Member Info for Spikeyj

Stretch, i think i have only ever filtered two people before on LSE, in the 11 or so years i have been on this site. but by golly you are really, really, unforgivably boring.

unless you can something try to post something just a little teensy-tiny bit different, you will become my third ever filtered ID, just for being mind-numbingly dull.

He’s been great, well worth his stonking pay. let’s hope he is also helping some good thinking about succession planning.

13:58, agree, probably a reincarnation of the ‘hairygrotbox’ ID.

Del, my reading is, they have had to do a certain amount of digging and surface clearance simply as part of the minimum conditions to keep hold of the licence for the time being. … that’s a reality of supposed ‘mothballing’, which means that even if they were not wanting to mine it as it’s not profitable, they are still obliged by the russian state to keep burning at least some cash on it year on year.

EUA have said by RNS that they employed some people to do that who have previously worked for other mining enterprises etc in the area. that’s hardly surprising!! — they haven’t explained whether any of those people are still employed by EUA or not, nor at what level they were hired. so perfectly possible imv they are just trying to make it sound good that they hired some bulldozer/truck derives to do some site clearance etc, who previously worked on contracts with NN etc.

B3ast, the pikeyj avatar wasn’t created to share genuine opinions about cloudtag.

“shortly”

B3ast, i was just joking about bigmouth beretta’s hardman stories.

To be fair, i should perhaps say, “EUA are not responsible for just how dumb pis can sometimes be in their investment decisions”, since even the smartest peeps can make stupid calls sometimes [yes, I’m looking at you, elon], and all of us can sometimes get carried away by a good story that catches us in a certain mood / certain point in our lives, etc etc.

I think EUA itself seems to been very careful throughout to try to stay within strictly legal boundaries in their own official corporate statements via RNS, but i think the genuine underlying value here is actually very low. i think EUA has often worded things carefully in ways that make it easy for over-optimistic and/or naive pis to make assumptions about value and future prospects that aren’t well founded …

…but caveat emptor, and EUA are not responsible for just how dumb some pis are.

( i think it’s much less clear whether some folks not directly employed by EUA may have made some dodgy moves to promote the shares that may not be on the right side of legal, but EUA itself probably has good deniability re any such.)

it’s entirely up to you what kind of terminology you want to use about the above.

… quite a few differences from ctag, which was blatant and long-running but not subtle … e.g. EUA keeps dangling the prospect of mouth-wateringly huge deals in the future, but carefully reminds there can be no guarantee of such actually happening, whereas ctag claimed to have already completed a huge deal with johnson and johnson leading to a massive payment imminently due to shareholders….

[soz, meant, “at least some greedy or desperate pis..”]

Sometimes with such shares it takes quite a few years for the truth to come out, and underlying value, or the lack of it, to be clearly exposed. the CTAG story has been running for about 8 years now, but just in the last week the CEO has finally been unambiguously exposed as making up absolute garbage about a completely non-existent deal. unclear yet what consequences, if any, shareholders can push through, but they are using same lawyer as the COPL pis.

… kinda off-topic for EUA, but makes the point about the timescale over which these kind of spoof operations can run, and just how long CEOs can keep the plates spinning to keep at least greedy or desperate pis believing.

But B3ast, shurely if one of them was once shown a photo of their house, then that’s enough to put things right, ain’t it?

Unsurprisingly, you are lying yet again, gecko.

i have posted plenty of times previously why i follow EUA … issue is just you and some others choose not to believe me. please do feel free to read back through my post hx.

and no, i have not been posting about EUA for ten years.

and no, i have not lost money on EUA, as never had any position in it.

and over the time i’ve been on lse, i have followed a few different AIM shares and various share scams… quindell, afpo, adme, dvrg, nct, myn, wrn, ctag for example. … some a bit more interesting than others, some bigger than others, some longer running.

… having to spend loads to prevent putin repossessing the licence, (but as father j notes, no statement as yet whether actually generating any revenue from that,) plus splashing out on dual listing in the hope brazilians and wagner pensioners will buy shares in kazakhstan…

that sounds like one of baldrick’s cunning plans.

12:35, nope.

“He can’t issue more shares.”

… still nothing stopping him from selling yet more.

if this was about pis making rational investing decisions, it would have been over many years ago. many folk have continued to buy from amit despite massive contrary evidence.

Fairtradetub, yes, I do tend to agree that putin’s war has no relevance to EUA’s prospects, it’s just been one of the excuses used by EUA for failure to sell their assets.

but plenty of putin fanboys like to use the EUA board for ruskie propaganda, so it’s only fair to offer a snippet or two back from time to time, rather than allow their pro-fascist nonsense to go entirely unremarked.

Seasick, but if as yesterday a lot of new members turn up ramping, then that also means you are heading the right way? - wow, win win eh!

? has this company had the same board of directors for the last 25 years??

… and how much have the current BoD members received so far in pay and perks (not to mention trading opportunities)? —— frankly, it beats working for a living, even if it just carries on like this for another 2/5/10/25 years.

Re 07:27: so far as I’m aware, amit has not admitted any lies on his part.

for something to be a lie, rather than simply a falsehood, there must be an intention to deceive, not just an untrue statement.

if amit does make any further comment on it, i guess he is likely to blame unspecified third parties or a “miscommunication”…. for those with long memories, that’s the word used to obfuscate what really happened with the abortive novum placing which led directly into ctag delisting.