Member Info for Spikeyj

I think you are getting a bit confused about the idea of a ‘floor’, gecko. that’s meant to be a price level that a share won’t fall below. you repeatedly claimed that there was a concrete floor of 26p for EUA, and that turned out to be utter nonsense (& well before the war), didn’t it?

15:50, naughty gecko, are you trying to pretend it was putin’s invasion of ukraine that cracked your purported ‘concrete ceiling’ of 26p for EUA’s share price?? — you fibber, you!!

EUA share price had fallen way below that long before putin’s army boys got burnt when they tried to seize airport at kyiv in feb 2022 … e.g EUA share price had closed in the 15s, back in august 2021.

“I still have all my faith in Tillywhiz, who has been a shining beacon of light during our darkest times. Goodluck all. Rums all round!”

… better to lay off the rum, fellah, sounds like you’ve had two too many already.

2s coming, hello my old friend.

(? what level is gecko’s ‘concrete floor’ set at this time? … 26p didn’t hold for long last time round.)

11:53, TDT, to be fair, there’s been some stiff competition on this chatboard for most odious quisling and/or putin fanboy, but for sure BoB is one of the leading contenders. atb.

“If I’m being honest”, lol, that was my favourite mac-ism.

“No one wins in wars”

… not convinced that human history bears that out. (try asking the carthaginians, for instance.)

Stretch, why so often do you resort to unpleasant name-calling?

it is perfectly possible for you, or others, to say that you disagree with someone else ( - or even to state that you intend to filter them - ), without having to accompany that with calling people rude names.

it is no problem by me that you choose to filter seadogsteve, entirely your choice etc, but why do you feel the need to call him a ‘tw*t’ when you do so? — you seem gratuitously petty and unpleasant — why not just show some common, ordinary manners? … it would cost you nothing.

15:27, i wasn’t saying ‘nothing’ at all was affecting the attempted sale process …. I was specifically pointing out that *sanctions* would not have prevented any interested chinese asset buyer from proceeding, long, long ago, since the chinese never signed up to any sanctions and had none imposed on them.. (by contrast, i do think that sanctions have made it quite difficult for EUA to transfer funds between london and russia).

gl & atb, all honest and polite folks.

Hi seamus, imv recent share price move tells us about pi /retail sentiment, and about associated ramping based on the idea of some kind of trump related peace dividend.

but imv none of the russia/ukraine stuff will actually make any meaningful difference to the “outcome of any sale”. I think the fundamental problem for EUA is that its ‘assets’ simply ain’t worth much, war or no war.

14:04, nonsense. chinese have happily continued to trade with uk and with russia throughout.

? how would sanctions have prevented a chinese suitor from buying EUA assets, when there been no sanctions in place by or against the chinese?

12:49: “Russian resources will become more attractive to China, improving the chance for EUA sales as sanctions will be lifted”

china has not been part of any sanctions campaigns against russia. if any chinese entity had wanted to buy EUA assets over the last few years, there were no sanctions preventing that.

Indeed, mr b, looks that way currently.

I do find EUA as a company, and the financial issues re UK/ russia trading and financing mildly interesting, but the political posturing and armchair general stuff about trump, NATO, starmer etc etc is mostly pretty poorly argued, and way too repetitive for my taste - makes for a pretty dull chatboard.

Atb.

A new thread, just in case anyone wanted to discuss the company itself, its assets, shares and prospects, good or bad.

(just as an alternative to all the other threads currently on the go, all packed out with a bewildering array of authoritative geo-political experts.)

16:58. Tiffintip: “they have millions in black sand”

… which very nicely highlights a conundrum about EUA…

?? namely, if EUA is able to generate plenty of cash by selling off black sand from its mining … then why on earth has EUA mothballed the mine, and produced sweet fanny adams from it for ages, rather than continuing to operate the mine and digging up lots more lovely black sand to sell to raise oodles of lovely cash??

(the answer, of course, is that the mine is not profitable, and it actually costs ‘em more to dig up that black sand than they can gain from selling it. — who would want to buy that kind of shyte?)

Treading, i will post as and when i please.

? where will the additional funding come from to keep this company afloat? — given that it is not mining, and they have failed to sell any assets over many years, including *before* putin’s invasion of ukraine.

auditors won’t be able to sign this off as a going concern, at final results in june, unless EUA can raise more cash to meet liabilities over the next 12 months from then, july 2025 - june 2026.

rampers & putin fans loving the trump pump recently, but it seems unlikely donald that will be donating more cash out of his pocket to keep EUA lights on and BoD snouts in the lifestyle trough.

“Should never have got involved.”

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,

habe ich geschwiegen, ich war ja kein Kommunist.

[und zu weiter…]

? i don’t use twitter / X — who are you referring to, knownufffin?