Member Info for Serif

Not what I saw in the presentation. He was very clear - no more Serenity type adventures with dilution. West Africa - if that’s what it’s going to be (like it or not) - would come out of Wressle revenue.

I thought they said at the investor meeting on 8/11 that it was back in production and that they would inform us of stabilised rates once established. They said 2-3 weeks at that point, so as it’s an Egdon timescale 4-6 weeks is presumably what they meant - which would be any time from now onwards.

There was a large seller yesterday who came on this board to say so. Don’t see any evidence for an overhang of shares. There’s a difference between criticising management and talking down a share.

I don’t care what they earn so long as it’s performance related - that’s the issue.

WA must hold enough in his own name to request an EGM - and his support would probably ensure the vote goes from 33% to over 50%?

@copper3 - did you see the planning schedule that was posted on Twitter? Still waiting for this and the flow update to come from EDR - info flow from the operator has not yet improved since Heyco took over.

Looking at current SP seems ridiculous - we are still a cash rich company with what promises to be good revenue flow from Wressle. However outrageous the annual salaries they are paying themselves it is little more than one month of Wressle production, so there is great potential in the company to do better.

@dflynch. It goes back further than that. There was a large vote against SO last year which is when the Board should have addressed the issue in a proactive way rather than allowing it to fester on and damage the company.

Presumably those were the shareholders who had bothered to vote through their nominee accounts.

I thought that was changing. I certainly have been asked recently by a broker if I want to give permission to “loan” out my shares for a small cut on what they make on this.

Sharesoc link on the rules of who does/doesn’t count as a member on register -

https://www.sharesoc.org/investor-academy/advanced-topics/nominee-accounts/

I am amazed that there is nothing coming from eog to show that they recognise and intend to respond in a positive way to get shareholders back onside. If they continue to ignore the votes they may well win (imv) the EGM votes but still lose the support of a significant chunk of retail investors - which would be a lousy outcome for everyone. Why would they do this, when they could both probably secure the vote and win back many except the diehards by some sensible flexibility in compensation approach?

As WA knows all the people involved better than any of us, would be very interesting to know his position on everything that is going on.

Thanks. Reference to Morocco was because EOG spent several years analysing data there on a huge licence - told us how wonderful it was - then surrendered it because no one was interested in farming in. Sound familiar?!

Can you explain the Africa reference for those that weren’t there? Brings back unhappy memories of Hugh’s legacy of Morocco.

He can have as many non-execs as he wants so long as he can demonstrate that they add value to the company. Whats been infuriating is that salary/Director costs have continued to inflate over the years but the SP has done nothing but sink - well below its current assets value. We are now a languishing second division company with a management team on Premier League salaries (albeit lower quartile!).

Unfortunately there are a thousand different ways to wreck a company - one of which is to consistently misalign with shareholders interests.

Credible strategy to growth keeping safe best bits of portfolio (Ireland/Wressle) and showing route to growth that’s not going to take 10 years more or gamble it all on one big shot. Combined with clear “money where their mouth is” commitment to shareholder alignment - to feel we are in same boat. Need opp for plans to be properly scrutinised to ensure they are likely to work.

Don’t care if WH comes up with this or someone else, so long as their plans stack up and looks like it’s got a better percentage chance to give me a return on my investment than anything else on offer.

Point is that looking at the figures there now needs to be a more positive case for change to swing votes over (cos otherwise need to double anti vote which looks an unlikely call) - prob maxed out the “get rid of them” vote, so now need to make a more concrete case FOR a particular change that could win over more votes.

Think the anti vote was galvanised hence the results on non-execs. Seeing the figures on AS doubt there would be sufficient in favour of removing WH at this point - where would the votes be coming from to give a very different result?

To move on properly I want to see how the remaining Board react to the underlying message - now show how you are going to demonstrate personal commitment/exposure to the SP performance.