Member Info for oldspursfan

You're right TC in that the line could be linked to offers received, or linked to getting offers in or abandoning a sale, we don't know, it's just a statement open to interpretation at this stage.

Similarly, given their statement last year that it's highly unusual not to ask for a renewal of authority to place at an AGM, what makes the next 12 months highly unusual, as they havent asked for it? Could it be a sale is close so they know they won't need to place, or have they already agreed another large placing using this year's authority and we'll hear about it next week (they may suspect shareholder sentiment is against them right now, so don't want to stir any more than they have to)?

We'll find out, but yes it's (yet more) conjecture as it currently stands.

Its been hard to boil down my questions to just 2, but they have now gone in. GLA.

HI CTC
Yes we voted on it via an EGM in April last year, that only lasted until the AGM last June, where it was refreshed (limit increased, but still approved). It's that authority from last year's AGM that only has three weeks left.

If the BoD wanted authority to issue shares, they would need two bits approved: authority to place up to a defined limit (ordinary resolution, 50% to pass), and a special resoultion to bypass existing shareholder pre-emption rights, basically allowing the BoD to place directly with financiers rather than using a rights issue/ open offer. That second bit needs 75% to pass.

Bit surprised they arent in the AGM, espcially given they themselves stated they are routine items and "It would be quite unusual not to seek authority" last year. Quite what that means going forward I dont know. What it does mean is, unless advised otherwise, we only have three weeks of "there's a placing coming" drivel to put up with.

On the plus side LeCham, you've got less than three weeks to keep floating that possibility. Authority to place shares doesnt form part of the AGM agenda, so the BoD would need to call a specific resolution for a vote.

SteJ - I've never been convinced the BoD would tell us plainly the credible party have pulled out, that isn't their style.

If you just read the RNSs from when the FSP started you'd think nothing bad has ever happened. It's all positive. However judged against the fact there is no formal offer in 2 years (which would have to be announced) it's easy to draw a logical conclusion that the interest they annouced has waned and we havent been told.

Do a search for the word "credible" or "proposal" or "due diligence" in the Annual Report and you won't find any reference to the sale process (the first two words don't even appear).

Given this was a pretty major development and announcements happened in 2021 (the period the report covers) you would have thought if they were on the cusp of slapping a formal offer on deck the BoD would have mentioned they exist? But no, no reference at all. THAT tells me (for one) the BoD have effectively blown it, they've walked and the BoD have decided the best way to announce it is to say absolutely nothing, pretend they didn't exist, and just use phrases such as "interested parties (blah blah) continuing".

Tygra 10:23 - good analogy mate. I really didn't like the way the October RNS shoehorned in the "we're also pursuing other interested parties" reference - thought at the time looked unprofessional and borderline disrespectful, and wouldn't be surprised if it put the credible party's nose out of joint a bit.

I was hoping the BoD would issue a separate specific update on the sale, but appears what they have put in the AR is all we are going to get. There is obviously a huge sticking point, more likely than not it's money. Guess we're into another few months of limbo whilst the new appointees being thrown at this try and get it unstuck.
GLA

Monty, the operating loss is driven mainly by Board salary/wages/"short term benefits" which have increased as the BoD has expanded.

Would be interesting to know what performance related measures all these new members have, as they certainly take from the Company.

Will need to read in depth, but not seeing immediately anything that explains the farce of a suspension, or exactly what stage we are at with sale. Couldn't see the phrase "credible party" leap out either, so they've probably walked as would expect them to shout if they are still around.

Still, let's see if Dels list have any items ticked off.

GLA

Oops, B1ll, me being a bit too shifty there...

Take care B!ll, understand your decision, hopefully see you investing here again soon (like the day after tomorrow maybe...) ;-)

Well at the very least we'll have an rns by thursday either publishing accounts or explaining wtf is going on (and any consequences).

Anything more than "the very least"? Come on BoD, surprise us!

I'm not holding my breath the Annual Report itself will contain much update as unfortunately what we are waiting on (as listed by Del) falls into the category of "Events After the Reporting Period" i.e. since 31 Dec 21. If the RNS reflect a complete list of post-reporting period events, that section will be very short indeed.

What is needed is a separate statement or RNS providing a comprehensive update on company activities and plans for the next half of the year. It's not really an 2021 Annual Report sort of thing. Will we get it?

Just catching up and want to echo the sentiments of other posters at this difficult time for you Kammy.

You're right when you say there are good people on this board, and I'm sure many many more who read but don't post, who would also wish you well.

Thoughts are with you buddy. ATB

Sounds like there is still quite some way to go. No more credible party possibly?

Evening Carl. I'm not sure that AIM unilaterally suspended us. Example recent rns from elsewhere shows AIM in top left, but suspension was at the Company's request:

"RNS Number : 4629C
AIM
23 February 2022

NOTICE



23/02/2022 7:30am



TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF TRADING ON AIM



ARENA EVENTS GROUP PLC



At the request of the Company, trading on AIM for the under-mentioned securities has been temporarily suspended from 23/02/2022 7:30am, pending an announcement.



ORDINARY SHARES OF 1P EACH, FULLY PAID (BF0HYJ2) (GB00BF0HYJ24)



If you have any queries relating to the above, please contact the company's nominated adviser on +44 (0)207 397 8099."

I think once a suspension to be actioned, its an AIM issued notice, but it doesn't necessarily mean its AIM causing it.

Well I for one expect a red dot tomorrow.

Sadly just for PMEs. My guess, at least 6 of them.

Agreed. I've been hoping for good news, braced for bad, but an announcement saying no reason? How do i react to that?

What the bloody hell has this all been about?

Mrnewbie - if you would be so kind as to do the full Jackie Weaver to those people (alongside read it and understand it), and add in "you have no authority here!"

I believe AIM Rule 1 would only apply at the point the NOMAD is lost, i.e. once they have left. We would have to suspend trading until a new one was appointed (or delist if we remain without a NOMAD after 30 days). NOMAD leaving would only be the case if they resigned with immediate effect, and would have to be stated at the time.

Accounts - depends when they fall due, but again would this not apply only once the deadline had passed and no acounts have been filed, not days/ weeks in advance?

Everything points to this being a suspension by choice, Rule 15 is the obvious candidate of the three you've mentioned.

Unfortunately from my pov champions league now being "Spurs' to lose" is possibly nerve racking than anything! I seriously wouldn't rule out a loss at Norwich who have nothing to play for.

Everton however will be another tough one for your lot as they're getting some goalscoring form, and as you say Les the desire seems to be all but gone from Arsenal judging by the last couple of games.

Hands up, who got a vox alert only to find it was ggp?

..or a record date 2 months in the past. It will have changed for any number of reasons