Member Info for OneDayRodney1

Jiff: the last time this was mentioned here it appeared we had stopped paying monies for lobbying. Can you post a link to where you got this info please? Does it say whether any monies been paid since March2019?

Good morning Bezzy
Baker Hughes didn't announce anything when the MOU was entered so I think it is highly unlikely we will hear anything from them in relation to that. They probably enter them all the time and so don't bother publicising them.
Any production deal would be a different matter though and they would be obligated to inform their shareholders of that in a timely manner, as would BP or any other major.
GLA

Jonathan: this is the great thing about this board. There are so many of us, all invested up to our respective hilts, and we are all together in wanting it to come good. We are blessed with some guys who have the time and skills to find information to keep us alive and excited. For what it is worth (nothing) I do believe the fact we are still alive and that the positive signs (personal guarantees, Ukraine bid) outweigh the negatives (losing court cases, no money), and that one day (Rodney) the RNS we are all hoping for, will arrive.
When that happens I am looking forward to sharing many beers with you guys.

Indeed; it does seem to be still up alas. Lightstep must be getting very very worried by now given we are still alive ...

Jiff: I apologise for my ignorance but I haven't got a clue what you're talking about. If it is relevant to FRR please explain.
I see you are feeling positive; not surprised given the cricket :((

Bezzy/Arnie: I am sure this corporate governance text has been there since last autumn. It was discussed in a positive way then. Sorry!

Bezzy: I think so.
There is also the Mourant action in the Caymans, which could come to a head at any time now, as the writ was issued on 23 July and once it has been served (has to be within 4 months), Steve and Zaza have 14 days to respond. Presumably they would have set out to serve the writ asap so one would have thought something would happen anytime. However, if the debt was settled would we hear about it? Any lawyers care to share their view? Oopsi?

Looed: absolutely no need to apologise; I was just highlighting it to others. It is great to see you continuing to find these articles and sharing them on here.
Cheers.

If you're in the office working like me, turn your laptop volume down before clicking on Looed's link ... or you will get a blast of noise that will rumble you!!!

Haha Tsbs :-))

In your eyes, a 'green box hedge' ;)

Goit: maybe filter the idiot like I have ... you just see non contentious green lines :)

Poorboy: any share issues would have had to have been RNSd so I would be very surprised if that was the case tbh.

Not being on AIM doesn't stop share transactions taking place between a willing buyer and seller. So, unless I am mistaken (which is very possible!) I think that they could issue anything up to 1.489billion shares (the difference between the issued shares and the authorised capital). If this was done at 0.29p (say) it would equate to £4.318m (I think!). Obviously given what some of us believe that price would be completely inappropriate and so they should be able to issue the shares at a much higher price.

Kipperman: re bankrolling, they could perhaps have purchased more shares (there is headroom) or they could have loaned the Company monies. However the fact that we know the Mourant bill hasn't been paid and that they are now being personally sued suggests neither of the above. The personal guarantee does clearly provide irrefutable evidence that they're personally supporting the business and don't want it to fail and so implies that they believe their shareholdings are their way to the riches. In their situation it is quite plausible that they would allow their salaries to be rolled up; they don't need the money and hopefully have the knowledge that gives them the confidence that they will ultimately be paid.
So, in summary, from the evidence available to us, it is more reasonable to conclude that Zaza and Steve are on the same side as us, than not.

Kipperman: I can only see 2016 accounts too, although I was convinced that there had been more recent summary figures, but I cannot find them. In terms of the $1.4m deferred salaries from 2015 and 2016, what makes you 'pretty sure that they have been paid since'?

Kippermanbike: How could Steve and Zaza have taken our cash? We've had audited accounts.

I should imagine firms of lawyers will be flocking to advertise there ... ;)

mapp: good to see that rumours of your demise were unfounded ... but please don't overdo it now that you are back posting; you were missed ... but not that much ;)!

Pompey: there's been no announcement. If you look back on the board to late yesterday you will see that baggage1 (perhaps with mischevious intentions raised the question and was appropriately responded to).