Member Info for Spikeyj

Seems fairly well received by the market. (i suppose i’d see it more as declarations about medium & longer term strategy, rather than as a trading update per se.)

Doug, re your 12:12, I’ve simply been pointing out that the FCA have no responsibility for regulating cloudtag as a private unlisted overseas non-UK registered company, nor do they have any responsibility for regulating (or investigating or prosecuting) amit’s activities as a director of a private unlisted overseas non-UK registered company.

(my own impression has been that from time to time on this chatboard, some posters falsely try to imply that FCA does have a role in relation to cloudtag’s current incarnation or amit’s directorship of that private unlisted non-UK company.)

Re whispering’s 11:03, the UK’s FCA has no role whatsoever in relation to cloudtag, as a private, unlisted overseas registered company, and similarly the FCA has no role whatsoever to monitor, investigate or prosecute any of amit’s activities as a director of cloudtag.

I haven’t really followed the COPL stuff closely, but if i understand it correctly, the shareholders taking part in the class action are alleging that COPL had/has real and significant assets, but which were then mismanaged (? or poorly marketed?) by the BoD, either negligently or perhaps even deliberately, as a ploy to take very cheap control over valuable assets. …. that would seem quite different from cloudtag, where there’s never been much evidence that i can see that cloudtag ever had much by way of assets.

? but am I misunderstanding the COPL scenario?

Antha, did COPL have a premium listing on the main market, or just main market listed?

one of the interesting things about worthington was the way that ramping crews used its “main market listing” as a key selling point, but few of the pis who were drawn in understood that a main market company that does not have premium listing is in some respects actually more risky than an AIM share, as there is such limited oversight from others (e.g. not even a nomad!)

09:47, yup.

… & clearly whispering & i have rather different ideas about what share discussion boards are for in the first place, and what constitutes ‘trolling’ in such fora.

meanwhile, sunny sunday, off to see some magnificent rhododendrons in full bloom.

12:40, well, that does at least make it clearer — whispering appears to think that i am “pushing boundaries” because i have a different view from her. fair enough, although not the term i would have used myself.

…plus, “acting in a way that challenges established norms …”. —- hmm, posting about cloudtag on an internet forum that was set up for people to post about cloudtag. lol!

Hi whispering, no, i am not irritated by your views, just baffled at how credulous & supine you appear to be regarding amit & cloudtag.

(meanwhile, despite your lengthy post, i still have no idea what you mean when you say that i “push boundaries”.)

It looks like somebody broke the stretch. but it seems the gap was filled quite promptly by a renascent dim. easy come, easy go.

“( because you really do like to push boundaries)”

sorry, i have no idea what you mean by that, whispering. this is a chatboard to discuss cloudtag, and i am discussing cloudtag.

perhaps similarly, i think you and i must have very different ideas about “balance”…. from my perspective, you are an unremitting apologist for amit and cloudtag, and remarkably unbalanced in that respect. — whereas although i am very sceptical (to say the least) about the actual worth of cloudtag, and whether they have actually made any deals at all for any meaningful sum, my posts today concern the hypothetical scenario where cloudtag’s updates might (!) actually be truthful, i.e. that they genuinely have concluded deals for more than a quarter of a billion dollars, but the payouts are being seriously delayed because of mistakes recording how many shares were issued to whom.

…. for sure, if that’s true, then the buck stops with amit as CEO for sorting out the mess now. but **who was in charge when those share registration mistakes were made to begin with?** — who should the buck stop with, and who should be held liable, for making those mistakes in the first place? — sure, it’s perfectly possible that there were one or two assistant monkies back in the day, but usually litigation to seek redress for corporate errors would be directed towards the organ grinder, not the chimps.

….. was amit the only BoD member at the time, or was some other BoD member responsible for share issuance and share registration? (so far as i recall, amit was the only BoD member then too…)

Beast, out of interest, are you still labouring under the [false] impression that i am anything to do with jub capital? - i think you called me ‘adam’ earlier [- which is not my name].

You are a bit muddled, whispering. i am not posting today about who is in “total control of developments”

my point is much more specific: - who is to blame for the supposed ‘anomalies’ with the registration of shares that cloudtag has issued?. … since shareholders could presumably try to sue whoever that is, in order to seek compensation for the significant delays in payouts that are supposedly because of those share registration anomalies.

(… surely, you are not seriously trying to suggest that the DaaP buyer, if such an entity exists, would be responsible in any way for how cloudtag issues new shares and records such issuance in cloudtag’s own share register?)

B

Hi crypto. for clarity, i do not *want* this to fail. but i do not *expect* it to do very well at all.

(i very much doubt there are any serious buyers around who are willing to offer anything other than a pittance, and i don’t think they will be able to generate any significant profits from mining. i suspect ‘true value’ here is circa 0.1p-0.2p/share at best, tho’ EUA releases very little meaningful data to price it properly - presumably rather deliberately!)

“… and how it was becoming economically un-viable to continue …”

naughty mr dim! - that implies that it had previously been economically viable in the past … the historic accounts do not support that ramper fantasy.

Curious that EUA has not RNS’d to explain any reversal of the previous RNS statement that WK is mothballed. hey ho, perhaps they will get round to that eventually, when they need to tap up pis again (… if that’s still a legal avenue for ‘em given sanctions etc.)

… presumably not the nomad, as there isn’t one..

… presumably not the external registrar, as there isn’t one…

? … presumably not the paying agent, as they weren’t involved with issuing new shares, were they?

… who does that leave?

Offler, key issue is not whether WK is “apparently functioning” or not; it’s whether WK makes money for the company whenever they do attempt to run it — the fact that they mothballed it, and the company accounts history, suggest otherwise.

(a mine could be fully ‘operational’ but still utterly dead in the water economically.)

if WK still can’t operate economically productive and profitable, then evidence of site activity is just evidence of yet more shareholder money being poured down the drain.

Dim, if EUA’s WK mine is operational and economically viable, capable of generating an ongoing stream of cash and profit, then why did they close it down and mothball it? (as per their own RNS history)

… if someone owns an operational and profitable mine, surely they would just keep running it, on an ongoing basis, just so long as they could dig up decent quantities of product that they could sell for decent price?

I wonder who is to blame for those supposed anomalies with shareholding registration that is supposedly causing significant delays with the payout of more than a quarter of a billion dollars.

… since presumably one option, if all of this is genuine, would be for shareholders to sue whoever is responsible to get compensation and redress for the mistake(s)?

? would it be the nomad, or the external company registrar, or the paying agent, or the designated company secretary, or whoever on the BoD was meant to be responsible for the oversight and governance of issuing new shares, and ensuring accurate records were made and maintained of such? - or?

Montmuzard 01:02: “Eurasia have (a) a functioning mine at WK that can generate enough revenue to keep the lights on…”

that doesn’t really square with EUA stopping production & mothballing the mine.