Bowleven Share Discussion Threads

[tli8jaguar] 23/3/2017 15:09

What is the alternative....

Stuck in the low 20s for the next 2 years with COC in charge? as a (holding on company)

[tli8jaguar] 23/3/2017 15:08

Ah, Winnet, that would be Steve Lowden's money anyway. COC gets a fee.

[loglorry1] 23/3/2017 15:08

For once I'd agree with winnet. If Etinde sold pre-appraisals I'd hope it would fetch more than £40m. The carry for the two wells is worth nearly that. Read across from the last transaction would be around £100m or 31p/shr. Tax losses also probably worth something. I reckon 50p+ possible.

Log

[winnet] 23/3/2017 15:05

40 million for Etinde!

thats would be some firesale.

Also as COC have been buying at 36, 37p recently, it would be illogical!

[tli8jaguar] 23/3/2017 15:03

£75 million cash / 320,000,000 shares = 23.5pps
£40 million for etinde = 12.5pps

Sale price 36p per share.

[winnet] 23/3/2017 14:59

Sorry Log, i'm lost.

KH lost the vote. He should go. Unless there is a decent operational reason to keep him on.

BA did not lose the vote, in fact he won, and therefore he should not go, nor should he give in to the demands of minority shareholder. As it stand COC are a minority holder and should behave as such.

Is all that clear enough for you log.

Its actually a very simple thing to understand. I'm not asking you to agree that BA should defy the will of COC, because clearly you think other wise.

[ramayer] 23/3/2017 14:51

Is a bid imminent?

[loglorry1] 23/3/2017 14:43

>The shareholders who voted Hart off where COC
If they had not been COC then he should have gone then?
>yes - absolutely.

So basically you are saying COC votes don't count becacause if someone else had held them they'd have been valid and KH should have gone but because COC cast the votes and you don't like them they don't count.

Jeeps you couldn't make this up.

[tli8jaguar] 23/3/2017 13:49

The Fat Man has named the RAT.

[winnet] 23/3/2017 13:42

yes - absolutely.

I've said all along. He lost the vote. He should have gone.

Billy didn't however and does have a legal and fiduciary mandate.

[loglorry1] 23/3/2017 13:26

>The shareholders who voted Hart off where COC
If they had not been COC then he should have gone then?

[winnet] 23/3/2017 12:48

You're right log, i won't concede it and neither should Billy.

The shareholders who voted Hart off where COC. I do however, agree he lost the vote so he should be gone.

However, the majority of holders (by a small margin granted) voted to endorse Billy and his by proxy his strategy. Why should he roll over and let someone with 23% decide what our strategy is.

You know my point, i know yours. We're not going to agree. Billy is fighting the good fight, Bravo fight on wee man i say.

[loglorry1] 23/3/2017 11:47

"BA is doing what he believes is in the best interest of all "other" shareholders, not just COC."

He's there to act for ALL shareholders not "All other". I doubt you'll ever concede this. He's acting against the majority of shareholders wishes who for example voted to have KH removed from the board by keeping him as CEO. Clearly the spirit of that vote was to have him removed as CEO.

I've gone around in this circle so many times I'm dizzy now.

[warbaby43] 23/3/2017 11:25

Oh, so Saint Billy of The Gorbals now:

"Its great that Allen has managed to attract such a large amount of capital to encourage social renewal in that part of Scotland. Bravo."

Whatever next - Kev running a stable for rescued racehorses, perhaps?

[fatnacker] 23/3/2017 10:20

I understand hernando but my point stands, the fact that crown have increased and may increase further answers the question.

[winnet] 23/3/2017 10:17

Shak,

I would say that suggesting Billy is not acting in an independent way is wrong and defamatory. Look at the Higgs report (2003) for a definition of independence.

It is both free from structural ties and a freedom of mind and judgment.

BA is doing what he believes is in the best interest of all "other" shareholders, not just COC.

[hernando2] 23/3/2017 10:14

Fat- i meant the ones that support Billy and the now EX board..

[fatnacker] 23/3/2017 10:12

Err didn't they rns an increase yesterday?

[wshak] 23/3/2017 10:12

winnet,

Evidence! They've laid a strategy out which is based on taking value from LTHs and handing it to themselves. It's theft by any other word!

The only strategy that COC have put forward is this one:

Focus on maximising value of Etinde interest, no resources should be spent on new projects or acquisitions

Radical cost cutting of administrative expenses to US$1-2m p.a.

Maintain cash buffer to secure the development of Etinde and be a strong participant in any negotiations

Return excess cash to shareholders in a tax-efficient manner

It isn't helpful to continually sling mud without any evidence. It's ok to state your fears but presenting it as fact is misleading.

Billy Allan is continuing to support the old board members by keeping them employed. That is a fact, and it shows that he is not acting in an independent way.

BLVN's future will be disctated by its shareholders - as it should be. If some people don't like the direction in which things are headed, they should buy more shares and vote for what they want.

[hernando2] 23/3/2017 10:10

fat..how do you know? i will wait for their declarations

[fatnacker] 23/3/2017 10:08

Well clearly they hold enough so that crown feel the need to increase further.

[hernando2] 23/3/2017 09:44

I am waiting for all the institutions that backed billy ( according to the voting RNS) to declare, it will be interesting to see who they are and how much they hold

[fatnacker] 23/3/2017 09:39

I'm not sure they know they're being manipulated winnet.

[winnet] 23/3/2017 09:26

Evidence! They've laid a strategy out which is based on taking value from LTHs and handing it to themselves. It's theft by any other word!

Also - the point of my post is that Billy is unnecessarily taking a bashing not vice versa!.