Bowleven Share Discussion Threads

[jordaggy] 17/3/2017 15:18

Though I have a nominee account, I was sent a letter by BLVN ! I didn't know there is going to be a second vote...I too will vote with COC...again!

[fatnacker] 17/3/2017 15:15

"stansmith3
17 Mar '17 - 15:12 - 15933 of 15934 0 0

log
winnet is a wind up merchant
you are clogging up the board by engaging him

not that i mind, eventually you will filter him as most have done"


lmfao is that the same "most of the shareholders voted for coc"

[winnet] 17/3/2017 15:13

hilarious. Good one, yes I'm clearly winding everyone up!

PMSL.

have a great weekend all! Even you Stan :-)

[stansmith3] 17/3/2017 15:12

logwinnet is a wind up merchantyou are clogging up the board by engaging himnot that i mind, eventually you will filter him as most have done

[winnet] 17/3/2017 15:02

Not at all Log.

COC are trying to force their strategy on the board through a 22% interest. The majority only voted for because most of the votes were COCS! OBVS!

It is the chairman's Fiduciary duty to act in the interests of ALL shareholders, not just one.

Look at it another way. The majority voted for what we currently have. That is a 4 man board with Billy having the balance of power. COC don't like it and are acting like a petulant child because Billy won't do as they say. Rightly so, as there is no overriding mandate.

[benjimun] 17/3/2017 15:00

Log,
The majority of the shares were passed for the resolutions the fair enough, the majority of shareholders did not, that is clear.
What winnet is arguing is that BA has some legitimacy in his position as guardian of th emajority of PI's. However he should of course ensure KH/KC resign and work with COC to move etinde forward.
I note with interest the new EGM proposal is to remove all BOD including the ones recently appointed by COC, am I reading that correct?

[fatnacker] 17/3/2017 14:59

"How can you say the vast majority don't want what COC proposed?"

well clearly the vast majority of shareholders means just that, individual shareholders, obviously not by the size of their holdings but individually, is that clear?

[loglorry1] 17/3/2017 14:44

But clearly the vast majority of other holders don't want what they want.

This is just getting silly and clogging up the board. The majority voted FOR the resolutions proposed by COC in all but one case and in that case it was very close. FACT. How can you say the vast majority don't want what COC proposed? If you mean the vast majority excluding COCs votes then so what? What sort of statement is that? It's not how company law works and you know that. You just don't think COC should have a say because you don't like what they say!

[warbaby43] 17/3/2017 14:27

"COC is only after one thing and that's short term gain - preferably without having to share much of it with you."

Once again, it should be pointed out that COC's investment in Eurohypo and their battle with Commerzbank was anything but short term, it was over years and not only did COC benefit massively from their their success so did their fellow bondholders.

My researches have not been so expert or as wide as WShak's but somewhere among them did appear an indication of the scale of their gain - something like 6 or 7 times where they started from. Indeed, my guess is that the brass they are using to finance their BLVN holding is not from some shadowy third party but largely from their Eurohypo killing. WShak is welcome to correct me here, though.

[kimboy2] 17/3/2017 14:23

I presume the implication of all this is that Clarkson agrees with Allan, and therefore the Chairman's casting vote has come into play.

[loglorry1] 17/3/2017 14:22

winnet you are being silly. You are saying that COC's votes don't count. You can't just strip them out and then say the stats show that COC don't have support. They are part of the shareholder base.

[winnet] 17/3/2017 14:18

the post is not wrong. His numbers are correct. COC do not have broad shareholder support for their strategy.

that's the fact. laid bare by the voting numbers! You simply cannot argue.

COC passed the resolutions because they bought shares to pass them. Then even then they failed on one of them.

It is COC that is not respecting the result.

[loglorry1] 17/3/2017 14:15

Except winnet his post is quite categorically wrong. Shareholders did vote to remove Kevin Hart but he remains. The only resolution not carried was to remove Billy by a whisker. Billy now uses this as some sort of mandate to keep things how they were. That situation is clearly untenable.

[hernando2] 17/3/2017 14:09

So eagle thinks Billy needs to have a new board, shame billy doesn't...he seems to agree with the rest of us about this shameful behaviour..by a non exec

[winnet] 17/3/2017 14:00

Credit Eagle51 on III.

"Just to put some perspective on the overall situation here - hopefully reasonably clearly - BLVN has approximately 308m shares issue. About 190m of these were voted at the recent GM. These were roughly evenly divided as to outcome - slightly more than 50% voting for COCs proposals - say 100m, of which COC accounted for 70.5m.

So, of all the shares voted (other than COC's) some 90m out of 120m (or 75% of shareholders other than COC) voted against COC's proposals.

Holders of a further 118m shares didn't bother to vote.

Whatever people like Disorder and SpeederD may like to tell you, this was not a decisive vote by shareholders in favour of COC's proposals.

KH and others may well have deserved what came their way but that doesn't mean shareholders will now get what they naively believe they are 'entitled to'. It doesn't work like that.

If I were Mr Allan, I'd be out now, gathering support from enough shareholders to call a GM of my own at which I'd be tabling a whole lot of different motions, including the election to BLVN's board of a number of high calibre individuals with reputations gained in the O&G industry for delivering shareholder value. I'd also be working on a definitive plan to show shareholders how value will be delivered to them in the medium term.

As a general point, whilst I am by no means a supporter of KH and others whose greed has finally proved their downfall, it is hardly fair to blame the failure of BVLN to realise its potential so far wholly on them. The low and unstable oil price, the general state of the industry and the small matter of having to deal with a dictator like Paul Biya are elephants in the room certain people find convenient to ignore.

Desperation does strange things to people. One should never invest more than one can afford to lose, which is what some people appear to have done here. Voting for control to pass to organisations like COC won't help anyone. COC is only after one thing and that's short term gain - preferably without having to share much of it with you. There are ways of achieving this and COC will know all of them intimately. Be careful what you wish for."

[hernando2] 17/3/2017 13:51

Anyone who has been involved in business knows that it is beyond belief, that the non exec chairman is supportive of keeping directors ( who have been removed from their directorships by a shareholder vote)employed as employees to continue to run the company.

this is a shocking use of power, that totally disregards both the shareholders and the normal practice of running a company.

He should be hanging his head in shame if had any humility or the ability to take an objective view of his actions.( as he is required to do in the role that he occupies).

I am shocked a supposedly respected businessman should behave in such a fashion..

I have only 30,000 shares left after selling down so its neither here or there cash wise, but my oh my he reminds me of Alex and Nichola ...we don't want to respect the result because its not what we wanted or thought would happen.

And i am a Scot, thankfully living in England for the last 40 years

[barony] 17/3/2017 13:48

Deal is in Cameroon Gov. hands. Bowleven can only walk away if gov. says no to deal and that is extremely unlikely.

[winnet] 17/3/2017 13:40

we are going round in circles log, principally because we have different strategic visions. Like i said to Shak.

You want COCs vision. I want BLVNs vision. Thats fine. Difference of opinions.

However, I do take issue with the comments about the staff. I think this shows a rather blinkered view of what a Junior Oil and Gas business does. I would refer you tot he fact we are currently operator on Bomono, play a full part in Etinde and the technical workshops (it was our asset after all so we'll have the data!) and not to mention the 101 other tasks that running a business entails (I know i've done it!).

The 4-6 million figure has been widely debated in verified by analysts (and me!).

But then, i'm no O and G expert.

[idc114] 17/3/2017 13:40

I look forward to the second vote. I abstained first time around, but this time I will be voting with CoC.

I see from the BBs that the BoD were canvassing share holders last week, but no one canvassed me for my vote, so not sure what my 100K will do this time around other than push the vote more towards CoC?

[high_voltage] 17/3/2017 13:33

My friend told me from 25p and to keep buying till 100.50p.

Hope this helps

[loglorry1] 17/3/2017 13:03

winnet it's not about the market cap and you know it.

The market cap is covered by cash and Etinde both of which don't need 20 staff to look after them. The cash needs a bank account and Etinde needs New Age and Lukoil. The 20 staff do nothing apart from cost money. If Bomono brings in $4-6m a year great put it in the bank account. I have my doubts on this given that 80% of it was handed over to VOG so cheaply but until we see what it actually produces who can say.

As usual we go around in circles.

[winnet] 17/3/2017 12:43

Tiler - I don't see that as an expensive option. Again, we can get into semantics about what expensive means. For me, its about living within our means. Its about scalability.

Can we get 4-6 million in revenue from Bomono and match this to our GA until we can up the revenue from assets. Its certainly possible

We are a 100 million cap firm with less than 30 staff. Looks around the sector. We are running a pretty tight ship IMO

[benjimun] 17/3/2017 12:42

Log/Winnet

I am happy for BLVN to be run as a holding firm till appraisal or as a oil and gas firm till appraisal. I am sure the II's would be happy for a respected name be brought in.
Given the falling oil price and continued distress in oil firms Bowleven might well be in a position to pick up some assets in the future, my only caveat is they must be revenue producing!
Log I am with you that we must not be in weak position and retain cash for our share of etinde development and a third appraisal well (come on I'm an optimist :-))