Member Info for Spikeyj

? possibly more intended to keep the cultists thinking that they
will be rich one day, & so willing to buy even more ‘cheap’ shares,
and not complain/ make waves, rather than silence any critics?

... but as you say, who knows.

rigor mortis setting in.

Cheers.

please could some kind soul remind me / point me towards
what exchange rate will be used for the march dividend payout?

tia.

it’s a mystery, so waiting with interest to learn the answer.

sometimes the problem with social media speculation is
that someone has let a cat out of the bag. but sometimes
the problem is that someone has pretended to let the cat
out of the bag, but was fibbing in order to mislead others.

[i have nobody specific in mind - as per previous post,
i note there’s been a heck of a lot of social media chat.]

no idea whether this will open up loads higher or way lower
when suspension is lifted, but i can entirely understand why
IG would want to increase margins — whether the news is good
or bad for holders, likely to be sharp share price movement, high
volume & high volatility afterwards, so some folks with spreadbets
or CFDs will get wiped - don’t know if that will be longs or shorts.

... best of luck to all honest players. no more posts from me on EUA.

it seems that many posters on this board are assuming that
the “social media speculation” referred to in the suspension
RNS was that specific single tweet. but it is very apparent that
there has been lots of social media discussion of EUA across a
whole range of different social media platforms, & a number of
different groups - the chatter on here earlier on about ADVFN
rumours, and about EUE conversations in a private ‘telegram’
group illustrates that. not necessarily the tweet that triggered?

... just a quick look, & yup, GSC website accessed today
still claims they are holding 67% of whetstone shares (!?)

those most recent micro-accounts from GSC tend to suggest
that GSC has got rid of most or all of its remaining shares in
whetstone, because if it still held its shares in whetstone at
the date of those accounts (dec), then it’s hard to see how it
is reporting such small net assets (unless of course they have
marked whet value down to near zero??). - so not just a puzzle
where the proceeds from the RAP share sales have gone, but
also interesting what may have happened to cash from selling
most/all of GSC’s whetstone in late autumn. if the confirmation
statement had been published on time in autumn last year, then
at least that would have enabled potential retail buyers of whet
shares from GSC to take into account that GSC had already been
a heavy seller of whetstone in march 2019. however, since the
confirmation statement was only published this calendar year,
retail punters being offered whetstone shares from GSC in autumn
‘19 might still have been understandably under the impression
that GSC was still holding about 2/3 of the total shares in whetstone
(especially as GSC’s own website had not been changed to reflect
GSC’s dumping of whetstone in march.) delayed CS handy for GSC?

but happy to hear from anyone who thinks that the net asset statement
from GSC could still reasonably include a sizeable chunk of whetstone -
difficult to know for sure what’s going on as so little info from the company!

if you buy at 4.5p, potential upside
likely +1p, but downside minus 4.5p.

JTMac, I’m not trying to compare the two companies, just
pointing out that there is still a lot of speculation about SXX
and what will happen next, shares still being actively traded,
and the price still moving. it is just one example amongst
very many that could be given of companies which do *not*
get suspended simply because there are possible takeover
issues and lots of speculation about what might happen next.

... or go into the fencing business?

hi JTMac. I i don’t understand what point you are trying to make by posting
a link about fiduciary duty? - that doesn’t say anything about any duty from
a BoD to suspend shares because there is speculation. take a current example
on the UK stock exchange, SXX: a take-over bid has been tabled at 5.5p, lots
of pis are very unhappy, there’s an active campaign to vote it down, & loads of
chatter and speculation about possible alternative bids or funding proposals.
... but although there’s loads of speculation of that sort going on, shares in
that company are still being very actively traded, and are not in suspension.

JTMacs, suspensions are not put in place to stop speculation,
as speculation is the life blood of markets trading listed shares.
problems arise when it’s not a level playing field for speculation.

yorkshire.

falling share price sure suggests some folks getting worried the
deal will get voted down, which would bring with it significant
chance of rapid administration & zero pence for shareholders.
... seems there are some remarkably brave holders out there.

rmr, if it is not the real reason for the suspension,
then the nomad is not acting properly. it is part
of the nomad’s job to ensure that RNSs put out by
the company are honest and accurate. suspension
of a share, particularly for days on end, is not a trivial
matter, and any nomad who knowingly allowed a
company to conceal the real reason for the suspension
of a share would be in deep & hot water. so it is a puzzle.

the sheikh was a parasite who took advantage of
mxo’s desperation. but mxo was already in a mess.

if there are NDAs in place that somehow prevent EUA from explaining
to the market what its relationship is with CITIC, then obviously EUA’s
nomad would already be very well aware of such NDAs - and therefore
the nomad would have known there was no point in requiring EUA to
suspend in order to clarify its relationship with CITIC? - all very odd.

? .. what do you mean mac? are you
suggesting that citic has previously
signed a non-disclosure agreement
which forbids them from disclosing
their relationship with EUA?? - tia.

the only reason stated for suspension is the need
to clarify EUA’s relationship with CITIC. if there was
some other reason for the suspension, the nomad
would have required EUA to state it in the RNS. why
Ob on earth is it taking them days to ‘clarify” the relationship?

all of which begs the question, who bankrolled GSC and the
whetstone experiment in the first place? I rather doubt that
it all came from allan, jmo, so although it appears that allan
sold lots of allan’s shares in one of allan’s other companies to
eager punters, maybe allan also needed to pay someone back?

not that transparent, eh.