Member Info for Spikeyj

18:19, farmer, it’s not pedantry, you were simply wrong … the english were *not* standing alone back in 1940.

15:42, farmer, “english may have their faults, *****s isn’t one of them….. stood alone in 1940.”

? just out of interest, what were the welsh, scottish and northern irish doing while the english were standing alone in 1940?

Good evening gecko. as i’ve told you before, my name is not adam.

20:36 wilco: “it’s [sic] was worth 5x the 40p highs when the prices were higher…”

? what *evidence* can you share to support that claim, wilco?

20:22, EUA shares were once *priced* at 40p (…back when the wildly unrealistic/downright false ACF report was being used to ramp the heck out of the share price.)

but that doesn’t mean that EUA shares were *worth* 40p.

price and value are not the same things.

? do you genuinely not know this basic stuff, wilco, or are you just pretending not to understand?

Wilco, as crypto has already posted, any buys / sells by directors have to be RNS’d publicly, for transparency about BoD interests. … same reason why, if any options have been specifically promised in advance to directors but not yet awarded, the market would have to be notified about that.

with respect to dimitry, as you rightly say, he is not a director (this thread is about director holdings, as per the thread title).

but as a large shareholder, dimitry *is* required to make prompt and public notifications to the market with TR notices if he makes non-trivial changes to his shareholding.

the EUA website shows the number of shares which dimitry has told the company that he owns, as a matter of public record. (whether that number is accurate and honest, is of course a different question - the possible penalties for failure to notify by a non-director are different from penalities for a director … and of course issue of enforcements for breaches may not be straightforward, eh?)

Re option awarding, my own understanding is that a company should RNS it if there is a binding advance commitment made to give X options at price Y to director Z in the event that Q happens. … otherwise, there is a lack of proper disclosure to the market about what each share in EUA would actually be worth looking forward.

(if there is some secret arrangement that CS, for instance, will suddenly get 1,000,000,000 options at 0.5p a share in the event of any asset sale, then that would be very, very important for other market participants to know when pricing various contingencies & trajectories.)

17:05, hi del, thanks re name check, i had a feeling i might be misremembering the name of that M&A guy. atb.

Tillywhiz 10:07: “In terms of short interest, shares on loan comprise just 0.1% of the free float”

vs

Gecko 10:51: “… expect they will look to slowly close without wanting to spike it”

LOL.

Del “I’d imagine the other directors will have been promised options …”

if any such binding promises have been made, that should have been disclosed to the market as while via RNS, so that calculations re worth of the shares could be made taking into account total extant shares numbers. it would be deceptive for a renumeration committee to agree any such thing but not to disclose it transparently.

Del, it’s very, very common and ordinary, pretty inevitable really, that members of the BoD of mining / resource/ exploration companies will always know more detail about some aspects of the company and the operating environment for the business that joe public.

but that would not ordinarily mean that the directors of such a company would be forbidden to buy or sell any shares for more that six years running. nomad would be responsible to help scrutinise and advise when directors are effectively in a closed period for trading (as i agree probably would have been the case during the FSP) and when they are not.

… otherwise you’d have a world where no directors of any AIM mining / resource companies etc could ever buy or sell shares in their own companies.

… worth noting, artem (i think it was him, from memory?) was allowed to dump a massive block of personal shares, wasn’t he, back when the share price was in the 20s …. presumably the nomad did not believe that directors should be forbidden to trade then…

14:17 okfornow: “They hold millions, how much money does one person need.”

okfornow, according to EUA’s own website, there are five members of the BoD.

only *one* of them is listed as owning EUA shares (that’s CS, with about 95.5 million shares).

https://www.eurasiamining.co.uk/about/team-2

https://www.eurasiamining.co.uk/investors/share-capital

? what makes you think that the other members of the BoD “hold millions”?

***

meanwhile, the idea that the BoD might think that EUA is massively under-rated and will soon multi-bag, but nonetheless would not want to buy EUA shares because they already have enough money is both quaint and hilarious. (? i wonder, do you think many directors of AIM resource companies think like that, okfornow?)

Victone, why would anyone believe a single word in an update from amit about numbers of shares in issue, whether the book is closed, etc? — there’s nothing to allow independent verification of any of it, including how many shares there are meant to be.

taking amit’s word for such things seems a bit naive, given the history,

(Perhaps the BoD don’t share steve’s faith in EUA … and i suppose it’s possible that EUA’s BoD might understand less about EUA and its underlying business and markets than steve does.)

laters, all.

… so, if you genuinely believe that this company’s shares are about to have a very significant, multi-bagging re-rate in the near future …

… then why wouldn’t the directors want to buy shares in EUA for themselves, as per your earlier post?

Steve, what do you think the current mcap is?

would a “re-rating to £1 billion” be a good thing, from a shareholder perspective?

Steve, the directors don’t own the company.

the shareholders do. that’s basically what shares are.

96.5%+ of the shareholders in EUA are *not* directors.

if this company ever managed to sell assets & payout a dividend (lol!) that would go to shareholders, not to company employees.

B3ast, personally, i doubt that beretta genuinely believes there is a real deal. he and pikeyK tend to operate like amit’s little helpers, and here they are popping up in tandem to support the latest b*llsh*t update.

i think they both know perfectly well that there have been no deals, and know that there is no cash to distribute to ordinary shareholders.

“far more info” — LOL!

suppose someone were to tell a big fat lie, but then later repeated the same big fat lie but embroiders it with lots of extra colourful or elaborate details to try to make the lie seem more plausible to at least some listeners, that’s not “more info” …

… the lie would still be the same big fat lie, just with additional embellishments.

{lol, my apologies for typo, meant, of course, ukraine, not ‘the ukraine’ as mr putin prefers..]