Member Info for WordSpaghetti

Actually Ssccss has been responding and hasn't been insulting. So that's a very odd thing to say ASI.

Not true ASI.

there is a plan afoot with EGM that was shared here before the trolls deleted it. However this will be publicised more widely. Good luck. So voting matters and there is a plan where we get to keep most of the company rather than give it all away.

I stated we have moved away from chat gpt. It is now the statement itself. you can carry on talking to yourself now. go on. bye.

Essentially, without AI, this is the message: and just that.

I don't understand the conflation of the GM with 110% increased share dilution at the GM and the 2025 Accounts AGM, or the preceeding/subsequent RTO GM. 2025 Accounts and AGM are irrelevant to both upcoming GM and potential RTO. There is no requirement to have anything to do with any of these shares allotted before auditors would sign off 2025 accounts. Red herring. Voting yes at this GM makes the RTO more likely. I think even if we get accounts AND have the AGM to ratify them we wont go back to trading before we would be additionally suspended due to the RTO process (you can check, as soon as that process starts we get suspended until it fails or completes). So voting yes means no back to trading and RTO (unless EGM vote also passes which is highly unlikely as RMD and Directors pick up 28m shares, regardless of pledged shares). So. Voting no hedges your bets regardless of GWs plan or the RTO. The company can put the shares forward any number of times even if they lose. Only thing stopping it is a total board takeover which we would have the chance to vote on. This GM is NOT the EGM to vote on GWs plan. This is honestly a logic game. No downside to voting no.

*at the expense of existing shareholders as of today's date.

Just remember that if you use a chatgpt account it remembers what and how you ask - and you have thus been calibrating it these past months when you've been posting gibberish which had screaming factual errors and inconstancies.

Like where on earth did you get the idea anyone was suggesting the bod is circumventing shareholder authority. I certainly wasn't. in fact the GM is structured so they aren't! but they are stacking the probability of success in their favour if they win it.

Honestly.

"current events surrounding PPP" is far, far too vague to be of any use. see my prompt - it has facts taken from public sources, in order to calibrate the output based on what is known in a factual sense, not what some people post on here about the TG group. honestly. it's like trying to use a hammer to screw in glasses hinge screw. completely the wrong approach.

But by the looks of it you're unable to hold a coherent though without relying on chat gpt.

It's average intelligence, not artifical intelligence. remember that.

ASI that's not true as you know it - otherwise how could existing shareholders have voted Lunn out AND voted down every single resolution apart from accepting accounts and auditor?

Exactly.

Go on ASI.

post your entire prompt and output, as is, so i can put it into chat gpt.

that is by definition a waste of time because i only used to confirm validity of the quote, given the more relevant pieces of information. I could build a massive one with everything that's happened with PPP, before, after suspension and so on but sorry, I don't have time. You'll have to wait for the film starring Kevin Costner.

ASI - unfortunately it does.

You said it yourself - if the BoD didn't want the RTO then they wouldn't be pressing ahead with it.

I am not saying the BoD is circumventing shareholder authority - i didn't say that - what I am saying is:

say 25million votes would currently be NO to RTO

and 15 million YES to RTO

With the GM, this changes the landscape, and let's ignore the pledged shares (although many go to Lunns company they also go to Rapp and Evans)

Yet the RMD BoD stand to gain 18.75million shares, and rest of the Directors (and probably Lunn) stand to gain an additional 9.25m shares.

So as you can see, when you look at 25m vs 15v, but actually after the GM it could be 25m vs 43m YES to RTO.

So you stating it is not linked is a logical fallacy.

A new thread for ASI.

Ssccss - nothing. discussing factual issues relating to the company is precisely where there is a chat board here.

But the select group of negative shareholders/posters who don't want to retain shareholder voting power may have their details taken and legal action taken by the company. Or is it only those who are fighting to retain their existing voting power when not being presented with all the information?

And as I have included the entire prompt I asked chatgpt, it is open and transparent, with factual details as we know them today (or not in the case of any resource or financial information RE the Ukraine asset except 'last sold for' value.

So in the prompt I have used what are not true?

All information in the prompt is true. So... you need to inform chatgpt of the parameters with which to work - it isn't actually intelligent it's just a large language model.

So that was using the quote, and the prompt with details from the chat, with a few extra facts that are known.

So there you go.

Ii) Risk of worse terms later

If this GM fails:

Future authority requests may be:

larger

more urgent

tied explicitly to “going concern” language

Shareholders often capitulate later under pressure.

So while the company can “put the shares forward any number of times”, shareholder leverage usually declines, not improves, over time.

iii) Regulatory / listing risk

Extended suspension + inability to execute strategy:

increases risk of:

cancellation

enforced restructuring

fire-sale RTO terms

This risk is not zero.

b) However — the hedge argument has merit

The quote’s core strategic claim is:

“Voting no hedges your bets regardless of GWs plan or the RTO.”

This is partially correct because:

Voting yes:

permanently gives away pre-emption protection

enables extreme dilution without another shareholder vote

Voting no:

preserves optionality

forces any dilution to be re-justified

This is especially relevant given:

undisclosed % interest

Ukraine jurisdiction risk

prior asset sold for $1

requirement to inflate to ~£30m market cap from a 9.55p base

So while “no downside” is wrong, asymmetric risk protection is real.

3. Impact on current shareholders prior to any dilution

This is the most important part — and the quote is directionally right.

a) Economic vs legal dilution

Even before shares are issued, voting yes causes:

Economic dilution risk:

Market prices in future dilution

Negotiating power shifts to incoming RTO vendors

Control dilution:

Board gains discretion

Minority shareholders lose veto power

So although:

“no shares are issued yet”

The value of existing shares is already impaired.

b) RMD / insider positioning

You note:

RMD + directors potentially acquiring ~28m shares

Undisclosed vendor economics

£30m implied valuation requirement

Granting allotment authority before:

asset valuation clarity

independent fairness opinion

disclosed ownership structure

is objectively high risk for existing shareholders.

4. Overall assessment of the quote

What the quote gets right

✔ GM is procedurally separate from accounts/AGM

✔ Voting yes materially increases probability of RTO

✔ Suspension is unlikely to end meaningfully before RTO

✔ This GM is not the final vote on the RTO

✔ The dilution risk is being mis-framed by proponents

What it gets wrong or overstates

✖ “No downside to voting no” (there are time, leverage, and listing risks)

✖ Underplays the board’s ability to wear shareholders down

✖ Assumes an EGM defeat is “highly unlikely” without full voting register clarity

Bottom line (plain English)

Voting yes:

Hands the board a loaded weapon

Makes a severely dilutive, opaque RTO far easier

Offers no credible upside before dilution

Voting no:

Does not stop dilution forever

Does preserve leverage and optionalit

Output:

Below is a structured analysis of the quote you provided, focusing on logic, downside risk, and impact on current shareholders prior to any dilution, using the facts you set out about PPP, the GM, the accounts/AGM, suspension status, and the proposed RTO into RMD.

I’ll be deliberately clinical rather than emotive, because this is essentially a sequencing-and-incentives problem.

1. Logical consistency of the quote

a) GM vs 2025 Accounts / AGM

The quote is largely correct on this narrow technical point.

Share allotment authority / disapplication of pre-emption at a GM does not require:

2025 accounts to be signed

an AGM to have taken place

Auditors do not require those shares to be issued, or even authorised, to sign off the 2025 accounts.

Therefore, linking:

“110% dilution at this GM”

to

“2025 Accounts / AGM”

is indeed a red herring from an accounting or Companies Act perspective.

✅ Logical conclusion:

The GM is procedurally independent of the 2025 accounts and AGM.

b) GM vs RTO process

This is where the logic becomes more subtle — and mostly correct, but with important omissions.

Voting yes at this GM:

Does not itself approve an RTO

Does remove a structural blocker to an RTO (by allowing cheap equity issuance, vendor consideration shares, placings, etc.)

Voting no:

Does not kill the RTO

Does force the board either to:

reconvene another GM/EGM

renegotiate RTO economics

or face shareholder pressure / board change

So the statement:

“Voting yes at this GM makes the RTO more likely.”

is logically correct.

c) Suspension logic

The quote says:

“Even if we get accounts AND have the AGM… we won’t go back to trading before we would be additionally suspended due to the RTO process.”

This is mostly correct in practice, but overstated in certainty.

AIM/Main Market RTO rules:

Once an RTO is announced or formally underway → suspension usually follows

If PPP is already suspended, there is no realistic window for meaningful resumption if:

the board intends to proceed straight into an RTO

However:

There is a theoretical path where:

accounts are published

suspension is lifted

trading resumes briefly

But given what you state PPP has explicitly told investors, the quote’s assumption is reasonable.

✅ Conclusion:

The quote’s suspension logic is directionally sound, if pessimistic.

2. Downside risk analysis of “voting no”

This is where the quote is weakest, because it understates real risks.

a) “No downside to voting no” — incorrect

There are downsides, even if they are probabilistic rather than immediate:

i) Board entrenchment & time risk

Repeated failed GMs:

burn cash

extend suspension

weaken negotiating position further

The board can:

keep re-proposing resolutions

frame dissent as “blocking recapitalisation”

Time is not neutral for a suspended, cash-poor

Prompt:

Regarding Main Market Listed Penn Petro Energy's (PPP) upcoming GM for the allotment of shares and disapplication of preemption rights, expected 2025 Accounts and upcoming AGM sometime in Q1 2026, and following that a severely dilutative RTO into RMD group who own an undisclosed % of an oil and gas license in Ukraine at an unknown value but last sold for $1 (and said RTO needs to make up £30m market cap when PPP's share price is 9.55p), and given that PPP have told invested it is unlikely to return to trading until the RTO has completed, please analyse the below quote for logic, downside risk, and impact on current shareholders prior to any dilution:

"I don't understand the conflation of the GM with 110% increased share dilution at the GM and the 2025 Accounts AGM, or the preceeding/subsequent RTO GM. 2025 Accounts and AGM are irrelevant to both upcoming GM and potential RTO. There is no requirement to have anything to do with any of these shares allotted before auditors would sign off 2025 accounts. Red herring. Voting yes at this GM makes the RTO more likely. I think even if we get accounts AND have the AGM to ratify them we wont go back to trading before we would be additionally suspended due to the RTO process (you can check, as soon as that process starts we get suspended until it fails or completes). So voting yes means no back to trading and RTO (unless EGM vote also passes which is highly unlikely as RMD and Directors pick up 28m shares, regardless of pledged shares). So. Voting no hedges your bets regardless of GWs plan or the RTO. The company can put the shares forward any number of times even if they lose. Only thing stopping it is a total board takeover which we would have the chance to vote on. This GM is NOT the EGM to vote on GWs plan. This is honestly a logic game. No downside to voting no."

ASI unfortuntately, as Spinks has stated many times in their call, you seem unable to grasp this:

If the BoD/Lunn so NOT want the RTO to happen, then why did Lunn bring them in? Why did Lunn make Spinks Chairman? Why are all of the calls related to the RTO (with again no financial information given)? and why do we have this 107% dilution, without an FCA approved prospectus, before we have the 2025 accounts AGM? And why do we have this before the RMD directors are actually elected?

You see you can't take it in isolation you have look at the bigger picture.

If Goverance was the driving force the GM would be to elect Spinks and Maliky, and then we'd have the allotment of shares, and AGM, and so forth.

Why do you think that has not happened? I know why, but do you?