Member Info for Spikeyj

Del, i have expressed my own view pretty clearly at 07:47;

the issue for EUA has always been, ‘offers’ versus *meaningful* offers.

if I am trying to sell a flat in chelsea, and somebody makes me an offer to buy it for a penny, that means very little.

similarly, if an anonymous person pushes a note written on green crayon through the letter-box offering me £10 billion for it, that don’t mean a thang either.

Del, i am referring to the wording of the rns on 12/5/21.

“… a proposal from a credible [*cough*] party…”

… a “proposal”, not an offer. that RNS was very carefully worded.

Sure, that’s possible … i don’t tend to have a view re the shorter term sentiment trading swings, more focused on the underlying value question. plenty of traders here have been busy on the sentiment ups and downs over the last few years, making/losing money depending on how good/lucky they are.

(but perhaps useful to keep that adage in mind, buy on rumour, sell on news?)

Crypto, i think they are using that particular lie recently as it helps to underpin the current ramp theme that when the war is over, EUA will promptly soar because an imminent deal will be signed off that had merely been delayed by the war.

… that’s a much nicer story for the rampers vs when the war ends, EUA will then still languish in the same state it was in after the FSP failed.

@fairytales all round.

“I’d take a wild guess at offers too low…”

yeah, snap.

‘offers’ vs meaningful offers.

20:19, mr tricky, i found your lack of faith disturbing …

….you say that EUA attracted no offers … but hang on one doggone minute …a bunch of telegrammers keep citing that [entirely unevidenced, unsourced] claim on that randomer’s website which says that EUA was just about to sign off on an asset sale deal the very day after putin’s war started….

? might there be some reason that you are not entirely convinced by that little tale, perchance?

Never had any position at all in EUA, neither long nor short.

10:03, to be fair to the BoD, they have managed to keep the share price massively above the genuine value of the underlying business here, so that’s kinda delivered additional value to shareholders.

meanwhile, happy christmas, hopefully a few other presents in the post soon.

Russian general killed by car bomb in Moscow, officials say https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8jwn9wznx1o

Completely fabricated nonsense.

Cheers, TDT2, happy Xmas / new year to you and yours.

… adds some balance to a forum that is relentlessly spammed by pro-russian putin apologists and kremlin disinformation.

? is EUA so fragile that it hurts the company if people read and discuss newspaper articles!?

? do a couple of on-topic articles from the Times really upset you that much, c/g? …. a tad histrionic, imv.

12:12, not sure you’ve really thought that through, c/g.

(in other words, it’s fine by me to see the chatboard used for some debate/discussion about the possible likelihood, advisability, impact on EUA and its shares etc of measures such the ones the Times discusses … that’s the point is sharing such articles, links etc.)

TBOB, the articles i linked to are from the Times, not me. i am not one of their journalists.

Earlier, i posted a link to a leader article in one of UK’s main newspapers, The Times, which argues that the UK should confiscate sovereign russian assets already frozen in the UK, in order to provide more financial support for ukraine.

here’s that link again, de nada:

https://www.thetimes.com/article/1508aeb0-c643-49f0-a876-978b3a2255fa?shareToken=c33905f4b715d25a7d42ba19153a976e

but there is also a highly related issue, about the dispersal of money from abramovich’s football stake, also ££ billions … particularly since many view abramovich as acting as a proxy or bagman for some of putin’s interests: https://www.thetimes.com/article/14088459-3db8-44b0-b0e7-ea6608a5ad09?shareToken=bd1349a530d228359f408865480753c9

there had already been many posts on this EUA chatboard over the last few weeks, from many different IDs, about the desirability or otherwise of the EU confiscating russkie assets in the EU to offer war reparation loans to ukraine. so very clearly, many other posters here agreed that topic was highly relevant to EUA.

but i don’t recall seeing much discussion before about what **the UK** should do (? maybe it hasn’t quite sunk in with some people that we are not in the EU anymore?).

… on the one hand, the sums held in the UK are much smaller than the EU money, so the overall impact for ukraine less significant.

… but on the other hand, if the UK acts to send russian assets to ukraine even if the EU does not, likely imv that there would be more specific targeting and retaliation by putin against UK and UK companies. hence, potentially highly relevant for EUA as a london-listed firm with ‘assets’ in russia that cannot be redomiciled.

personally, i don’t think the eventual outcome of putin’s war in ukraine will make much difference to the underlying value (or otherwise) of EUA’s lousy mining licences in russia. so i don’t think the question of reparations loans matters much to EUA in that sense.

but very obviously, if putin were to retaliate against the UK by seizing UK corporate assets in russia, then that would end EUA’s plate-spinning, placement selling lifestyle company game very promptly.

(as to whether this UK government will or won’t take such action, and indeed whether or not it would be in the overall national interest to so, is debatable … the Times has expressed its own view, others here may differ.)

Del, i disagree with you that it’s irrelevant to EUA (which from my pov is fine, no need for us to agree).

i note that in recent days and weeks, plenty of other posters on this chat board who have thought that the topic of russian asset confiscation, both pro and anti, has been an important and legitimate topic regarding EUA, and posted plenty about that. i don’t recall you moaning about that before.

12:12, the Times article that i posted (…some of which i agree with, some of which i don’t) is potentially relevant to EUA as a london listed AIM trying to operate in russsia, because it concerns possible seizure of russian assets, which, if it happened, would probably to lead to russian retaliation against UK interests, companies and assets.