Member Info for Spikeyj

Friendsps, i have no idea who any of the people on advfn are in real life, nor am i ‘friends’ with any of them. i don’t know them personally. all i get to see, and frankly all i am interested in, are the views, info and analysis regarding EUA that they are able to post.

similarly here, i don’t know any LSE posters in real life (- nor do i want to!) so my interest is simply the quality and nature of views etc posters here can offer re EUA, and whether or not they are polite and mature in the way they communicate with others on the chatboard.

i don’t know, for example, whether you are a much loved saint IRL or a complete s***bag IRL, but i don’t much care … i gauge you simply on what you manage to post about EUA itself, and the manner in which you post to and about others.

(to note what should be obvious, if someone doesn’t want to read bearish perspectives on EUA, then that someone doesn’t have to click on ‘the bear case’ thread and read those posts if they don’t want to.)

21:10 friendsps: [re advfn] “.. the main agenda (Spikey is on this board) is of a negative connotation. Quite perverse.”

there are three main active threads on advfn where EUA gets discussed. i assume that friendsps is referring to a thread called: ‘EUA: The Bear Case’. … that’s not really a matter of connotation, more plain and simple denotation — i.e. the title of the threat clearly states what it is, and consistent with that focus, most of the posts on the thread called ‘the bear case’ are indeed about the bear case re EUA. i don’t see how that’s “perverse” — just people being honest and direct about their sceptical views on EUA, plain, transparent, no tricks. (advfn also has other threads which offer a very upbeat, rampy view of EUA, should readers prefer rampy views.)

JakNife 10:02 particularly on the money.

15:57, good post.

When good posties go postal…

Toffers, meaning this politely, but sometimes less is more.

you’ve raised some interesting points/issues clearly and with passion, but sometimes others will actually pay less attention to what you say /switch off if the same thing is said many times over.

if you are hoping others will be interested in what you write, it might actually be helpful for you to post a little less frequently. (no insult intended, your choice of course.)

Anti-social media, more like, lol.

… the exciting ‘news’ doesn’t seem to be something seen as materially significant enough by EUA / their nomad to bother issuing an RNS, although i suppose they might eventually get round to it - either it’s not material, price-sensitive info, or EUA doesn’t pay much attention to the need for prompt and transparent notification to the market of such info.

a lot of thrashing around by the crew, including hints of inside information and dodgy claims about non-public emails received from the company, to distract attention from the multiple legal difficulties and dire cash position, with no mining going on, no mining plan, no income, concentrate still unsold and book value falling. some in-the-money options allowed to expire unexercised recently, likely imv b/c they knew they wouldn’t be able to offload into the market to bank any paper gain before the company goes bust / suspended / sub 0.5p.

“Details of person subject to the notification obligation …. Aviva PLC”. (i.e. not triple point)

21:48, wow, right down that rabbit hole, downright bizarre.

OK, enough for me for today, only so many belly laughs i can cope with.

Mizman, at 19:47 the poster Huwsbuying said that the email he claimed to have received from the company said that the chairman “…was not in possession of any inside information or unpublished price sensitive information.”

to take just one example, the montechundra DFS has not been published... ? wouldn’t you agree that the contents of the montechundra DFS are pretty obviously price sensitive info?

? and does it seem remotely plausible to you that the chair of EUA would not have been aware of the montechundra DFS, or at least even if the guy’s a bit busy and a bit lazy, the bullet-pointed executive summary of the highlights and lowlights from the DFS?

Very refreshing to see some discussion on mining related info on this board, rare to have sensible chat about mining re EUA. thank you.

(meanwhile, feel rather sceptical about this email that’s supposedly gone out to a few pis about option exercise … ? how could this company seriously say that the chair wasn’t in possession of undisclosed price sensitive info when, for instance, they haven’t published the monte DFS, or said what offers have been received so far, if any, through the tenders for the concentrate, or explained EUA’s defence to the WUP? - just sounds like a spoof.)

10:33, that isn’t true, mizman.

EUA just said that they were “hopeful” — i.e. *not* that it is going to happen, or that it is likely, or that they expect, or that they know, or that they are confident, or that proposals from others have asked for that timeline.

i am still hopeful that winona ryder will leap naked from a particularly large xmas cracker for me on 25/12, but i can’t honestly say that i am expecting that to happen, nor that i think it’s likely.

I think they would quit if EUA can’t pay ‘em, but i don’t believe this nomad will resign otherwise. if the underlying issues at EUA bothered ‘em, they’d never have taken it on in the first place. jmo.

? + AIM listing costs and nomad fees? … i mean, how much did they have to offer to persuade another nomad to take over? - EUA were not in a strong bargaining position at the time, & few nomads would have been prepared to tolerate the stench.

“… those shares will effectively be created and then transferred to another(s) by way of sale…”

- but if the shares are sold after the exercise, that is not a sale *by the company*, is it? - it would be a sale by the person who had exercised the call option. it’s a matter for that person, not the company, what they do with the shares, since they are not owned by the company … i.e. a WUP does not prevent individual shareholders from doing whatever they might ordinarily want to do with their own shares.

20:13, indeed, stretch is the most consistently off-topic poster on this chatboard, and there’s against some stiff competition for that award.

Toffers, i don’t think that issuing *new* shares in order to satisfy a call option that had already been granted by the company itself and duly notified to market is a ‘transfer of shares”?

19:38, i don’t see why any of that would stop a company from honouring the exercise of an in-the-money call option that had already been granted to somebody. i very much doubt that would be understood as disposing of an asset. but if you have any source to show different on that, toffers, pls feel free to post.