Member Info for JD-Nau

Lockedin, if the requisition were held today I would definitely vote to get rid of S&S as I think that they have underperformed for years here and, as has been mentioned by numerous other shareholders, their salary and bonus packages are outrageous compared to what they have delivered in terms of shareholder value.

I also do not like the fact that they are always so economical with the truth. They promised a £4 million return to shareholders and then immediately knocked this down to £3.25 million when they instigated the share buyback program of £750k. Except, the share buyback program never really happened. It stalled at £150k bought and they announced themselves £750k options. So in short, shareholders were promised £4 million, which was reduced to £3.25 million but S&S got £750k. Once again, shareholders are lies to, they lose out and S&S pocket a big chunk of change.

However, as I have said before, if circumstances change then I am happy to change my voting intentions. There are two big short-term issues facing RBD shareholders at the moment in my opinion.

Firstly, there is the will the / won’t the Shell money arrive and if it does, will S&S follow through on their promise to return cash to shareholders? My expectation is that they will not, as they only ever seem to have their own interests at heart, but if they do then it will be a positive in the vote for them column.

Secondly, there is the issue about Colle Santo. This appears to be a fantastic asset that will deliver millions and millions of value to shareholders in the short term once the production is approved. You highlighted to me in your November 9th post that the company had announced in their RNS that: “"Following a review with the heads of Environment, Energy, and Mining of the Abruzzo Region, the Abruzzo regional government confirmed its agreement with, and intention to approve, by decree, the Early Production Programme for the Colle Santo gas field, allowing early revenue generation from the Colle Santo project." And that gave me enormous hope that we would be producing revenue from this field by early 2024 as the company also said that they would get approval to produce before the end of 2023.

However, since your post there has been an enormous amount of detail posted on here by Heid, presumably via KS, from Italian media that says quite the opposite. We very much need to know who is telling the truth.

If S&S can deliver the production permits for Colle Santo by the end of the year as they promised and they also return the promised funds to shareholder, then that gives reason to vote for them. But will they? Their track record says no.

Ultimately, the law, Companies Act 2006, says that the vote will have to go ahead as long as the requisition request is properly filed and meets certain criteria, ie the petitioners possess the required percentage of the company to call the requisition.

It seems that the percentage requirement has bene met and there is no argument about this. However, the percentage requirement was met in the announcement made on the 8th November and then after almost a week of silence, and presumably analysis by RBD's legal team, it was rejected by the board on the 14th for legal technicalities. This meant that the requisition process only started again yesterday when the company received the second requisition.

What concerns me is that the company will waste shareholders time and money paying more lawyers to try and get this requisition rejected on a technicality again and just try to stall the legal process for an indefinite period of time.

Let's hope I am wrong. We deserves to hear the arguments from both sides and vote on who we think will be best placed to deliver value for shareholders going forwards.

So your imaginary students submitted an imaginary essay of one word did they? I bet you gave them an imaginary A.

My concern is no the fact that they can avoid calling the requisition, its more that they will try to wriggle out of it on technicalities. After all, they have already managed to delay things for over a week. Lets hope that KS and his lawyers have ticked every box in the right place this time.

What is going to be extremely interesting is the information that will come out in the leadup to the requisition. Heid has made some strong claims about erroneous management in the acquisition of Colle Santo and about failures to consider offers for Daybreak. I am sure all of this information will come out in the lead-up to the vote.

It will be enlightening to all shareholders to see in detail what these claims are and what S&S's response it.

There is no sense in getting too worked up about the price of gas and oil at the moment if you ask me. As long as Angus are profitably producing then they will be able to service debt and as long as they are able to service debt then they will refinance their loans. That is the key issue now, refinancing the loans.

My concern is that S&S try to avoid holding the requisition at all. It's the sort of thing that they would do - try and weasel out of it on a technicality.

Legally the date of the requisition has to be 21 days from the receipt of the requisition notice and then no more than 28 days from the announcement. So by my calculations they could string this out until January. Happy to be wrong though.

Damned with faint praise...

Let's see your 4,000 word essay on why to no invest in Block then. Come on you promised it. At the moment, all you have given is short unintelligible rants mostly in capital letters. It is not a very convincing argument. As somebody who claims to lecture on investing, surely you can do better? I await the 4,000 word essay with interest.

Heid has made a number of promises on behalf of KS, which need to be delivered. Or KS needs to formally disassociate himself with these posts that are apparently being made on his behalf.

If the accusations that Heid is making are true then there are very serious questions for S&S to answer and it does look as if they are not fit custodians to run RBD. But at the moment they are just that - unfounded accusations on the LSE forum. I await to see the evidence.

Just finished a class teaching the art of investing to the students...oddly i used BLOE as a prime example of where not to invest...what a coincidence hey....

No Sarah, you haven't. This is just another example of your made up nonsense.

They have bought about £150k Reabold shares in the buyback program by my calculations.

That will damage Alex Chesterman as he will no longer have any control over the company, but I am not sure it will make any difference to the value of his shareholding in the company as the debt owed will be wiped out to counter the issue of more shares. The value of the stock should remain roughly the same but the control will be in different hands.

Has it actually been submitted yet? Are they not legally required t announced that it has been received once it has been?

We find out in 10 days.

Moniman - yes, exactly. But just like the Daybreak situation with the Strand Hanson minutes it should be easy enough to clear up. All the board have to do is inform us that they have a written confirmation from the Abruzzo authorities that they have been approved for the two year production test and all is well. If they cannot provide this then the future looks bleak for Colle Santo and it raises big questions as to why they put in the additional £150k last week.

With the requisition looming on the imminent horizon, this is not a question that S&S are going to be able to avoid answering.

Oofy, but you are acting as if Angus is not making any money from Saltfleetby when the annual accounts clearly show that it is. All you have to do is check the half yearly statement ending March 31st and you can see that they made a revenue of 16.466 million against a cost of sales of 2.356 million. If you ignore the depletion figure which is just an accounting device then they made £14 million in 6 months (£12 million operating profit).

Of course the company have short term debts to serve but they just have to refinance the debt over a longer term and debt is not difficult to service debt when you have cash-flow, which they do. £22 million of debt is not a lot of money if you are making £12 million operating profit in 6 months. Even if they were only making £12 million a year then £20 million of debt would be easily serviceable over a 5 year period, so there is a lot of wriggle room there for production fluctuation.

If you are suggesting (and apologies if you are not) that the company is deliberately being run under to distress it in order to facilitate a discounted takeover, I don’t give any credence to this idea whatsoever. I am fine with my investment and don't think I need to worry about a distressed sale. If you think that this is a serious concern I suggest that you sell out.

More than that, if it is just a nod and a wink, why is it being announced to shareholder that a deal has been done?

Honestly, I cannot believe that even S&S would make the announcement that "Following a review with the heads of Environment, Energy, and Mining of the Abruzzo Region, the Abruzzo regional government confirmed its agreement with, and intention to approve, by decree, the Early Production Programme for the Colle Santo gas field, allowing early revenue generation from the Colle Santo project." if they did not have somethign in writing. To announce this without any evidence would be so incompetent and negligent that it would border on criminal.

I still have faith that they must have something more concrete than a nod and a wink, but the onus is on S&S to prove this now; just as the onus is on Kamran to prove that they were aware of the offers that he claims to have brought them on Daybreak.

WG - You said in your last post: " If they continue on the same tack, they will hit the 17.5 barg critical point anytime from late October 2023 up until March 2024 at the very latest."

That statement is technically true but it is also nonsense. It is a bit like saying that if an F1 car doesn't refuel during a race it will run out of petrol and not finish the race. It is true, but it is not going to happen as they know this too and so will refuel. It is simply not going to happen and is therefore just scaremongering for your own ends.

Well he needs to get a move on sooner rather than later. If he has the evidence on the Daybreak deals then it should be simple enough to publish it. He is putting himself forwards as a responsible custodian of RBD and shareholders funds, so he also has to deliver on his promises.