Member Info for oldspursfan

I've reported your post stretch for a completely unwarranted use of the word "goon". Can't you read ffs?

Also nothing I stated was speculative.

Offler, I think considering EUA have stopped all operational activity, mothballed rather than continue exploring its flagship license area, desperately don't want to take anything into proper production yet haven't managed to secure any offers yet from potential buyers, the CH classification seems about right:

"Companies House 08990 - Other mining and quarrying not elsewhere classified."

Mining in name only, all round

I've seen companies issue RNS's saying that a formal offer had been received for x amount per share but the Board rejected it as it wasn't seen as providing fair value to shareholders. Also recently posted an example. So I'm not sure if the truth sits more in between don't have to if don't want to, or must every time.

However I would say if the Board have rejected offers formally submitted on the grounds it was too low, this should be announced. Hence why I'm convinced CS's use of the phrase "No material offers" from a couple of AGMs ago translates as "No offers, but don't want to say that as it sounds bad." How far that situation has moved on since is a different question.

L) expected target maybe/maybe not date missed again. CS announces new strategy of trying for the longest ever RNS opening sentence "The Board announces that, further to the RNS announcements dated..."

Still using the word "expects" ffs, after failing to meet previous expectations. Will be 10 weeks overdue but hey guys no certainty at this stage yet.

Retire CS, stop bleeding the company dry

If it's a toss up between the BoD foregoing their monthly pay cheque until they actually sell something, or going into administration, you would like to think they would choose the former.

Richard the DFS the BoD are sitting on was produced using company funds, and relates to license areas the company holds. It's material information that should be made available to the market and shareholders ASAP.

There is no NDA in place that prevents the company providing details to shareholders of the outcome of material routine activities that shareholder funds paid for. It is basic comms I'm surprised the NOMAD haven't instructed EUA fulfil.

The A in NDA is Agreement, so who is that agreement with exactly?

Unless of course NDA stands for Non Disclosure Attitude...

Offler one could also ask why such a large loan to the subsidiary was made in a war/sanctions environment, when the state of the parent company finances was so fragile?

The money certainly hasn't been needed to that extent, and being able to get it back quickly was always a doubt if the war dragged on.

Some very strange business decisions recently.

It could mean either EIE01, it's what CS is very good at (weasel words).

IMO it is just as likely to mean "no guarantee a facility will be offered" as much as "no guarantee we will choose to activate what is offered".

RNS sadly as expected with the can now out of sight.

In the absence of anything happening the BoD have no reason to speak to us again for over 3 months (I would say after Nov has been and gone, when the clamour gets too loud).

Perhaps someone should mention to the BoD that SYME do Inventory finance? Looks like both companies need the boost.

I'm just impressed with EUAs strategy.

For the AGM: Given the stated strategy of not selling the mined concentrate until the global prices were more favourable, what actions have you taken to keep the value of our concentrate at maximum levels, and what do you believe the global prices would currently be had you not taken those actions?

Simple answer Offler? Bottom fell out of the market for the metals we had in the bucket.

But we should be grateful because thanks to the BoDs strategy of not selling until the global market price became more favourable, we can only imagine what trying to sell what we had would have done to the worldwide prices.

Astuteness all round.

At the risk of suggesting you are making this up, the Takeover Code is rather explicit:

2.2 When an announcement is required

An announcement is required:

when a firm intention to make an offer is notified to the board of the offeree company by or on behalf of an offeror, irrespective of the attitude of the board to the offer;

So IF the BoD had received a formal offer (40p, 65p, whatever) for the company, then an announcement is due, end of.

Class tests for significant transactions (AIM Rule 15 and Schedule 3):

"...any disposal which exceeds 75% in any of the class tests is deemed to be a disposal resulting in a "fundamental change of business"..." and requires a general meeting and vote.

Class test: Consideration test

Amount offered, as a percentage of the "Aggregate market value of all the ordinary shares"

So if the offer was a formal one for everything, or for a selection of assets, not all, but which was worth over 75% of the current market capitalisation, it triggers a vote.

The BoD's negative opinion of it doesn't mean they don't announce, just they recommend refusal.

It is really quite clear. We've had no vote called, so the BoD can not have declined a formal offer of 40p a share, or 65p or any other number you want to throw out there. At 2.3p, the 75% threshold is really low, much like the level of interest from what we've been told.

Example of what SHOULD happen if CS has received "lowball" offer(s) that he/ the BoD have unilaterally rejected.

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/WG./response-to-speculation-fg9uff2rv8x0pdl.html

Given that NDAs didn't cover the so called credible party's progress through the M&A process, step by step, any offer so rejected would IMO have also been announced, together with reasoning.

Moreover, if it was a premium to the SP (or >75% of market cap) I doubt they could automatically reject it, as the AIM Rules would demand a vote, even if they recommended rejection.

This of course assumes CS recognises his responsibility to keep shareholders adequately informed in a timely manner. Experience shows this to be a somewhat lousy assumption to make.

GLA

"Final stages" is my bet

B1ll, given our "flagship asset" at MT has been mothballed since about 2016, perhaps we should be rebranded to Eurasia Mothballing Ltd.

Anyone else think CS told the auditors to direct their queries through Yellow Jersey?

He is certainly trying to take no ownership of the accounts being further delayed. He's the "Executive Chairman" ffs so this failure to meet this most basic of mandatory operational requirements, is on him.

Actually Flightrisk we're only "over 2/3rds" the way through the ESTIMATED suspension period.

We haven't even got to 1/6th the maximum it could be before something has to happen.

Half way point, of the strongly confident four week estimate.

It's downhill from here! GLA

Just out of curiosity, what is the general condition of an Indian toilet?