Member Info for RMR1969

I guess we all have differing timescales and levels of patience, however I sold one of my rental properties last year, pre Covid, about as simple a transaction as you could wish for, no upward chain, 'new' estate, no issues at all, from offer to completion took just over 3 months. How long could a multi billion dollar asset sale take on that basis.............!

Also the people who say we have little information from the Board, well 3 RNS's in the last 3 months, one of which was very thorough and detailed, I called the company some weeks ago and the call was answered promptly and helpfully, I wrote to the company previously and received a polite and helpful email pretty much by return.

At this stage I have no issue with communication, my assumption is the information people are looking for has not been shared because it cannot be, and after all this time, for me personally, that is a good sign.

Just felt I needed to to 'challenge' the voices on here complaining about lack of communication, I am not sure it is fair, you just haven't had the news you want.

Excellent information, why are not all BB as sensible, helpful and good as this one.

Genuine thanks BottleRocket, you are a gent.

Whatever the truth regarding NDAs in place or not - I have to say that the company has done a flipping good job of keeping any leaks at bay, outside of the RNS's I can't think of any possible leaks of information at all either positive or negative, except perhaps the SP Angel situation, but to be fair that could quite easily have been sensible guesswork as they were the obvious choice, other than that just pure speculation, bearing in mind the time since suspension, that is actually pretty impressive.

I am surprised that this is still the case after 4 months or more, and just to be clear, I see this as a good sign.

In the latest RNS the update on suspension was as follows:

"Following social media speculation, trading in the Company's ordinary shares was suspended on the AIM market on 11 February 2020, pending clarification of its relationship with CITIC, and an interim clarification was provided that the Company's relationship was with CITIC Merchant Co Limited ("CITIC Merchant") on 9 April 2020.

The Company will make a further announcement in due course regarding the status of CITIC Merchant's role and strategic options for the Company's current mining assets. The Company's shares remain suspended pending further notification."

So, in essence, clarification has been given in the sense of exactly who EUA have been speaking with, and as I said previously this is the arm of CITIC you would expect them to be dealing with, is it not?

I also note that the second paragraph goes on to say that EUA will make a further announcement to clarify the status of CITIC Merchant's role and the strategic options for the company's mining assets.

The wording in the following sentence regarding continued suspension then changes from 'clarification' to 'notification' - quite an important change one could suggest........I remain positive here.

Maybe I am reading too much into it..........

SpikeyJ - thats a reasonable assessment from your perspective and arguably fits the timeline of events. It is a view that should be acknowledged and respected in my view.

However what is your view on the following:

1. new Nomad appointed after presumably carrying out extensive DD and happy to represent the company
2. Appointment of Iain Rawlinson to the 'execution team' - vastly experienced in M&A
3. Imminent approval of flanks application
4. Value of the resources the company owns and the the clear demand for such resources in the market place
5. Continued mention in official, presumably validated RNS's, regarding the strategic options for the assets
6. The exercising of warrants by employees
7. The interim clarification of the relationship with CITIC Merchant Bank, which at the end of the day is the arm of CITIC you would expect them to be talking too

As I have said before, I don't mind alternative views, it helps understanding and I am genuinely interested in your thoughts on the above and how they fit in your current perspective of the situation here.

Best Regards

RMR1969

GFD - and we have a number of high profile people join the Board in the last couple of years - are we to assume and believe that they are all 'in on it' - methinks not, just not plausible at all.

Time will tell, reputations will be won and lost here and I am not just talking about the EUA 'Board'.............!

GLA

SpikeyJ - true enough, however not many, if any, of this 'potential' size and complexity.

If EUA were able to demonstrate that any potential purchase was likely to take months rather than weeks that may have been enough to convince AIM that the share should remain suspended, there will likely be dozens of people 'in the know,' probably more than usual in such circumstances due the aforementioned size and complexity of the deal so it could be deemed exceptional.

I do appreciate that perhaps I am fitting the circumstances to suit my argument, but to be honest that is really all of us do, including yourself, so nothing really wrong in that.

In the absence of the absolute facts we can but speculate, surely you would have to admit that the news we have had since suspension points more likely to to a sale than not:

- employee options exercised
- Nomad replaced (following extensive DD no doubt)
- appointment of Iain Rawlinson
- wording in RNS's such as 'execution team'
- "discussions continuing with potential buyers"
- issues in SA mentioned
- devaluation of Russian currency
- flanks approval stated as 'imminent'
- additional licences sought or extended
- operational update on WK
- "well positioned to take advantage of the right strategic options for our assets"
- "making progress on our M&A plans"

All the above from the last few RNS's. As I have admitted, there have been times when I have had my concerns and wondered if I have this all wrong, if you are honest SpikeyJ I am sure you have too! There is most certainly an equally strong, probably stronger argument for a positive outcome here as there is your more pessimistic one.

Mac4671 - a very good point which to be honest I don't think has really been mentioned on here before, at least not quite like this, and I have read most posts......

"Multiple potential buyers, multiple NDAs, it was and probably is easier for all of them involved to have it suspended."

Reason enough for the company to request that the share remain suspended and I am sure AIM would have no choice but to agree based on what may be happening, they do not want a leak and a disorderly market, with so many people 'in the know' it would only be a matter of time before something got out with 'friends of friends' buying large volumes of shares, people second guessing what was happening and the share price spiking up and down, and as we now realise, with so much at stake, and so much to finalise, that would have been going on for months and months.............the only way to prevent that was to be suspended.

I have said before, despite how people feel today, we may look back on this and say what a clever way the Board managed this situation.

It is easy to get nervous and start to doubt what is happening here, I am sure if we are all honest we have all had moments of concern which is what the derampers prey on.

So, I just re read the recent RNS’s again as I had a few minutes to spare and it is so clear where this is going. So if you are having one of those moments I would urge you to do the same, I had read the RNS’s before of course, but doing so again one after the other really helps clarify what is going on.

People on here have criticised the BOD but they have shared a significant amount of information in recent weeks, I know SpikeyJ and the crew will go on about Citic this and Citic that but I genuinely believe that is just a side show to the main event.

GLA, exciting times ahead!

Once the 5% 'fair market value' has been agreed, I assume the share price would re rate to a price based on this figure almost immediately, would that be right?

Like others have said, I find it unlikely this could happen before the MRE is shared unless some deal can be struck entitling GGP to a % of profits above a certain amount which would protect shareholders going forward should the estimate prove to be under cooked.........not impossible I guess if there was a desire to get on with the actual mining.

Like many I am sure, I have had my concerns for brief moments during this suspension, however my view now is this - IF the reason for suspension had been some misdemeanour by the company then some 4 months on we would most certainly have heard what it was, had some form of communication from the authorities or the company itself, seen some action taking and communicated through an RNS about what was happening and how it was to be resolved, there is nothing which could not have been understood, communicated and resolved in that time.

There can only be one reason we have heard nothing of the kind, on the contrary all we have actually heard officially and which we know to be true is the small, but very important positive changes which have been communicated properly through RNS, nothing negative has been leaked in any media of standing that I have seen, only a few trolls making up theories, if there were something real it would have come out by now, it always has and always does.

I appreciate there will be those out there who don't believe for all sorts of reasons, but I am more positive then ever of a good result here, I am not saying we will be bought out for some of the figures suggested on here, but I do think it will be good.

Just review and re read what we actually do know to be true, officially and also review the timelines in which that news has come, it sits together very well indeed........................

GLA

SpikeyJ - not necessarily sure that it would neeed to be declared the moment it happened, but could possibly be declared (if indeed it happened) when the appropriate RNS appears detailing the broader picture - they could not really declare it without sharing a fuller picture could they, it would somewhat give the game away.................what regulation states it should be declared immediately if it forms part of a larger scenario.....?

It is a just a view to counter your argument that the lapsing of warrants suggests the BOD feel they are worthless, I happen to not agree with that so merely wanted to paint an alternative view which I think has some merit, at least as much as your own.

Personally I am happy for posters such as yourself to put up thoughts, it allows others to provide counter arguments and I believe that has been done pretty well on this BB.

I have less time for posters who post out and out lies such as Frankey with regards to his /her SXX involvement, they were truly found out!

SpikeyJ - it is quite feasible that the warrants were simply allowed to expire at this time when the underlying shares are suspended. This can happen where there is an ‘extraordinary event’ happening in the background. Look it up. I think we could guess what that event may be.

At such times alternative arrangements may be made with the warrant holder and we have no idea if that has happened here already, it may well be that compensation for the warrants is all wrapped up in any offer. Who knows?

On his recent interview with Proactive GH stated at the end ‘more good news for shareholders soon hopefully’ - feels like ducks being lined up for something. No reason to say what he did if he didn’t have something in mind........

GLA

should be filtered by all, he is has been clearly shown to not tell the truth with regards SXX, so obviously an agenda with him/her, my suggestion is that they be totally ignored from hereon in.

TDT - not sure that is actually true, I only know because on 12th Feb I replied to a question regarding the number of shares there were in EUA, you will see it in my history.

At that time, 12th Feb, the EUA website was showing 141m options as well as the warrants. I mention it in my post.

So to say they were not there on the 19th Feb I find hard to fathom.

Now, what may be interesting is that, as well as removing the expired warrants, it currently shows ‘just’ 130m options outstanding, some 11m difference from the 12th which I have mentioned on here previously. I cannot explain that.

Yea I get that, the pathway to 70% is to my mind already ‘baked into’ the share price, however to my kind the 5% is not. Am I wrong?

Mushroomkid - don't NC only have 70% at present with an entitlement to buy the additional 5% at 'fair market value' - that 5% would therefore need to be considered also in your calculations of share price would it not?

No. I think he thought I will have more money than I know what to do with in a few months, a measly few extra million is nothing, not worth the paperwork and I don’t want to dilute the shareholders anymore.

This is all over the place, maths is all wrong and so your post is lost on me I am afraid.

Always possible that the share consolidates in time but I am personally unsure why they would choose to do that just yet.

Maybe, and it’s a long shot, the share was looking to trade on a different exchange then consolidation may be seen as a way of reducing share volumes and making the price more attractive to professional buyers.

But for the moment it is not something I think will be happening.