Member Info for Spikeyj

Friendsps, no more than you deserve for your conduct to date.

Friendps, i suggest that you should top-up on your EUA holding big time. go on, you know you deserve it. go on, go on, go on, g’wan, g’wan, g’wan!

08:02, agree also this specific debt / WUP won’t bring ‘em down, short-term they will pay gowling off and resolve it. but it’s significant (a) in highlighting the deteriorating cash position with zero income, (b) further demonstration of their very, very poor comms and lack of transparency … always backwards in coming forwards, as it were, or fessing up … and (c) it’s gonna make anyone thinking of dealing with EUA even more wary … creditors, potential creditors, and of course anyone who might get sounded out about a potential placing -? as who the heck would want to put money into this company (or even lend it) knowing that yet more skeletons might pop out of the cupboard at any moment & trigger suspension /collapse?

my guess is that EUA will still be trading by xmas, albeit with s/p considerable lower than this, but with suspension and eventual delisting sometime in H1 ‘24 ( … primarily as they will just run out of cash and will find it difficult to persuade anyone to plug the gap, given their lack of credibility & transparency.) jmv.

might already be a bunch of skeletons lurking in the cupboard tha

Unfortunately for EUA, VAT refunds are only cash once they’ve actually been paid over. i don’t think gowling accept either sand concentrate or pieces of paper saying, ‘IOU a VAT refund.”

(no argument about the treasuries, i think that was pretty much all that EUA had left.)

Many retail pis now seriously underwater bought into EUA during the ramp up to 40p. ? what propelled the s/price up those dizzy heights? - well, one major part of the pump was the crew using the ACF report to hype up the ‘assets’ and sale prospects.

ACF forecast revenue of £341.2 million for 2021, and £164.1 million net income.

but actual EUA 2021 results were: £2.3 million revenue, & *loss* of £3.1 million.

[as jaknife rightfully notes, this was before putin’s 2022 invasion, so not his fault]

ACF’s forecasts weren’t just wrong; they were laughably, ludicrously, outrageously wrong … so the key question is not so much *how* did they get it so wrong, but *why* did they do it?

EUA’s cash position is dire, but they sought to obfuscate that by burbling on about an unsold pile of sand, and VAT refund credits, as though those things were cash equivalents - they are not.

the winding up petition gives the game away, since gowling very clearly weren’t willing to accept ‘VAT credits’ or a skip full of sand to settle their bill.

cold, hard, shiny cash matters … EUA has very little left, it’s running out fast, and they seem unable to get a placing away (? sanctions?)

gowling may get their pound of flesh, but there won’t be much left for anyone else.

ordinary shareholders, of course, will be last in the queue of creditors once the liquidation is underway.

(suspect my own xmas s/p guess was too high. ah well.)

17:59, dishonest garbage as usual from theofficecat.

the nomad does *not* act as a fact-checker. it is the company’s responsibility to ensure that information supplied in an RNS is factually correct, not the nomad’s.

if a company wants to state in an RNS that it has 5 widgets in a warehouse, the nomad doesn’t visit the warehouse to check if it really does have 5, and not 3 or 4 or 10 - the nomad takes the company’s word for it (- but resigns if it later turns out that the company was lying).

17:30, nope, only one guess per ID.

… still time to enter, but only a few weeks left, place your bets!

Tygra 0.32p [as price at suspension before xmas]

KingofClangers 0.5p

Bobrad 0.51p

Sirplacealot 1p

Spikeyj 1.2p

Aubery 1.45p

Treadingcarefully 1.75p

Mr_Wolfe 2.05p

B1ll 2.5p

johnboi1968 4.7p

Sandwell 92p

… in the increasingly likely event of suspension before xmas, winner will be determined from price at suspension, assuming no resumption of trading before the end of the year.

— happy to continue adding in bets, i will aim to refresh the list circa weekly, unless it hots up a bit in which case i might update more frequently.

Hi Tygra, re your 16:06, even that misses the point. —> when EUA issued an RNS mentioning a “success fee basis’ , it never explained what that term actually meant.

the welcher and his friends / duplicates like to pretend that it means there would be no payment at all until a sale is made, but that is *NOT* what it said.

far more likely imv is that fees are being paid anyway, but with an additional bonus or fee being payable if sale of a certain type /magnitude was ever achieved.

it has been one of the more persistent lies told by the rampers on this board, to pretend that EUA said it would only pay its advisors if there was a sale.

There has never been any RNS which states that advisors do not get paid unless there is a sale.

RetiredBanker 12:54: “CS could simply use the profit he has just made on exercising his options to cover the cost.”

… even if CS very altruistically decided to donate money out of his own personal pocket to keep the company afloat in this way, he’d have to sell the shares that were bought thro’ option exercise to bank such a profit in the first place (- unless he was doing that on friday, he hasn’t made any such profit yet, and there was no RNS to admit that he was selling - ) … ? would he be permitted to sell shares, in the current context? - the rampers here tend to argue that he wouldn’t be able to trade because of inside information about all those bidders around the table, the top-secret /suppressed montechundra DFS, due diligence progress, etc etc.

Bfdinvestor 15:10; “Most of the advisors, who are supposedly “milking it” don’t get paid unless there is a sale!”

Bfdinvestor is simply making that up.

it’s one of the more frequently used fibs deployed by the rampers over the last couple of years … but there is zero evidence at all to support that claim.

Agree that the RNS was absolutely cringeworthy.

one obvious point is that they would already have well aware some time ago this was coming, and failed to notify the market prior to Friday. but it also seems to be excessively slippery imv to frame it as a response to “speculation”, rather than simply a factual update about a legal problem affecting them. also, given that they must have known about this for quite some time, and the RNS itself was not particularly long or complex, it’s extremely unimpressive that they waited until after hours to release it.

i think they were just bending over backwards not to issue an update during trading hours that would plainly and factually disclose that a winding petition has been lodged against EUA.

the more ‘speculative’ element would be, how much cash do they have left, and how many other people will now be thinking of putting in petitions to get back money owed … once this sort of thing starts happening, none of the other creditors will want to be left as the last in the queue for payment with the cash running out.

Seriously??

Matthewevans32, i note your perplexity, but frankly, i don’t care.

19:13, but on the other hand they pretended they’ve only just become aware of it.

? ‘brevity’ or ‘gravity’?

Makes one wonder how EUA plans to deal with legal costs arising from the other case.

? who wants to keep holding this stuff over the weekend? - but if anyone want out, easy enough, as carlito is presumably hoovering up millions more golden tickets even as i type.