Member Info for Soundingoff

Apologies, but if you were a banker, you'd know the FCA are about as useful as a chocolate teapot. Through my business, I've reported a number of individuals, some with direct, provable misconduct- information laid on a plate and they weren't interested in the slightest.

Indeed, but I'm sure they'll now moan about what they've got.

Did they scream at you because you've set the group up or because you've confirmed you're going to send a constructive letter to SD and not a poison pen one to JP?

Have a read of Prudent's post earlier test pack. This explains the realities around JVs and are quite common in O&G.

Sorry David, I missed your post.

'I know if I was the CEO of an asset management company taking over 51% of sound, it would make sense to buy out the rest of the company, take it private and have all the profits.
Can anyone tell me why they think this won't happen?'

Sound isn't being sold, our Eastern Morocco asset is being transferred into a JV. Or at least that's the aim of the deal that isn't yet a deal. Right now it's a heads of terms.

'If a cash offer had been made, and rebutted, then I'm sure the co. would now be buying with the intention of a hostile T/O. It would need c29% before a T/O bid was compulsory. Naturally the sp would rise after the 3% RNS, but probably no higher than 15p, and say an av. price for accumulating 30% is 12p so costs it, £35M.. If the sp went to 30p ( most on here would sell, according to their posts(, then it could get 30% for c£90, and 51% of company for c£150.M Thats why I believe no cash offers have been received. However, it may be biding it's time, gauging SH sentiment, and see how far this shambles can fall.'

In January, IIs bought around 40m shares or less than 4% of the share capital. This pushed the price from just over 10p to 30p. I think a buyer would have to pay multiples of those figures, if even possible. It'd be over half of PIs holdings to get to 30%.

'I think we can agree on one thing. the 9% needs to be removed from the deal. That is a very clear and unambiguous message to the company.'

Eric- It's a HOT, so it's impossible to say that without further details. I understand where trellis is coming from, and if done right, I can't see harm for any parties involved. However suggesting changes to a deal that doesn't yet exist is unequivocally wrong.

Eric- It's all ifs and buts at the moment. We need to understand why the 9% is included at a later date.

Noted trellis.

I agree with most of that Shaun. My concern is that emotions are high and that doesn't always make for the most conducive of environments. I hope the information collated can be used for construction dialogue.

I've just noted your 8:26pm post which obviously overlaps with my previous point.

And it goes without saying, that if you want to get somewhere with this (for example if you don't hit the percentages required) but hope to arrange a more informal meeting, then my view is that your posting from his point forward needs to be neutral and the disciple nonsense needs to stop. Representation of a significant proportion of shareholders is a privileged position.

I have really given it too much thought to be honest Exploration. We've all spent a lot of time coming up with many theories over the years. I'll just wait for the details to come in and make an assessment from there.

You are right about the meeting (5%), but it needs to meet certain criteria to be called and IMO voting on officers would not be allowed if the board already have enough votes to block the removal of an officer. I haven't looked for a while, but it'd probably come under the vexatious clauses or similar.

I've had quick scan of the M&A and I can't see any reference to 7.5%? If that's the case it'd come under normal voting rules and adding to the board wouldn't be possible.

By my calcs, you need close to 9% of PIs to get the required 5% of the share capital. I'll be interested to see what you get.

Personally your action is too early, we need to understand what is on offer first. But of course that's your prerogative.

'I am in the boat with many others who did buy in on the hype, after following the road shows, and all the videos made over the past couple of years. YES ,I was wrong, YES I have lost a lot of money and like many others its a serious setback. You seem to be in the minority here, by saying that we should give the deal a chance.It hasn't happened yet . Jezz and Simon are out ASAP it seems, some others talking of getting out on a bounce? There may not be one? Are you in the buy, sell or hold camp. I am trying to find a balanced view ,and what do you make of the posts by Exploration, who seems to portray a can of worms in Morocco?'

Lyndon- This board is not representative of reality, and we generally only see the extreme views. Less than 4% of the share capital in the business has been traded over the last few days.

I've never heard of the 7.5% rule trellis. Can you point to guidance?

No problem trellis. OGIF and various Institutions own 40% of the company. I'm sure we'd all love to know what their views are.

BTW- I'm enjoying a lovely port tonight.

Of course he would be trellis. But there will be plenty of significant shareholders sitting on losses similar to us PIs. Do you think they'll be sitting back and accepting anything or taking the same route as yourself and making your views known?

I have trellis. Thanks for taking the time to email JP, but they have nothing to say regarding how this decision has been made and who influenced that decision.

This future route trellis, not the past. Calm down and reinstate your ability to read and digest.