Member Info for Spikeyj

Re 11:43, so it will be v interesting to see if they do realise that particular minimum value they insist the stockpile is worth - i.e. year end not based on the cash they have in hand, but on what they hope to realise.

“Completing a deal before end of this year”

&

… have enough cash to the end of the year.

… now there’s a funny coincidence. me, I’d guess it’s the same class of ‘year end’ that’s being referred to. in other words, if they don’t sell it by the end of the year, then they will have to place. me, i think it means this calendar year.

time to fire up mac’s old countdown clock!

… aug, sept, oct, nov, dec —> [boom/splat]

not long to go, or, putting it another way, shortly!

“Spicey”, lol, i’ve been called worse.

“Not long till end of the year…”

EUA supposedly has enough cash to the end of the year.

is that calendar year?

or is that the tax year?

financial reporting year?

… not long before we find out, eh, now that they have their placing mandate, but at least it should be comfortably after IKN & Mr_Wolfe have settled their 1st september bet.

& russia wasn’t planning to invade ukraine either.

? maybe when you log out, just close the window promptly rather than keep looking at the posts then? — again, that would be a win-win for both you and the people you are filtering.

…not really much point filtering people if you still end up reading their posts.

Toffers, why not just stay logged in?

that way you won’t need to see any posts from people you have filtered. that would be a win-win for both them and you, everybody happy!

19:32, mr_wolfe, there is something about witchcraft on this board. one of the misogynistic insults that’s been directed towards toffers on several occasions is to call her a ‘witch’. sexist personal abuse for sure, but weirdly old-fashioned!

makeabundle’s 19:19 rather gives the lie to the EUA enthusiasts who sometimes attempt to claim that there is no ramping on this board.

I also doubt that FCA will do anything whatsoever regarding EUA.

firstly, whatever the alleged issues that people might flag up to them, the FCA still probably see EUA just as a pretty small side-show compared to other fish they are meant to fry, and secondly FCA are very underresourced and very overwhelmed and hence about as useful as the proverbial chocolate teapot.

i doubt their nomad cares much either - this nomad has a very strong stomach indeed.

Hi friendsps. take a look at the segment of transcript posted on this chatboard by peaceonearth at 10:36.

as you’ll see there, CS began by acknowledging that people have asked about the two cases, but he then only went on to explain why they didn’t notify the logik case.

[i guess several different people may have mailed in to EUA about this before the AGM. i am aware that it has also been raised separately as a concern with the nomad and FCA].

Yes, it is as clear as day from the wording that CS did *not* give any explanation at all why EUA did not give timely notification to the market about the queeld litigation.

11:57, seem to be a lot of posters today confusing the comparison of a hypothetical eventual sale price versus (a) current share price, (b) underlying actual value,(c) forecasts & price targets touted about by brokerages and bucket shops.

three very different things.

Nothing to do with “crossed wires”, iknownuffin. you and EIE01 both posted false information, and i called that out.

you (11:20) and EIE01 (11:01), both referring to cases in the plural, both claimed that CS said EUA hadn’t notified the litigations cases because they weren’t material.

but that simply isn’t true. he only said that about the logik case.

CS did not offer any explanation at all why EUA had not notified the market and its shareholders in a timely way about the queeld litigation, which is specifically what i highlighted at 10:57.

i don’t know if you and EIE01 were deliberately lying, or just being sloppy in the way you read/remembered CS’s speech, but either way you were both posting misleading statements.

11:07: “… the share price is detached from the reality…”

that at least we can agree on.

Seamus, donkey was posting about discount to *ACF’s valuation*. but you are asking him about discounts to *”actual value”* — which imv has nothing whatsoever to do with ACF’s purported figures. … you’re talking apples and pears.

the more valid comparison would be, how many AIM companies get sold /liquidated during administration /etc. for only a tiny percentage of the ‘valuations’ that had previously been touted by brokers?

[plenty of them …e.g. think quindell, or koovs and the laughable forecasts made for its s/p by hardman & co.]

That’s not true.

check the text peaceonearth posted at 10:36.

EUA said that the *logik* case was settled, and *that* case was not material. however, they did *not* say that the queeld / mispare case was not material.

they didn’t offer any explanation at all why the market and shareholders had not been notified about the queeld/mispare case.

[?you are claiming that peaceonearth has posted innaccurate text?]

It’s a smaller matter, imv, compared to those fundamental issues about whether EUA actually has anything worth selling that anyone wants to pay more than a bag of beans for - but he appeared to completely duck the question about why EUA did not notify the market and shareholders in a timely way about the queeld litigation.

Seamus, your 21:44 asked about sales at 5% to “actual worth”.

but ACF’s figures had nothing to do with EUA’s “actual worth”.

(… even begging the dubious notion of EUA being “well run”.)

“acf report could indeed turn up much right, time will tell but until sale there isn’t anyone that can say they are wrong …”

ACF forecast that EUA’s revenue for 2021 would be £341 million … i’d say that was pretty far wrong.

“…well run organisations …”

c’mon, this is a board for discussing EUA.