Member Info for Spikeyj

“I am waiting for the facts….”

stretch is in for a long stretch, boom-boom.

Kammy to GLG, 11:40: “… I suggest you get behind EUA and be a bit more positive, else you won’t recouping [sic] your 25k locked in here anytime soon.”

? how would it make any difference whatsoever to the prospects for recovery and liquidity in EUA”s share price, whether or not GLG is “more positive” or not about EUA??

… either EUA holds rights to very valuable and much sought after minerals, which it will be able to sell for large amounts in the near-ish future, in which case holders will do just fine, or it doesn’t, in which case holders face total wipeout, sooner or later.

? shurely, no amount of positivity from pis makes any difference at all to the reality (or otherwise) of their assets and cashflow?

12:51, good post.

there’s a lot of projection & displacement going on with this chatboard.

07:37, beast, who do you imagine is offering shorts on EUA? - it’s been unborrowable for ages.

Hi bfd, i don’t subscribe to TW’s site, and i have not read his article. views expressed are my own.

g’night now. c u around no doubt.

[soz, re 21:30, meant of course january 2024, not 2023]

… *if* EUA is indeed on the edge of insolvency, then as a matter of urgency the company and its advisors will be having to make plans about either

(a) how to close the company down in a timely and cost-effective manner, as part of their fiduciary duties,

or (b how to raise additional funds, very very soon.

*if* (b), then the company would also need to persuade the auditors that there is a credible plan under way to bring in sufficient funds pronto, so that the auditors could then legitimately sign off the accounts whilst saying that EUA is still a going concern.

just speculating here, given the murky geo-politics currently, but i strongly suspect that current sanctions regimes may be making it very hard to arrange an adequate placing to finance russian assets in a tight enough time-scale … ?so perhaps that is a significant reason for the ongoing delay, while company explores the legalities and tries to convince auditors they will be able to manage it?

happy to hear others’ thoughts about EUA etc

(… but just not that interested in personal /abusive nonsense from the likes of stretch, richard and bfd, thanks!)

not long to wait anyway, since the company will have to act / clarify soon..

It is unclear why there has been such significant delay to the publication of the company’s accounts / annual report.

the main reason given, concerning confirmation of the company’s concentrate, doesn’t seem imv sufficient cause for almost 2 months delay so far, unless the auditors are literally checking how much concentrate there is by counting the grains of sand one by one with a pair of tweezers.

several rampy posters on this chatboard have tried to imply that the company has deliberately engineered a suspension of share trading while they finalise a major asset sale, but none have been able to explain why the company would want to do any such thing (- and if true, it would also imply that the company RNS was misleading in the first place.)

EUA had already gone into ‘mothball’ mode some time ago, presumably to conserve cash.

it is conceivable that the company has managed to squeeze some additional small savings since then, in order to eke out the cash beyond ‘early Q3’. but hard imv to see where large or major savings could have been made to extend the time a long way, since the company has been doing so little anyway.

(if it is true, as a few of the rampers here have been trying to suggest, that the company has resumed mining ops at WK, that would presumably have increased the cash-burn, and hence brought them closer to the point of insolvency if no new funding coming in.)

EUA stated by RNS in january 2023 that it had enough cash /cash equivalents to meet its ongoing obligations until early Q3204.

it is now almost 2/3 way through Q3, no longer ‘early’ in Q3.

EUA has *not* announced any additional funds received, nor significant change in its funding position, since then.

it is conceivable that EUA has indeed sold lots of concentrate since january 2023, or received loads of tax refunds … but if so surely they should have been announced to the market already? - as very materially relevant to the share price and trading of the company’s securities. imv a good competent nomad would not have condoned any such price-sensitive info to be kept from the market.

No back tracking at all from me, bfd. happy to stand by all my posts on EUA today.

(i can hardly back track from something that i didn’t say in the first place.)

If /when the company publishes the audited accounts, we will get to see the auditor’s view whether or not EUA can still be regarded as a going concern.

*if* ( … an important word, Bfd, worth learning it! …) the auditors do not see EUA as a going concern, then i would expect them to state so clearly and professionally, and presumably the nomad and BoD would then act professionally in accordance with their legal obligations - it would be very unwise of them to do otherwise.

until we see those audited accounts, there is no way to know for sure, since EUA said many months ago that they had enough cash ** to early Q32024**, which has now been and gone, and they haven’t provided an update since.

they have not told the market whether or not they have sold any concentrate, or received more tax refunds (nor what amounts are involved if they have done so).

we would also need to see confirmation of current cashburn, particularly since several posters here have repeatedly claimed that EUA has resumed mining at EUA —> which if true if likely imv to significantly increase cashburn this financial year.

Bfd, i am not angry at all about EUA, just interested and somewhat amused.

you falsely claimed that i had posted “multiple times that EUA are trading whilst insolvent”.

i didn’t.

you are a liar.

Bfd, read back carefully. ask your mum to help you if some of the words are a bit too hard for you.

pay particular attention to the use of words such as “if” and “would”. then also re-read carefully to see if i am making a specific statement about something i think EUA has already done, versus about the financial obligations which all (AIM/ UK listed) companies are obliged to follow.

? and then show me where i stated that ‘EUA is trading whilst insolvent’? — you can’t, because i simply didn’t say it.

you are getting a bit over emotional, i think. (? and also, perhaps you are confusing posts of mine, with things that TW is being reported to have said?)

Bfd, please cite and quote the specific posts on lse where you claim that i have posted that EUA is trading while insolvent.

you won’t be able to, because i have said no such thing.

you are either deliberately lying about that, or you are a remarkably sloppy reader.

Bfd, you don’t seem to be very good at reading.

where, for instance, did I state that: “The BoD here have consciously lies [sic] to the auditors and the Nomad”?

… i have posted no such thing … but if you genuinely believe otherwise, rather than just talking s*** for the sake of it, then please cite the specific post where you think i said that.

nor, for instance, have i posted anywhere, that “The auditors are so incompetent that they can’t read a simple bank account.”

you are simply making things up, bfd.

15:19, free education, free entertainment (the latter, primarily).

Del , re your 12:16, i agree it’s possible they might have sold some concentrate, and/or got tax rebates. but equally, it is also possible that they have not — they simply have not told the market either way.

… if they have managed some of either, that still wouldn’t necessarily mean they are still a going concern, as that’s about a forward looking issue, i.e. depending on what ongoing liabilities will be, and what can be reasonably assured re capacity to meet those future obligations in a timely manner.

Bfd 12:44: “You know it has gone beyond ludicrous when one fool is praising the post of another idiot that is basically libellous”

try not to be such a complete moron, bfd!

it is not remotely libellous in any way, to state as an entirely factual matter

(a) that EUA’s BoD RNS’d in january that they had enough cash to meet their ongoing obligations until early Q32024,

& (b) that a company’s BoD would be committing a serious civil offence if they permitted their company to wrongfully trade once it had become technically insolvent, or a serious criminal offence if they allowed company to wrongfully trade in that way along with an intention to defraud creditors, or were recklessly negligent in doing so.

Crypto, shareholders have only generated cash for the BoD inasmuch as people who bought shares in placings gave cash to the company, which has paid BoD pay and perks. … ‘though shareholders who paid excessive amounts for extant shares during ramp phases helped the company to then place new shares at higher values (… which made more money for BoD pay and perks.)