Member Info for Spikeyj

RNS 19/9/23: “The value of unsold concentrate within Inventories at 30 June 2023 was approximately £3.5 million.”

RNS 19/9/23: “The Board expects the concentrate to be sold at carrying value and we are currently evaluating offers from three parties who responded to the tender process.”

- but no indication at all whether those three offers supposedly received so far were even remotely close to that supposed £3.5 million value.

- any prospective buyer of any of EUA’s assets, including the sandpile, will be very aware that EUA is increasingly a distressed seller with no other viable way to raise cash ( - other than a placing? - but given sanctions could they even get one away to raise money for ruskies?), and can take full advantage of that by lowballing.

… but handily for EUA, the sure-fire way to make sure that they do eventually sell the concentrate for its “carrying value” is to keep on lowering the value it’s carried at in their accounts …

This share is amusing, interesting, and occasionally instructive. that’s plenty for me. (but i wouldn’t put money into this kind of junk - what made you fall for it in the first place?

“”… you want to hand on to the possibility of a pay out because you truly believe it can happen…”

don’t be silly. i have no shares or any other financial stake at all in cloudtag, and no, i do not “truly believe” in anything other than an infinitesimal chance of a payout.

(the idea that a wife would deserve to be killed because they talk too much and are irritating has a depressingly long and vile part in human culture.)

I get that toffers can be quite irritating for some people, but there ought to be a bit of distance between being irritated with someone vs making ‘jokes’ about wife-killing.

…. 10 recommends so far for the 20:46 post ‘joking’ about killing toffers. sort yerselves out.

20:46, deeply unpleasant and mysogynistic post, insulting toffers and suggesting people married to her would want to kill her.

c’mon, grow up and stop posting this kind of aggressive personal abuse.

An otc /ersatz CFD or spread bet is *not* the same as buying someone else’s shares. what’s hard to understand about that?

You could make a bet with someone else about whether cloudtag will make a big payout or not, and have as many solicitors as you like drawing up the terms of that bet, *but what you cannot do is buy their shares*, since that would require the company to register that there had been a transfer of ownership. … and the company has said it won’t do that.

it really ain’t that complicated, but you still don’t get it.

also, you are confusing two completely different issues … the statement from the company that they won’t register secondary share transfers is a entirely different matter from the recent statement about the ‘book’ being ‘closed’ ( - albeit with amit making no attempt to define his terms, as per usual).

{… with someone else, other than amit, of course…]

It’s not about buying on or off market. you can’t enter into a valid contract with someone else for them to sell you their shares because there is no legal means for the contract to be settled - cloudtag has stated that it will *not* register third party share transfers. last time round you started waffling about CFDs and spreadbets, but neither of those are the same as actually buying someone else’s shares … no transfer of share ownership would take place, even if you could somehow construct an OTC CFD or S/B contrast where some other anonymous chatboard punter would take the obvious counterparty risk you present. blimey, you are dim!

11:45 … tbf, that was obvious already. bear in mind, manfromdelmonti is the poster who (a) believed that he can buy shares from another pi when the company has stated it will not register any third party share transfers, (b) thought that he can buy shares from another pi by constructing a personalised OTC CFD contract, (c) thought he could organise a short in an unlisted, st vincent incorporated private company where third party share transfers won’t be registered. paddling pool punter, way out of his depth. easy money for amit, dealing with folk like that must be like shooting fish in a barrel.

? presumably even if EUA lost the court case and sustained a hit for colossal damages that sent it into immediate administration, the administrators would still try to sell the assets and that ever-so patient buyer would still be at the table munching those pretzels?…. so in that sense, entirely plausible that the court case will have no impact on sale … more a matter of where any proceeds would go…

… poor little endless victim you, so hard done by. that’s so sad : (

[cue sound of world’s smallest violin]

“K.e.m.a.l has been banned from this forum for breaking rules. He finds a new ID and joins the forum again by signing the terms and conditions of LSE when clearly he is not allowed to do so. This is an integrity issue.”

lol, that reminds me of somebody …

ManFromDelMonti 11/9/23 23:55: “I’ll admit to any number of IDs. I’ve had about a thousand on this site because I am endlessly a victim of cancel culture but refuse to go away and accept the bullying.”

I don’t get what all this apology stuff is about from either enthusiasts or sceptics. peeps are entitled to hold whatever genuine personal views they wish regarding the pros and cons of amit and cloudtag, whether those views are based on solid foundations or utter nonsense.

right or wrong, can’t see why anyone should apologise for their genuinely held views on the company and its shares.

(… different matter if people have been rude and abusive to others, or have sought to deliberately mislead others … apologies relevant in those instances.)

“… way or the other it is over by then.”

i doubt it, dagenham.

history of cloudtag is that he keeps on finding yet more excuses to push dates ever forward into the never-never, but keeps the story going ,b and the shills on here pretend to believe it, and the few remaining enthusiastic invested pis get taken along for yet another ride and probably get tapped up again.

16:01 sure was a nice long list, eh! - but it didn’t seem to include, “the nomad will check up if a company’s sandpile genuinely is as big as the company claims, what its metal composition and content is, and how much that sandpile can be sold for in the real world.”

evening all, sporting events call.

Leno, i am not an auditor, no idea what their requirements are tbh - others here may be able to advise on that one.

but the *nomad* doesn’t act as an auditor / fact-checker, as rampers on here often try to imply.

Leno, you’re overcomplicating it (as well as confusing inference with implication).

… point is simply, if a company tells its nomad that it believes it has a stockpile of Q that is worth $XYZ, then it is not* the job of the nomad to go and see if that stockpile actually exists, or if the pile of Q really would fetch $XYZ if it was sold on the open market.

it’s the company’s responsibility to be truthful and accurate in the first place, nomad acts on that in good faith (which is why nomads tend to resign pdq if it they found out a company was fibbing to them.)

nomads do not act as fact-checkers / auditors (lol, even begging the question of how useful auditors really are anyway!)