Member Info for Spikeyj

previous RNS seem a bit odd if they
don’t really want another nomad ...

me, i think they are trying to stay listed.
a few days left to see if they manage that.

depends how much they want to keep an AIM listing.

“entitled”?
“allowance”?

- required!

difficult to see why AIM would want to even consider offering an
extension to EUA appointing a new nomad, given that the supposed
nomad had already ‘substantially completed’ their DD by 30th april.
that kind of DD should usually only be taking a matter of days, and
AIM had already eased requirements about any actual on-site visits.

fizzydrink, the due diligence is being conducted by the prospective
new nomad, not by EUA. - so it is entirely up to that nomad whether
or not they choose to say anything at all to EUA about what they are
finding, and thinking. the nomad might choose to say nothing at all
(“don’t call us, we’ll call you.”) so EUA might still not know one way
or the other what that prospective new nomad is willing to do, or not.

and some traders also prey on the weak and vulnerable by inciting
greed, and encouraging people to have v. unrealistic expectations.
manipulation of sentiment happens with both ramping & deramping.

by the enthusiasts today.

chillax, this is only a chat board for shooting the
breeze, nothing more. & besides, it’s only money.

hello ian, please put me
down for 28/5/20, thanks.

anders, i haven’t looked at TW’s site since he put up a paywall.

18:41, good post.

two related comments: firstly nomad advises a company, but cannot compel
company to take their advice. that includes whether or not the BoD chooses
to include specific date of nomad resignation in RNS that the company issues.

secondly, if a nomad does report *alleged* wrongdoing /breaches to regulatory
authorities (exchange, FCA, SFO, etc etc), any such body would want to conduct
its own review / investigation to determine the facts of the matter, rather than
presume that a critical nomad report necessarily mean that a company has been
at fault. that kind of due process tends to be pretty darn slow at the best of times,
will be much slower if BoD doesn’t cooperate, & probably slower still b/c covid19.

off for a riverside run. c u guys later.

“...likely...”.

lol!

i don’t know what WHI may already have reported
to regulators. some we may learn, some we won’t.

GFD, re your 17:45, no i am not in any way suggesting that WHI
have been complicit in any kind of ‘cover-up.’ i think that WHI
will have informed regulators of any concerns that they had.

lenoman, you asked a question at 17:14, and yes, i did
answer you, at 17:16. (tough if you don’t like the answer.)

i’m afraid I simply don’t understand the second half of your rather rambling
post at 17:33. - where on earth are you getting the notion from anyone is
suggesting that “WHI could have been complicit in a potential fraud, and
not telling the authorities the reasons, why they resigned, ...” ? so far as i
am aware, WHI have not been complicit in anything untoward, & I’m pretty
sure that they have already told regulators the reason(s) for their resignation.

GFD, re your 17:23, my post at 17:19 is not asking you any question at all. i am
simply declining (politely) to answer your question about how i know, whilst
pointing out that plenty of others besides ethio believe WHI gave 3 months.

plenty of room in the market for both investors & traders.
well done arsenal, long may your luck/skill continue.

i expect somewhere between 33%-50% BP dividend cut before the
end of this year. but a very complex world still, so lots can happen.

as i’ve posted before, goodflyingduck, you will have to do your
own research on that one. but you are utterly wrong to say only
ethio believes WHI gave three months notice. i believe (/know) it.

that goodflyingduck was wrong.

goodflying duck: “Ethio, best i can make out, there’s only you posting here believes that WHI gave three months’ [sic] notice...”

nope, more of us than just Ethio. WHI resigned on 30th jan.