Member Info for ocelot

Penguins,

You've rather confirmed my point, that naysayers perform the useful function (from an investor's point of view) of ensuring bad news, real and imagined, is in the share price.

They ensure all conceivable bad news, whether grounded in reality or imagined, is in the share price, thereby priming the share to rise on any good news.

Would vote at the GM, because that is to secure funding for Turkey.

But, as a long-term shareholder, am not concerned by Rodders Jones's initiative.

How can you pretend to be able to recruit new management when you have warned potential candidates you may "grow a dislike for (their) behaviours" and have expressed no opinion concerning an alternative management strategy?

Why. I don't know of any company that requires you to buy their shares if you go to work for them.
----------------------------
Ibug,

Are you saying you disagree with those who were complaining that SS had not invested in the company?

Why should someone take a pay cut on joining compared to what the last incumbent was earning.
-----------------------
Because Rodders Jones criticises management and one of the persistent criticisms of management has been the level of SS's remuneration.

As the self-appointed spokesman for UKOG management's critics, Rodders Jones will be keen to be seen to act as these critics wish.

Rodders Jones has criticised management.

Criticism is easy, it's being constructive that is harder: what alternative management strategy and management is he proposing?

Presumably, any new management will be required to accept a reduction in the level of its remuneration and to commit to invest a chunk of that remuneration in UKOG.

Our concerns are not the same, elir71.

Yours is to assert shareholder rights.

Mine is to preserve flexibility and minimise costs.

spot gold closing the week above $1,900

No, not familiar with primary bid.

No objection to the size of the authority to raise, it's the disapplication of pre-emption rights I'm against, because it obliges Alba to undertake an open offer, which means that every shareholder has to be informed of the offer.

In Alba's case, think it is inappropriate, because it is unnecessarily costly by comparison to a placing alone and because there is no guarantee it will raise any money, in the event of a share price decline, for whatever reason. While I've been following Alba, they've always given the impression of being highly cost-conscious so they have my confidence and I do not seek to impose upon them unnecessary constraints.

In the instance of your stock, most of the funds were raised through the placing, the open offer simply topped up the placing with an additional £1m.

If one believes Alba's share is likely to rise, then one doesn't want them to raise more than necessary now because they should be able to raise at a higher price further out.

You're quite right, cyan2, not sure what I was thinking of there.

Rodders Jones states on his site that he has "grown a dislike of the behaviours" of management.

So, when he seeks to recruit alternative management, what is he going to do? Promise not to grow a dislike of the new management?

Any potential new management is going to insist on contracts set in stone with tough penalty clauses, aren't they?

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. (my capitals)

Because the RNS speaks of a percentage of the net salary, the directors' commitment is larger than it may first appear.

elir,

Just to point out: your stock raised a total of £6.5m, Alba's last placing, of 25/11/20, was for £1.2m, we are not talking about the same magnitudes.

On the surface, the cost of a placing and open offer looks almost prohibitively expensive for Alba, I would have thought.

OK, elir71, discount of 0.20p vis-a-vis the price before the announcement of 2.9p, nothing to say about that, that's a pretty tight discount.

It's the day before the announcement that matters, the next day will already reflect the announcement.

PS: can't see Alba being very happy to be lumbered with those costs, even if reduced for a smaller raise in Alba's case.

elir71,

Doubt the costs are proportional to the size of the raise, which is why, if a company is obliged to undertake a placing and open offer, it is likely to prompt a company to raise more than otherwise.

What discount to the prevailing share price was the placing price of 2.7p?

The derampers weren't asking them to put a squeeze on the stock, they were asking them to buy in, which they will now be doing.

The above-mentioned gentlemen should be rejoicing, it has been the complaint of ages that directors have not bought into the company: now they will do so.

danpoe,

It won't be flying anywhere on Bank holiday Monday, it may do so on Tuesday.