Member Info for Spikeyj

MrY, maybe all that osmium didn’t weigh anything until those independent experts ‘found’ it, after which it suddenly weighed 40kg, -ish?

?? have they seriously just arranged that loan for £1.5 mill, convertible at 2.5p, at the same time as siphoning off £1.13 mill to the holding company?! - both farcical & fishy.

(PS thanks for the adult, on-topic responses jarv, appreciated.)

“The bulk of the loan is at 2.7p”

the devil is in the detail, jarv… (hence me correcting your previous erroneous post) … it would be average of 2.7p only *if* all £2.5 million can be drawn down …

…. but 2.5p is the real figure to keep in mind unless they ever do flog the assets.

( plus which, their 17.5% ‘arrangement fees’ get converted at 2.3p?)

Spikeyj 20:51: “.. you appear to be suggesting that EUA’s board are deliberately lying to the market in their RNS & AR”

Ohmni 21:46: “Yes, albeit to within the letter of the law.”

LOL!!

Hi seamus, yes, i am sure CS does indeed understand the loan agreement.

but it was your understanding i was questioning, not his (given your apparent celebration of the load as “Interest free” in your 21:10 post).

21:35, Jarv55: “The £1.5mill of the loan can’t be converted unless they get a binding sale.”

i don’t think you have read the RNS properly, jarv.

the loan facility is ‘up to’ £2.5 million … the first £1.5 million of that **CAN** be converted without any asset sale being agreed. the conversion price for that £1.5 million would be 2.5p

it is only the remaining £1 million that would be conditional on a sale being agreed, with that £1 million convertible at 3p.

(so imv they probably will only ever draw down the first £1.5 million.)

Not really an answer to my question, seamus…

… if someone offered you an “interest free” loan, but then told you they were going to charge you 17.5% fees to arrange it, would you still seriously regard it as an interest free loan?

21:10, seamus, if i offered you a loan and told you it was “interest free”…

… but i said i would charge you an initial 12.5% “financing fee” in order to set up that loan, and then charge you an additional 5% “fee” for each slice of the loan you take out …

… would you still genuinely understand that as an “interest free” loan!?

EUA bosses have not ‘foregone’ their salaries …. just deferred. those salaries will keep on accruing (? and speaking of pay and perks, will they still siphon off funds past the event horizon of that ever-hungry ‘holding company’.

(? & why not use shares as collateral, if the alternative is simply administration and all those shares just worth zero? - nothing to lose!)

Officecat 18:45 praises CS for pledging his shares as collateral.

? lol, but what choice did he have? - without the trade loan, EUA would be insolvent and straight into administration, with all those shares simply becoming a fat zero.

Ohmi, potentially libellous … you appear to be suggesting that EUA’s board are deliberately lying to the market in their RNS & AR. — seriously!??

… several of the rampers on this board have been proclaiming recently that renewed mining has been taking place at west k. …. perhaps i have just overlooked the relevant passage, apols if so, but i didn’t spot anything about any mining actually taking place now?

[which is odd in another sense, since EUA are telling us that all the infrastructure and site prep at west k has been done, and they seem to be claiming that they can sell sandpile stuff …. ?? so why on earth would they have taken that pricey loan rather than just work the mine and sell product? — very fishy.]

Maybe they know that a russian ‘friend’ of don putin will be making them an offer they can’t refuse?

? are they still referencing the sino-steel thang, or has that supposed option faded away?

Oldspursfan, why do you think they didn’t simply sell enough of the sandpile to meet their ‘working capital needs’?

18:35, yup.

curious, for a company that supposedly owns a sand stockpile worth several million, and that has siphoned off 8 figure amounts from the placings to its subsidiaries, that -

(a) they don’t sell the stockpile to raise enough working capital,

and (b) they don’t ask for repayment of the ‘loans’ from those subsidiaries,

but instead —-> death spiral finance with inbuilt interest (‘financing fees’) of 17.5%, even before the trading profits to be made by converting & dumping shares, over and over.

? would have been a simpler, and better deal, surely, to sell off all the sandpile, and not take that trade finance death spiral loan?

? or just send some placing cash back to UK parent company from one of the russkie subsidiaries??

& again.

12:56, 21st century, anything they want to be.

I think it was MrY who reminded us yesterday that EUA seems to siphon off roughly $1 million every year from the main london listed company, into a ‘holding company’. (i don’t think we’ve ever heard anything about any money flowing back the other way, i.e. back into the london listed AIM entity where pis hold shares.)

? has EUA ever provided a transparent explanation of what all that money is for, and whose pockets it ends up in? … probably been a very nice little earner for someone …

… the big money here has been about dumping shares into the share price pumps (- ? remember that ‘lucky’ guy who suddenly had that remarkably conveniently timed ‘cash call’?), and those MIA $35 million placing funds, not the last few years salaries […nice as they must be, for so little work].