Member Info for Spikeyj

MrY, any guesses what this one is about?

“A case is also being prepared, based on proposals from two law firms, to represent Eurasia to recover a possible refund of circa £1.3 million from a third party in relation to a previous transaction.”

You asked a question, bfd, & i’ve politely told you where the answer is. it’s really not my problem if you don’t want to read the relevant post.

just chillax, it’s a nice weekend.

Bfd, re your 7/9/24, 16:48,

—> per my 6/9/24, 21:53.

Lol, jarv, and who knows, if EUA holds onto the sandpile for long enough, maybe the next independent laboratory they pay will find lots of diamonds in it as well?

laters all.

(? just wondering, as i have never done business in russia, is ‘normal operations’ some kind of russkie euphemism, for the protection money peeps must pay to putin’s bagman to be allowed to continue existence?)

Leno, if they can sell the concentrate for 5 million+, then why did they need to arrange the trade loan facility to provide enough cash to resume trading on AIM?

‘normal operations’ is a reason to pay more than £1 million a year out of dwindling UK balance sheet, into a russkie holding company which can’t or won’t give the money back even when the parent company is running out of working capital to stay solvent??

? what kind of ‘normal operations’ do you have in mind, quant?

… if EUA somehow needs to be spending >£1 million quid per year in russian on ‘normal operations’, but can’t repatriate funds back to the UK from russia, then shurely —-> wouldn’t it make more sense to stop sending that £1m+ from the UK, and instead just top up the urals holding company from the 35million plus that has already been paid out of the UK into those subsidiaries??

Lenoman, yes, i can appreciate from your posts that there is indeed much you do not understand. have a good w/end.

Bfd, if one takes the company’s own RNSs at face value …. (are you sitting comfortably, children? - once upon a time …)

.. then they claim to be largely debt free (excepting this new arrangement), and be to *owed* money in tax refunds, and to have £5 million worth of concentrate ready for sale.

& presumably the dragline, washplants, tablecloths, canteen micro-wave etc, would also bring in a little bit more cash at an administrator’s everything-must-go car boot sale….

… so if the company is being truthful about the above, even if all its mining licences/assets are totally and completely worthless and bring in a big fat zero in an administration firesale, there would still be enough within the company accounts to pay off e.g. £1 million back to sanderson.

Quant, but why did they need *this* particular arrangement (a short term ‘trade finance facility’, i.e. a convertible loan), rather than -

(1) just sell some concentrate to raise one million

(2) ask for money back from subsidiaries where 35million+ disappeared, ‘repayable on demand’

(3) conserve cash by not paying £1+ million annually out of the UK into the ‘urals’ holding company

(4) resume mining at WK to dig and sell more concentrate to generate cash flow?

if the aim was simply to keep the company ticking over until after US elections, they’ve chosen an odd (& pricey) way of going about it!

… the other very odd thing, if (a) the mine at WK has fully developed infrastructure, and is all set up ready to resume mining, and (b) it were also true that they can sell sandpile/concentrate for profitable cash …

… .then why on earth haven’t they just resumed mining in order to sell more product to generate cash-flow, rather than sign up that loan agreement with sandersons??

it would be bizarre to own a viable, profitable, producing mine with saleable product, but then choose not to operate it and instead take out loans just to meet working capital cashburn.

(me, i think the most obvious answer to that one, consistent with previous company accounts, is that WK is not actually a profitable mine; they would simply go bust quicker if they attempted to keep it running. jmv.)

… after all, EUA has previously told the market that the payments into the subsidiaries etc are meant to be repayable on demand. …

… it’s possible that oldspursfan is correct, and the reason that they can’t get cash back from the subs is something to do with sanctions (putin’s?) preventing funds transfer back to the UK - but if that’s the case, shurely that is very, very material for shareholders and the market to know, and EUA should state clearly that they cannot access all that money any more? - such info would be highly relevant to sensible valuation of this company and its prospects.

… & if oldspursfan is right that they can’t get money back to the UK once it’s gone into those russkie companies, why on earth keep making payments for more than a million quid into the urals holding company if the BoD know they can’t get it back to the UK, and also know they have been running very low on necessary ‘working capital’?

… similarly, EUA continues to siphon off more than £1 million a year into the ‘ural alluvial’ holding company, despite running so low on cash within the parent company that they have had to organise a convertible loan facility in order to resume trading …

… ? so why not stop paying into that holding company, to keep that annual £1 million in the parent company to provide sufficient working capital without needing the ‘trade loan facility’??

(or, come to that, just ask for a million quid back please from the holding company, or one of the subsidiaries, to top up sufficient working capital rather than beg sanderson for the loan?)

Hi Mr_Wolfe, good luck with your trading on monday morning. i appreciate you will probably be trying to exploit the motion of the ocean for a couple of flips, rather than invest because of deep faith in the underlying value at EUA!

… still very odd that EUA RNSs about running low on cash, then enters into a ‘trade loan facility’, when it claims to have several million pounds worth of sandpile sitting around ready to flog, and even claims that it was previously been able to conduct a “test” sale of some. … ? why would a company pay 17.5% financing fees to provide the likes of sanderson with churning chances, rather than just sell enough concentrate to provide sufficient working capital?? - they say that £1 million of the loan is to enable trading resumption on AIM … so why not just sell £1 million of the sandpile?

Hi ballers123, sorry not to reply to your 00:36 earlier.

yes, i do agree that those collateral shares from CS won’t help to protect sanderson’s loan money, if EUA goes belly-up, since all the shares will just be worth zero if the company goes into administration.

but i don’t agree that puts sanderson’s loan money at high risk, since they would rank higher for repayment from the administrators than ordinary shareholders.

obviously, first in the queue for any payouts would be tax authorities, any legal costs, deferred BoD /staff salaries, and of course the administrator’s own fees.

but other creditors such as sanderson would be next in line. this company has previously claimed it doesn’t have other significant debts, and is also trumpeting that it is due tax refunds, rather than owing lots of tax.

? shurely therefore, if the company went bust and administrators had to flog all assets in firesale, flog all plant and equipment, etc etc, there should be a measly £1 million knocking around to pay sanderson back?

[using the £1 million figure for sake of discussion, as EUA has explicity stated that’s loan money that would be linked with managing to resume trading on AIM … without that, it’s game over anyway.]

Hi jarv, slightly disappointed by your 09:07, as i had thought yesterday evening you were managing to be on-topic, polite and fairly sensible in the discussion.

… but this morning i see you are trotting out that rather tired old lie that i am jub capital.

as i’ve said clearly before, no, i have never had any connection at all with jub capital.

that tends to be a porkie pie trotted out by EUA enthusiasts when they are trying to get a ramp on, when part of the strategy appears to be repeated attempts to dismiss or denigrate anyone voicing scepticism or cautionary notes about EUA’s prospects, rather than give any consideration to the business related issues raised.

ah well.

Apologies, i still don’t get your point … perhaps I’m just a bit too tired, so sleep for me now.

if they had still held shares from much higher price, (a) it might incentivise them to take part in some funding scheme to try to stop the company from collapsing into administration as their holding would be wiped out.

but that’s a different issue from whether or not they would want to hold onto EUA shares once trading resumes … that would simply depend on whether or not their own (private) current view is this company is a winner / this company is a dog.

Ballers, sure, if EUA don’t want to use the money, they don’t have to use it … ? do you think they have lots of cash currently available from other sources to meet their obligations in the near/medium future as they fall due? ( - or that they would prefer to default because they don’t want to draw on the loan?)

( me, i think it’s pretty unlikely they would have agreed this loan if they didn’t need to use at least a fair old chunk of it … previous RNSs showed how dire their cash situation was becoming without this loan facility.)

Not sure what you think the significance of that is, jarv?

one comment, i don’t think there is any public info available whether or not they held onto any shares from placing(s)? —-perfectly possible (/probable imv) that they just flipped ‘em as soon as they could and retained zero. me, i think all the placings were just flipped pronto.

second comment, *if* they did retain some, sure, that was pretty daft of ‘em and they must have been kicking themselves since, but i’m not sure how it puts EUA’s current predicament in any different light?

? maybe some clumsy technician at that internationally certified laboratory accidentally spilled 39.7 kg of osmium bearing compounds into the sandpile while they were doing all that weird science test-tubey stuff?