Member Info for Spikeyj

anders, read back a bit more carefully.

... this being AIM, i doubt very much that all questions will be answered,
whether the company is struck off and liquidated, or it becomes the next
rio tinto. loads happens behind scenes on AIM that is *never* revealed to pis.

laters.

LHG, it appears that you are admitting you are unable to
provide any source showing that your claim of NDAs is factual.

(no problem at all by me if people on this board want to speculate
about such possibilities, but better not to pretend speculation is fact.)

disney has not said anything in the public domain about
an NDA with my local pub. and nor has my local pub.

but that doesn't mean that there is
a secret NDA in place between them.

anders, you're missing the point, presumably deliberately.

if a company says nothing about an NDA being in place, that might
mean that there is an NDA in place which precludes discussion or
mention of the NDA - but it might just mean that there is no NDA.

without any public domain evidence one way or the other,
people are just speculating about the possibility of NDAs,
but some posters on here keep mentioning NDAs as fact.

"Prior to having NDA's the company have always been good at informing shareholders with tweets photos etc.."

... alternative speculation, prior to getting caught out by the previous nomad
& regulators, the company liked to boost sentiment with tweets, photos, etc...

"... I know these things..."

not what i asked, lefthandedgolfer.

i asked you, can you provide any *factual* evidence
in the public domain that says there are NDAs in place?

(... otherwise, you are just speculating...)

LHG, can you provide any factual evidence in the
public domain that says there are NDAs in place?

happy to read the RNS/article/link if so.

"Prior to having NDA's..."

some of the enthusiasts here get a bit het up about what they see as
sceptics misrepresenting opinions or speculation as facts. but they never
seem to mind this kind of speculation masquerading as fact ... funny that.

yes, EUA told the market they are in discussions with a new
nomad. but then again again, they also said they were having
conversations with CITIC. and just look where that got 'em.

if EUA genuinely have been issuing factually correct RNSs, then they should
consider serving a take-down order on advfn regarding book5, and getting
his identity revealed via norwich pharmacal order for papers to be served.

but i doubt that they will.

newbie, not sure what your 17:35 has got to do with what i said.
all I’m saying, in relation to the question you posed at 14:28, is
that WHI will not be rendering any assistance to EUA as from 30/4.

newbie, they already blew their chance for a “smooth transition”
by failing to appoint a nomad before WHI left. WHI have stopped
acting for WHI, so extremely unlikely imv that WHI would lift a little
finger to do anything for EUA now. the chance for a co-ordinated
handover was during WHI’s notice period. i don’t think it really
matters though, the issue is whether they get another nomad at
all, rather than whether the next nomad picks things up ‘smoothly’.

jakNife's similar competition on the other site also shows a similar
spread of price bets, again with most folk being very bullish.

... still time to place your chips ... last week ...

(all bets null & void if no return from suspension)

lamtree 0.25p
Spikeyj 0.75p
jarosg 0.81p
Aubrey 3.1p
Buckeye 3.6p
Mincho 4.7p
wasarunner 4.9p
D_W_Fleas 5.6p
MarkA8178 6.35p
Numbers 7.37p
Harts 8.6p
Smiler888 9.3p
Moneymaker2015 9.8p
Krispy 10p
Antha 10p
TheBeastofBodmin 10p
RR1889 10.7p
Musso74 10.8p
bluenotred 11p
nathdomb 11p
Pompeyrod 11.7p
B1ll 12p
stockdale 12p
DIMITRYsCOUSIN 12p
belstaff 12.2p
tcxman 12.2p
drthomas 15p
Thesharpercarper 15p
8thOctrecovery 15.2p
HappyScot 15.8p
ItsAllBalls 16p
pakstarr 16.8p
squashman 17.5p
A1EX 18p
luckypunter 18pkuffer72 19p
Aandi 20p
mornington-oz 20.8p
Theroller 21.5p
Boosh 21.6p
poke rock 21.9p
mac4671 22p
Tillywhiz 22p
ThisisMine 23p
Herbie53 25p
bry4n 27p
Mikesilver 23p
lfc2020 28p
Torham 29.75
ftsedow 30p
lbye 30p
D0berman 30.6p
Alansugareatyour 32p
Romek 32p
Illbetabuck2 33p
Emmystar 34p
Watson003 34.5p
Lenoman 35p
Oilandga 36p
avo333 37p
Trift8082 38p
Dale02 39p
webster 44p
Pradameinhof 48p
DavePenny 60p
littlebricks 62p
Seadogsteve 72.4p
Banjo2 75p
GeckoLovesGreed 80p+
Chrisparker1981 £1.20
chriso66 £1.25
Weathergeek £9.00
DanielC43R £9.18

NM, you are right that suspension is not a sanction.
but AIM can, and does, order trading in company
shares to be suspended for other reasons, particularly
in order to prevent disorderly or unfair trading. the
investigation into the circumstances for any possible
distortion of a proper market is what might then lead to
sanctions if some kind of wrong-doing is substantiated.

the fact that suspensions are not used as sanctions certainly does
not mean that suspension here was "by choice of the company."

[soz, typo, meant ‘relisted’, i.e. resumed trading, rather than ‘delisted.’]

i‘ve been assuming that EUA have not got a nomad and delisted yet,
because they are not yet prepared to pay a price being asked of them.

but i see that loglorry on the other channel raises an alternative
possibility, namely that EUA might have been asked to do something
by AIM regulation that they actually cannot do; he speculates that
directors could have sold shares/options during the ramp up of the
share price, but now have to provide proof to AIM that they have not
sold. there is no evidence in the public domain to support that idea
so far as i am aware, but it’s an interesting notion that would be very
problematic if it were true, given the lack of declarations about sales.

A1EX, or the company could just do a proper update
about that in an RNS, rather than tweet a picture?

equity = risk.

? possibly jarosg?