Member Info for Spikeyj

Don’t be silly cebo. there would be no restriction on director purchases, subject to usual oversight from nomad. (tho’ would have been more restrictions in place during the FSP.).

… it is a perfect ordinary situation for AIM directors to be able to buy shares in their own companies, despite obviously having a bit more info about company compared to ordinary pis.

12:07 and later that day / next day more bombs and drones hit ukraine.

Chelsea is definitely a duplicate ID of previously banned poster dattabase.

no idea one way or the other about the fairytrade fellah, not someone i have noticed much.

Cebo, very, very unlikely imv, it will ever “get back there”, war or no war.

notice, EUA directors aren’t buying shares in the company they run — none of them have for many years.

Nope, cebo, you and I disagree significantly about EUA prospects. you think they are great, i think they are dismal.

you claimed at 10:30 that there’s no reason why EUA s/p won’t get back to 40p plus.

my 10:54 notes some of the history that makes me think you are wildly over-optimistic.

No reason to believe that the numbers reported on cloudtag website for number of shares in issue bear even the faintest resemblance to the truth. after all, nothing else has been true.

Let’s hope that putin’s luggage is checked through by the same ground crew that did such a great job for prigozhin’s domestic flight.

10:30 “The Share [sic] price hit 40p before the war - so no reason to believe that it wont [sic] get back up there for the exact same reasons it was before.”

the share prices for enron, patisserie valerie, quindell and african minerals also used to be lots higher in the past …. but that don’t mean those prices will return.

the EUA share price hit 40p before the war primarily because unsophisticated pis were led to believe that a huge asset sale was imminent. …. it wasn’t. one strand of that game was the dissemination to retail pis of the ACF report, which produced wildly false predictions about EUA’s financials (e.g. look at what revenue was predicted vs what actually happened.). the lengthy but failed formal sale process, which took place well before putin’s invasion, then demonstrated that nobody at all was actually willing to buy any of EUA’s so-called assets for significant sums.

Bought some.

Strange how sovereign wealth funds such as KIO or KSA, or even proper big fish like blackrock, goldman etc ain’t rushing in to take huge stakes yet, despite the impending certainty of EUA becoming a multibillion dollar multibagger (… well, according to some of the rampy folk on here).

it’s a bit surprising that kio/ksa etc can’t understand the underlying asset values and imminent geopolitical changes as well as folks like chess, gecko and b_positive.

… maybe the problem is just that those sovereign wealth funds aren’t able to trade in GBP, or trade in london?

Https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SDAzBSndPG0

07:47 b_positive: “…the 400-500% rise earlier in the year…”. —— “…the 600% move earlier this year.”

b_positive tries twice, but lies both times in the same post.

there was no 600% or 400-500% move earlier this year. EUA share price at start of january was about 2.2p, and it reached a high in march of 7.75p.

? does the devastation of ukraine make the russian economy any better?

21:07, as another once said, two ways. gradually, then suddenly.

17:30 B_positive “…. since the 600% move earlier this year.”

that is simply not true. the EUA share price did not move 600% earlier this year.

17:30 B_positive: “When Trump won and we knew the paradigm would change, the share price shifted up about 500% from the lows to the highs within just a few weeks.”

that is also a blatant lie. trump won the election on 5/11/24. the EUA share price opened and closed at 2.19p that day … four months later, on 14/3/25, it reached 52wk high of 7.75p…. a 254% increase, over four months.

The 52 week low was 1.9p.

The 52 week high was 7.75p.

? how are you calculating that to be a 500% or 600.% rise, you liar?

14:04, “REGARDLESS OF IT [sic] ASSETS”

… yup, that rather gives away the agenda of the ramper traders like CG …

… i.e. hoping for a price spike that they can sell into, despite no change at all in the ongoing dismal business prospects for EUA as a company. ….

? hands up, who’s the dummy who wants to be left holding the shares that CG is hoping to dump?

Chatboard currently deluged with deeply unpleasant fascist pro-putin propaganda.

but i think the rampers overall much prefer those kind of lies, versus attempting any sensible discussion to try to justify why they believe that trump betraying europe would make EUA’s underlying ‘assets’ worth any more, or any more saleable.

… bearing in mind that EUA couldn’t sell any of its assets even well *before* putin’s invasion, despite lengthy failed fsp, and EUA doesn’t mine because it loses money when it tries to.

Blatantly dishonest posting from B_positive at 13:19.

e.g. “When Trump won and we knew the paradigm would change, the share price shifted up about 600% from the lows to the highs within just a few weeks.”

Lse site info for EUA shows a 52 week low of 1.90p, and a 52 week high of 7.75p….

… since when is 1.9p to 7.75p a 600% increase?

Don’t be silly. EUA isn’t a strategic asset for anyone.