Member Info for pijoe1212

agadem. pls note back to your employers .. pls... the deal is Class 1.. i have been asked to expressly to note this back to you.. thks

agadem..you are a total and utter insult to LSE BB's And to your employer..

just as a long holder.. who has considered the investment case: SAVP pls relist ..and Mr AK go forth in jeckey movements.. this was one of my 3 "new" investments for 2017 .. the other 2 have been good (sdx & sqz).. shame savp had potential.. class 1 transaction required... where is agadem to tell me Class 1 transaction is no big deal..(LOL pass that message back up the chain..)

i note no statement from AK at the end of the RNS telling us the garden is growing and all the flowers are in full bloom... or more to the point "sorry I cocked it up for current holders"

i know what he has said...but that does not make it fact. i read it as $125M inc the $30M... but as always savp RNS's leave "manoeuvring room" Adoubleuk - what do you think reading the english as you do?

is the $30M in the initial raise or not? so is it $125M plus $30M or $125M inc the $30M? back out soon so will print and read later...

i mean the deal is a turd.. i agree savp is not a turd...udog and sou have that honour...

OK..i take it back..other than you can not polish a turd

can you do me a favour and much as i like free speech ..read and think before you post further..you are currently *issing me right off- even more than you did before. you can not polish a turd.

the warrant shares to the placees...what price are the warrants excersiable at? the net cash..i make it $125M minus $42.5M minus $3.5M = $79M now to fees: i would estimate $15M to $30M..(hope the prospetus makes this clear), but lets say $20M so $59M net then there was the $20M keep the lights on funding to 7E ..(only just back so have not had time to review prior RNS, which seems to conflict with current RNS (but from memory)) so £39M to $59M...not $85M..oh minus G&A and whatever costs the non-drilling charge is... this is a bag-o-crap deal in my view...disgraceful. Value acreative my *rse to existing holders.. and to add insult ..no open offer to PI's to buy at 35p plus warrants..

It is nothing to do with timing and all about Nigeria...

Not... After afren (then 7e) which Il’s had any desire for Nigerian oily assets? Not many regardless of price is clearly the answer. And a great chunk of equity in the hands of bond holders would did not want equity in the first place. FAB value accretive deal by a FAB bod...you could not make it up

my option 2 from 07:31? looks like it to me...

thks for update. much appreciated.

jim if it is an equity issue , i would agree. if it is a UKLA or similar issue then could be back...but i think not. in my view there will be plenty of PI's look to get out (regardless of investment case being good or bad..PI's work in "they have had my money for too long and i can see greener grass") but few II's at work to take a buy mandate..so the pressure on the sp would be downwards by default..so in my view trading prior to the 2 / 3rd jan now very unlikely. one has to wonder what aim regulation think about this situation? but i guess they are sat thinking..." its AK again in normal operating mode"

jim..i think you are correct..my option 1 or 3 would not have prevented placing price RNS..and more importantly why the ASMA rns timeing and detial? if it was always part of the equity deal it would have been in an rns pre-book build

you say: "f...ing ruined" translation: "presenting a balanced case to counter the uber rampers from dominating and influencing PI's"

it is clearly speculation, but my view is one of the following has occurred: - last minute issue with a 7E bank (i.e. deal has always been premised on the local banks not enforcing security..but formal consent has always been assumed but not obtained- they played hard ball in the same situation over the afren re-financing) or similar with another asset class with security. or - book build failed to get to $250M..so ASMA stepped in with the extra $30M but needed the sweetner of the $60M..that was a material change to the bookbuild...so the equity raise is now "up for grabs"....compound that with going back to the 7E bondholders and saying "we promised you loads of sweets but the shopkeeper is running low so you can only have 80% of the sweets is that OK?"....in that situation the deal is back to risk committee approvals etc.. or - there are clauses in the prospectus (most likely relating to the finer detail of the SSN's) which UKLA do not like and that is holding up prospectus approval. now both of the above are my opinion on options only - not statements of facts...but i challenge anyone to post a more likely explanation.

diversified why are you upset? it is because you are finding it hard to post uber positive ramptastic rollocks in the current position? how can i (or others but they can speak for themselves) be bashing a stock which IS NOT TRADING!

very true......or this is now so stuck between 7E bod holders playing "hardball" and equity providers playing "catch me i'm the last bus" that the lawyers are saying "dont speak at all at all" either way wonce of bankers