Bowleven Share Discussion Threads

[warbaby43] 22/3/2017 08:00

The lengths some people will go to in order to avoid an "Independent Review" and wasn't it COC who were supposed to be pursuing a fire sale disposal of the company or its assets?

[iamthedogman] 22/3/2017 07:37

RNS............

Rule 2.9 Announcement

[glavey] 22/3/2017 04:36

Correction to post 16035:
"This is all about Crown trying to squeeze as much value as they can from us."

This should, of course, read:
This is all about Crown trying to squeeze as much value as they can for us.

[leoneobull] 22/3/2017 00:00

Received the brochure advising me to vote against. Frankly glad to see the back of people that appeared to show no sense of urgency in producing a drop of gas or oil....after 15 years odd....

[aphrodites] 21/3/2017 22:41

Today's announcement only confirms what I anticipated above.

I would not be surprised if Crown revealed who it is working glove-in-hand with and came out with a cash bid in the 45p region.

This share price has only one way to go.

[loglorry1] 21/3/2017 20:13

How many people log onto these Bulletin boards to be confronted by the swathes of stooges and fantasists dishing out incorrect and ill informed nonsense.

pot kettle black ? :-)

[lancasterbomber] 21/3/2017 19:16

I can't see any mention of how long the review will last

[winnet] 21/3/2017 19:11

Argus,

I would hope that if someone took the time to actually vote, they would at least make a tiny effort to look into what they are voting for.

Then given Brexit and Trump you may be right.

These people clearly shouldn't be allowed to vote.

It also works the other way btw. How many people log onto these Bulletin boards to be confronted by the swathes of stooges and fantasists dishing out incorrect and ill informed nonsense. I won't name any names, but i'm sure folk can use their imagination. The COC campaign has been targeted and persistent.

Fortunately it also seems to have failed by the number of PIs they got to support them.

The strength of their argument is weak, unless you need a quick buck of course. But then they say that about my POV. IMO

[iamthedogman] 21/3/2017 17:53

RNS

"Initiation of strategic review"

[the argus] 21/3/2017 17:52

Winnet,

Have you considered how many of the votes for the existing board were from shareholders who don't have a clue about the company but voted with the board because they got a big glossy brochure through the door, telling them the were about to have the company stolen from them?

Not all holders read BB's or have any idea how the company is being run, they would have cast their vote against because the BoD were telling them to!

It's impossible to put a number on that but the point is you are using their votes to make your case, when in fact you have no idea if a vote was cast because the voter agreed with the board or just voted against because they were told to.

A.

[stansmith3] 21/3/2017 17:29

they will do anything to "save us" apparentlythey need to go!

[tli8jaguar] 21/3/2017 17:23

Looks like merge with VOG.

[winnet] 21/3/2017 17:10

don't be so silly ihavenoclue.

I obviously mean the shareholders who actually voted!

[ihavenoclue] 21/3/2017 16:57

Winnet... Want me to point to the post when you stated a certain % of shareholders supported Billy when in fact it was a % that voted and not as a whole?

[stansmith3] 21/3/2017 16:56

basically some misguided shareholders sought to finesse their vote by splitting ithow they came to this conclusion i cannot imaginehopefully, those shareholders have been persuaded by the current/ex board recent actions to effect a complete rout next timethis mess is their fault, lets get it sorted and move on

[winnet] 21/3/2017 16:33

If the largest shareholder doesn't want to be treated with contempt, then it should stop forcing its strategy on us from a position of 22% ownership!

This is all about Crown trying to squeeze as much value as they can from us.

Why not just make an offer - i'll tell you, because they can get more out of us doing it like this. It doesn't mean what they're doing is in any way in the best interests of LTHs or the best plan to get full value for the assets. They want a quick buck - like you and others.

I don't see my logic as flawed at all. As others have pointed out to you, its completely logical. Like it or not.

What i cannot stop is COC buying more shares, having another vote and getting ride of Billy however.

I'm not a large holder any more so i guess i should spend my time on other things from here on in, as I'd rather eat my own fist than keep explaining the logic to you!

I also know very well that 100% of shareholders didn't vote - don't be silly ihavenoclcue.

[ihavenoclue] 21/3/2017 16:32

Winnet seems to think that 100% of shareholders voted so goes along with the % mentioned by the old board as being the % support they have from all shareholders ... which, of course, is plainly wrong !!

[loglorry1] 21/3/2017 15:47

Winnet that is just bonkers. You seem to think that Billy can just treat the largest shareholder with contempt because 72% of the others, who voted, voted for him. I'm afraid your logic is completely flawed.

[belo horizonte] 21/3/2017 15:35

Winnet
Allan has a fiduciary duty to ALL shareholders, including COC and the 132M shares that were not tallied at all for one reason or another. He is not there to look after those that voted against COC, as you seem to imply.

[winnet] 21/3/2017 15:00

Log, this is why I call them "the 75%". But you could call them "the 72.2%" if you like.

Table 2 - Illustrative results excluding COC Shares

RESOLUTION
FOR
%
AGAINST
%
Resolution 1 (ordinary)
Appointment of Christopher Ashworth
32,721,787
27.78%
85,076,774
72.22%
Resolution 2 (ordinary)
Appointment of Eli Chahin
27,999,839
23.77%
89,780,222
76.23%
Resolution 3 (ordinary)
Removal of Billy Allan
22,386,942
19.00%
95,410,156
81.00%
Resolution 4 (ordinary)
Removal of Kerry Crawford
29,649,791
25.16%
88,202,579
74.84%
Resolution 5 (ordinary)
Removal of Kevin Hart
29,810,739
25.33%
87,873,254
74.67%
Resolution 6 (ordinary)
Removal of John Martin
27,727,563
23.07%
92,468,951
76.93%
Resolution 7 (ordinary)
Removal of Tim Sullivan
24,985,997
21.21%
92,812,101
78.79%
Resolution 8 (ordinary)
Removal of Phil Tracy
28,715,198
24.38%
89,082,900
75.62%
Resolution 9 (ordinary)
Removal of any other director
25,638,539
21.78%
92,079,428
78.22%

[stansmith3] 21/3/2017 14:42

could i ask all posters to refrain from cutting/pasting sections from winnet's posts?this is very disturbing to those who have him/her on filter ;)

[ihavenoclue] 21/3/2017 14:28

winnet
21 Mar '17 - 13:38 - 16023 of 16023 0 0

Until then i remain a vocal critic of the COC strategy and hope that our board led by Billy will fight in the interests of all shareholders.

======================

CoC already have invested in 22% ... not much to invest in a few more % to give that 22% the effect to change strategy it was initially meant to have in the first place.

Can't work out % on the initial vote, as someone did to get CoC needing an extra 9%, as the resolutions are different.

All IMHO
Regards
IHNC

[loglorry1] 21/3/2017 14:28

Flattery will get you everywhere but why 75%? 49.3% voted to bin Billy. He's there protecting the 50.7% who agreed to keep him. Fine for now.

You seem to also think Billy has no duty towards COC to protect their interests. Funny that since they are also shareholders.