Member Info for TT-T

Do I interpret this correctly as an estimate of what a rational market would create as a risked assessment at each of those stages? In essence, peaks and troughs aside of what the market might produce, that is what it should, and what prices might be expected to drift towards?

May be worth seeing a physio for a more holistic view. I have an issue with my spine that manifests as plantar symptoms. Regular treatment on my back helps keep that at bay or at least at a minimum. No direct treatment on my feet ever lasted.

It would certainly make sense of the substantial option payment for the rig. I don't recall that we needed that before when it was there used by SDX and we just utilised down time.

You have tried pushing that line before. It was nonsense then and it is nonsense now. The RNS states that £275,000 secured both the option to use the rig and rig maintenance. Nowhere does it state that PRD is 'on the hook' for £275,000 of maintenance. It is a deposit. Your transparent FUD attempts are neither logical not literal interpretations of anything. No one believes you hold anything, and if you do it would make you certifiable for consistently seeking to trash talk that holding.

I'd have liked to, but I'm away unfortunately.

Either this shows the placing price was too high a discount, or was actually a good move to lessen the sp disruption after the place by allowing greater buying momentum.

I think what was missing there was the price drifted down and took 6 months to drift back up.

The same happened to me with Greggs some time back, and I was happy with a 5% or so profit after a long slow down and up. Then everyone fell in love with a newly launched Vegan sausage roll and boom!

The market's breath is held on this share.

Farewell Lennie the Dip

As I read the two RNS there must have been a conflict, and it must have been the entity H2G that was facing the conflict not PG personally or as director (such things are easily compartmentalised/approved). The sale of shares must have been all held by H2G or the sale would not be to remove potential conflict.

There was nothing significant in the change in PG's total shareholding that would have changed a conflict position if all shares were held by H2G. Given the total held, I can't see that this sell down would remove any perceived conflict by leaving any behind.

Anything other than this and the RNS would be misleading as the reference to conflict reduction would simply be wrong, and nothing I have seen makes that at all likely.

Or in other words... Don't fall for excessive deramping. It's your hard earned cash on the line.

Looking at PRD's RNS of 20 Jan 2021, its clear that PRD thought things were still going well at that point. There can't have been any litigation on the horizon then.

I can't see an overt reference to the FRAM debt, but it may be that PRD know that it is included in some of the larger liabilities outlined there. It is odd that predator was included in the glossary of terms for CEG's 2020 audited report, but as far as I can see was never then referred to.

Does that entry actually relate to the PRD debt though. We are just now threatening litigation, so can an ongoing matter in the TT high court actually refer to us?

GB has said in either a tweet or BB msg (I forget which) that instalments have been taken out and paid back already. Hopefully that will be confirmed in the investor meet as that will provide some more formal reassurance.

That isn't something the lender can choose. The lender can only choose to receive funds at a premium above the recent share price. However, if the company defaults on the loan then they can exercise that option.

That said, if a company is in a position whereby they are defaulting on a loan payment, how many lenders want to receive their shares instead of recieving at least pence on the pound through insolvency. It seems unlikely that will represent significant dilution.

Yes, and that must have happened. The point I was making is that in May exclusivity agreements were noted as due to be proposed in the future. On 29 June, confidentiality agreements were confirmed as having occurred in a backwards looking report.

This was a discussion held at the time, events occurring after the year end in the annual report are still backwards looking from the date of the RNS. So in short, the fact that confidentiality agreements had been issued at some point prior to 29 June (probably prior to 12 May too) is not a relevant factor in determining when the exclusivity period may have begun as suggested on this thread below.

Confidentiality agreements don't equal the exclusivity arrangements. If you have to whittle down the number, even to the two frontrunners noted, you will have had some confidentiality agreements in place with that larger number of interested parties.

Evening BDT,

I agree entirely and tried to point that out myself early doors. The tenses and content of many of the entries were clearly 'as announced' even where later entries in the same document then seemed to contradict it. Yet that led people to assume nothing had changed or progresses.

Sorry Croxie auto correct there on your name.

Crozier - it's the language used I am referring to. Much of it is written in present tense as it was when announced, which is reasonable. Where it has changed significantly, there are other entries that address that as with the Fram loan. Those too are largely in the tense they were announced in. The purchase order is the same. If the well heads were on their way or received, that would require a new announcement and so would have an update. There is little difference between preparing and issuing POs so no announcement is reasonably required. As such, no post balance sheet update is required.

What I caution against is relying on the tenses matching past announcement and assuming everything has been static since. That would not be a reliable assumption, not is it an error in the drafting. It's a style choice which is reasonably available.

I think both that and the long lead item reference will have been prepared a while ago. It has to be read with the further updates addressing the reliability of the loan receipt.

I think one needs to be hesitant in interpreting all of that as a picture of right know. Even post period events reflect a series of different 'nows' at different times when they were announced