reasonable and well-advised post. I would merely make two points.

The first is that anything said by George in reply to Malcy's lovingly lobbed and paid-for softballs is not in any way legally binding. One may only rely on what's been stated in official RNSes (and with ANGS, even that's difficult).

Secondly and in relation to the auditors, I'd repeat gkb's advice to compare and contrast the wording used by the auditors in this year's report with that used in the one from 12 months ago.

Highroller, to correct one inaccuracy (propagated by Ocelot among other cheerleaders)...

Angus does not, repeat not have"an oversubscription for the funding". Instead it has two separate, as yet noncommittal and - here's the key point - mutually exclusive potential offers. One is £3 to £4 million short of what's needed and the other £1 million short. The company simply cannot take up both (if they ever become concrete) - nor has George even during his wilder fairy stories claimed otherwise.

What I still to this day find simply baffling is that to the cheerleaders and the blinkered, it's those holding less than positive opinions that are in some way the deeply evil "bad guys"? After all, it can't POSSIBLY be those who've been entrusted with PIs' hard-earned cash against promises they've issued and who have frittered it repeatedly away that are at fault, can it?

Let me say this again. If George and his BoD wish to very simpy reverse investor sentiment, all they need do is this:

Actually and for once deliver on assurances made in various RNSes that they've issued... do that within the timescales that they've also assured via RNS... and at the cost that they've again assured via RNS. It's not rocket science.

Oh and in tandem with the above, perhaps George and his BoD should also stop deciding to award themselves average 52% pay rises after yet another year of abject failure to deliver or keep to any assurances. That's never an action that's liable to win friends or influence people.

That's allegedly some anti-Angus group.

It's just one of the usual trite myths desperately pointed to by those looking to mislead and those still desperate to believe in the face of all the fast-mounting evidence to explain away the existence of anyone having less than positive opinions.

The same thing happens all over share bulletin boards. Anyone with a more negative opinion (according to the shills and the blinkered anyways) simply *must* be part of some anti-company conspiracy, or a member of the legendary Evil Global Shorting Group (tm), or a pick-pocketing Market Maker or whatever.

You'd think that by now, people could have come up with a halfway more logical explanation....

Of course, the far FAR more rational explanation would be that more and more people are waking up and smelling the coffee re ANGS.

This is not helpful for the many cheerleaders with an agenda here. Nor is it relaxing for those desperately clutching the tatters of their confirmation bias to themselves like a rapidly disintegrating comfort blanket.

Hey, never mind. Screwing one's eyes shut tight and jamming one's fingers in one's ears is always the best policy to make sure that the concerning reality of things goes away, isn't it?

BV in terms of ANGS selling its "assets" and the worth it could generate by so doing, fortunately the company itself has inadvertently given us a recent and very useful yardstick.

Take Saltfleetby. According to the ANGS BoD, the jewel in the Angus crown, a field whose resources are just gagging to be exploited... what was that worth? One pound, that's what.

Oh no, hang on a sec. The value of Poundland Gas when acquired by ANGS was actually minus £2,499,999, because the previous owner had to pay ANGS to take on its ownership, given the decommissioning liabilities.

So, that's what the jewel in the ANGS crown is worth, with all the easily exploitable riches it has within it. Now, against that yardstick, whaddya reckon the value of Lidsey is, with it producing well under 10 barrels of oil a day last year? Or Balcombe, that's never produced a drip and has had latest frantic yet bizarre attempts to get renewed planning permission refused? Or Brockham, the long-dead duster?

Answers on a microscopically small postcard, please....