Buy
Sell
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Parkmead Group (the) Plc LSE:PMG London Ordinary Share GB00BGCYZL73 ORD 1.5P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.30 0.82% 37.00 315,460 16:35:11
Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price
36.00 38.00 37.50 36.50 36.50
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Oil & Gas Producers 4.08 -0.79 -0.45 40
Last Trade Time Trade Type Trade Size Trade Price Currency
16:18:25 O 20,510 38.00 GBX

Parkmead (PMG) Latest News (1)

More Parkmead News
Parkmead Investors    Parkmead Takeover Rumours

Parkmead (PMG) Discussions and Chat

Parkmead Forums and Chat

Date Time Title Posts
25/11/202015:36PMG, anyone heard of it??10,653
09/3/202007:21Parkmead Group - An 'Accelerated Dana Petroleum'?208
16/8/201806:26Independent tips Parkmead Group at 50p1,808
29/5/201617:06PC MEDICS. A scary bet.49
18/11/201110:46*** PMG - Tom Cross walks on water ! ***15

Add a New Thread

Parkmead (PMG) Most Recent Trades

Trade Time Trade Price Trade Size Trade Value Trade Type
16:18:3338.0020,5107,793.80O
16:05:5238.0026,3009,994.00O
15:58:3337.504,5081,690.50AT
15:58:2637.504,0001,500.00AT
15:58:0437.463,0001,123.87O
View all Parkmead trades in real-time

Parkmead (PMG) Top Chat Posts

DateSubject
27/11/2020
08:20
Parkmead Daily Update: Parkmead Group (the) Plc is listed in the Oil & Gas Producers sector of the London Stock Exchange with ticker PMG. The last closing price for Parkmead was 36.70p.
Parkmead Group (the) Plc has a 4 week average price of 26p and a 12 week average price of 26p.
The 1 year high share price is 50p while the 1 year low share price is currently 18p.
There are currently 108,574,829 shares in issue and the average daily traded volume is 566,831 shares. The market capitalisation of Parkmead Group (the) Plc is £40,172,686.73.
24/11/2020
12:16
mallorca 9: fhm Nothing confirmed. Dana is the Operator though so it will happen - PMG just sit back and pick up their 15%. Platypus will happen Dutch fields will be further developed Skerryvore is a very good prospect They are the reasons that I'm back as I do see a push through 50p resistance straight up to circa 80p upon progress on any of the above 3. You'll note that I've not even mentioned GPA or renewables.
03/11/2020
01:09
ekuuleus: Each regarding serco. I did not see that one coming. Easyjet too early for me. The markets can be slow to act so in think plenty time next year if I go that way. Sold my metro at 94p. Monitoring. Jaknife raises a good point t regarding the collapsing g bond price. Curious the share price very stable at the moment but I've a feeling the 60p support will collapse very quickly. Mainly in minors.
12/10/2020
18:37
robs12: "failed to find a buyer"? Maybe. Not worth a lot at the time without a route out when/if developed. Longboat are the ex Faroe team, and Faroe had a stake in Perth (and all of Lowlander) and high expectations for it. Graham Stewart saying "Faroe is building an exciting core area around Perth and Lowlander in the Central North Sea and work is underway together with our Perth partners to progress the potential high value Perth/Lowlander joint development project." Then they gave it up in 2016. A 2016 WH Ireland research note said ""Faroe Petroleum Refocusing on Norway: Faroe Petroleum (“Faroe”) has committed capital to a number of material projects in Norway and we believe it is effectively recasting itself as a Norwegian focused E&P company. Faroe has written off its remaining investment in PDL (Perth Dolphin) as non-core in its recently announced H1 results, which we believe reflects its Norwegian focused strategy. In our opinion it is untenable to have an uncommitted partner in a high-quality and undeveloped oil project that is of material scale from the perspective of the OGA. Parkmead is committed to progressing the field and the OGA would not hesitate, in our opinion, to force Faroe to exit the Perth, Dolphin, Lowlander hub-area given that they are manifestly pursuing a strategy outside of the UK in terms of future growth and capital allocation decisions. In contrast, the UK North Sea remains an area of core strategic focus for Parkmead." So what if Faroe really liked it and didn't want to give it up, but had no choice at the time? And PMG got their hands on all of it as a result. PMG had a sizeable stake in FPM too. Maybe the ex Faroe team want back into it? Maybe, maybe, maybe...
02/10/2020
09:19
mallorca 9: They were awarded 'the option' of these blocks. Tom has stated that they will evaluate them before deciding whether to proceed - means they will do nothing ! Very very sad situation for long suffering shareholders. You have to remember that Tom, his wife, and their builder business partner, have formed a 'Concert Party'. You need to google what this means ! Effectively in this case it means that PMG is being run as a private Company for their benefit. Their interests are now very much land and property. The dutch gas assets merely bring in enough cash to pay Tom's wages. After 20 years since forming PMG , the revenue is only £2m pa. I think that say's it all.
01/10/2020
07:54
mallorca 9: Tom is no longer interested in Oil and Gas - well only to the extent of picking up his % from the dutch fields , to fund his wages, and his future cut in platypus in 2022. His interest now is more in land and property. Sadly PMG is now just a shell for his various interests, ie, it even funds the building that is used as the HQ .... ie PMG pays the rent, but the building is owned in one of Tom's other Companies. It not fraud as it's all actually legal - but it's a total betrayal of PMG shareholders.
13/4/2020
15:39
tournesol: Renewables|? PMG has got nothing to do with renewables. It has used the pipe-dream of renewables to justify wasting money on a remote and unproductive farm. It has published no meaningful information to support its assertion that there is any substantive potential whatsoever. It's a combination of a vanity project and a distraction from all of the other projects that have been stuck in a rut going nowhere for years. Gas production? PMG owns a small stake in a small peripheral gas producing JV that is operated and controlled by the bigger stakeholders. Realistically the only potential buyers for small scale stuff like that is the other existing JV partners. CNOOC certainly would not be interested in becoming a bit part player in a bit part asset. Developing large oil reserves? For many years PMG has done nothing to advance the development of its "large oil reserves", it has neither the capital nor the expertise to do so. Undeveloped "large oil reserves" in the hands of owners who make unrealistic claims are 10 a penny. The complete collapse of the oil price combined with the collapse in demand caused by CV19 combined with the economimc and market collapse we are experiencing, all means that oil reserveS and minnow wannabe E&P's are investments for suckers only. Incidentally you said oil reserves but you should have said potential oil resources. PMG doe not have any oil reserves. In order for resources to be converted to reserves you need a) to prove them up and b) to put in place plans and funding for development. There are lots of unproven resources going begging. And most of them will never get exploited. They will stay where they are - in the ground. Massive price spike? People have been saying that for many years. It hasn't happened. Global meltdown does not provide the circumstances needed for it to be brought to fruition. Oil is old news. Produce gpa from a floater? Yeah right. He might have been able to do so when oil was 2-3 times the price and the future looked promising. When it's down at today's price and the future looks bleak, there is no chance whatever. Why don't you look at a company that has been successful in recent FPSO based development - say Hur - and see just how hard it has been for them. PMG is not made of the same stuff . They do not have what it takes to follow that path. They are simply chancers squatting on an asset they big up but never ever develop. As long as they do nothing they can make extravagant claims. As soon as they start detailed development reality will bite and they will have to back up their rhetoric. They can't do that. I used to work in oil and gas. I've been specialising in E&P investments for 20-30 years and have been following Cross, Dana and PMG for much of that time. It really isn't a good investment opportunity. That is obvious from the most cursory review. Wake up and smell the baloney.
30/12/2019
10:42
tournesol: OK I know when I'm not welcome, I've got far better things to do. I'll make one final comment then I'll go away. Let's take a look at what's NOT on the PMG website:- The vast majority of E&P's provide regular presentations for the information of shareholders and others. These tend to be done at AGM's, EGM's, at quarterly updates, whenever there is significant news. There are no presentations of any kind on the PMG website. Either PMG has never produced any presentations or it has chosen not to share them with its shareholders. I don't know which would be more reprehensible. So, looking at what IS on the website:- The section named "About Parkmead" was last updated in May 2018. The section "Our People - the Board" still lists Colin Perceval as a director, despite the fact that he left the co in early November. The section "Operations - Our assets" was last updated in April 2019 The Greater Perth Area used to sit at the heart of PMG's strategy. There has been a deafening silence about its progress for some years now. If you do a search on the PMG website the most recent substantive news that comes up is dated February 2018. I won't carry on, that's enough examples to prove my point. PMG is failing to keep its shareholders informed. It is not making the slightest effort to do so. It is treating its shareholders as a captive audience which is too docile to object to being kept in the dark. =================================== I will just clear up one question. Why have I bothered to post critical comments when I am no longer a shareholder? Well whenever I decide to buy shares, I do my own research beforehand. Then when I decide to sell I monitor the companies I've sold so that I can see if my decision to sell was a good one, and whether my timing was well judged. That's how I learn and improve as an investor. Sometimes I decide to re-enter companies I've left because there is a significant change in the company's circumstances. For example I was an early investor in Hurricane, left and then re-entered some years later. In that case I decided I was simply too early and could usefully deploy capital elsewhere rather than wait for years and years. Sometimes when I'm monitoring a co I've left I read comments from investors who seem to be not well informed or to be excessively - how shall I put this? - trusting? naive? gullible? lacking in scepticism? Sometimes I see gung ho comments which I think are very misleading. On some of those occasions I will re-engage in discussion because that's what the discussion forum is for. But I think in this case I am very unlikely to ever re-enter PMG - I've lost confidence in the company and its "strategy" and it has adopted a black box approach and provides insufficient information on which to base informed decisions. I don't think therefore that I will benefit from any further time spent here. Good luck and I sincerely hope you all prove me wrong and make a fortune.
26/9/2019
13:03
cyan: At one time Tom CROSS was seen as an asset; the man from Dana who would replicate past successes for Parkmead Group shareholders. The shine has come off his reputation after detailed examinations of TWO recent related party transactions. Related party transactions tend to arouse concerns as to whether the general shareholders best interests are placed second. For me the genesis for the wheel coming off the cart was when TIPPERTY Farm came on the market in MAY 2017. In my opinion the £2.9m provided to Energy Management Associates Ltd (EMAL) on 27th July 2017 was linked to personal ambitions. The reasoning presented to the public was finally RNS'd on 22nd March 2018; "The Parkmead Group plc has been granted an exclusive option to join Energy Management Associates Limited in new ventures being evaluated by the company, including, inter alia, potential opportunities relating to renewable energies." Here are FOUR irrefutable facts; EMAL's sole directors are T & L CROSS That by 22nd March 2018 the whole £2.9 million "credit facility" was drawn down. That by 31st May 2018; at the latest; £2,865,272 was repaid to " T & L CROSS" by EMAL In the two years the £2,9 million facility was to last; NO joint ventures with EMAL emerged. There is no logic in a company seeking such a large credit facility without having a necessity; a plan. The evidence to me is clear; on the balance of probabilities; the £2.9 million was to enable T & L CROSS to be repaid and use cash for their own personal objectives. These circumstances are most unsatisfactory. IMO PMG’s money was, in effect, a disguised soft loan to a director. The £2,585,156 that L CROSS loaned to PITREADIE Farm Ltd and the subsequent purchase of TIPPERTY Farm on 9th March 2018 raises a reasonable question; was the capital sourced from the £2.865,272 "repaid" by EMAL? Then we have to consider the acquisition by Parkmead Group of the then enlarged Pitreadie Farm ltd; YET ANOTHER related party transaction. Remember; L CROSS interest in this company was 75% On 30th August 2019 PMG RNS'd their acquisition of Pitreadie Farm Ltd. We have already examined in depth the presented investment case and I think its fair to say that the market was not convinced the deal was in shareholders best interest. For me the reasoning was flimsy based on " potential”; the hope planning permissions would be received. . PMG effectively raised "the best interest of shareholders" question with this line in the 30.8.2019 RNS; "There is an active market for land assets in Scotland, particularly those with renewable energy potential." So; in the "active market" PMG just happened to choose a land asset with "potential" L CROSS had a 75% interest in. Shareholders were expected to accept on trust that a proper due diligence was conducted; that other land assets were considered; that it was in the best interest of shareholders; that Pitreadie Farm Ltd was chosen on its merits alone, completely uninfluenced by CROSS family interest. I am afraid I just do not believe that. It fails my sniff test. And then we have to consider the extension of EMAL's loan for a further two years announced on 26th July 2019; This, in effect, a third related party transaction. The grounds for extension were that day RNS'd " By providing this facility, Parkmead benefits from an exclusive arrangement to join EMAL in new ventures being evaluated by the Company, including inter alia potential opportunities relating to renewable energies. The Loan will continue to bear a fixed interest rate of 2.5 per cent per annum, payable to Parkmead." This was the reasoning originally put forward in July 2017 Trouble is that there had not been any joint ventures with EMAL in the previous two years. PMG's capital has now been tied up in this soft loan for another 2 years. The loan should never have been extended. Were the interests of Mr & Mrs CROSS considered above of the BEST interests of PMG shareholders? The PMG decision makers should have challenged EMAL (sole directors T & L CROSS) The decision makers would have known that PMG’s cash was not used by EMAL for any purpose that advanced PMG shareholders best interest and that no new ventures were presented to PMG in the two years agreed. PMG entered into an exclusive arrangement with EMAL to join in new ventures; however cash was taken out of EMAL and PITREADIE Farm Ltd was enlarged after a personal injection of cash by L CROSS. The PMG decision makers should have asked the obvious question; was PMG’s cash used in this way and why? How could they logically agree to buying Pitreadie Farm Ltd AND extend the EMAL loan? If I were a decision maker I would have taken a very dim view of the conduct of T & L CROSS. Imo, solely based on the renewable “potentialR21; investment case; The decision makers should have refused to buy Pitreadie Farm Ltd; factor in the apparent self serving conduct of EMALs directors and you are left wondering WTF were decision makers thinking; how on Earth were these related party transactions in PMG’ shareholders best interest? The only people who have landed on their feet here are the CROSS’s and their concert party; They have lots of extra PMG shares; a larger percentage of the share capital and EMAL has a very soft loan to pay off. The BIG losers are other PMG shareholders who have seen their holdings diluted; the company loaded with £3.6m debt; £2.9 million capital tied up in a soft loan; an investment in FARMS with uncertain development potential and a collapse of confidence in PMG’s corporate governance. This has all caused the share price to collapse. Although its no comfort to other shareholders; the shenanigans did, in effect, shoot the CONCERT party in their metaphorical feet with the subsequent collapse in the share price What now?
23/9/2019
18:02
cyan: The PITREADIE Farm Ltd affair Here's my THEORY as to what has happened. TIPPERTY Farm goes on the market in MAY 2017. Someone takes a shine to that property. Someone in ENERGY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES Ltd ( EMAL) makes a CREDIBLE case to PMG for lending to THAT COMPANY for possible future joint ventures with EMAL, involving renewable’s. EMALS sole directors are T & L CROSS Big question. Were PMG's decision makers kept ENTIRELY in the dark; that this cash was to be REMOVED from EMAL and used to help buy TIPPERTY Farm? PMG DID agree to the EMAL £2.9m facility, now loan, on 27th JULY 2017 and TIPPERTY Farm was acquired on 9th March 2018 by PITREADIE Farm Ltd The related party transaction was IMPROPERLY kept hidden from the markets for months. Why? It was eventually justified in a RNS dated 22nd March 2018 "The Parkmead Group plc has been granted an exclusive option to join Energy Management Associates Limited in new ventures being evaluated by the company, including, inter alia, potential opportunities relating to renewable energies." By EMAL obtaining PMG's £2.9 m cash at a modest 2.5%, EMAL directors; T & L CROSS could subsequently extract THEIR tied up money in EMAL totalling £2,865,272. It follows that it would subsequently allow L CROSS, in her name, to "LOAN" Pitreadie Farm LTD £2,585,156 and THEN go on to buy TIPPERTY Farm. What a STRANGE way to get the cash needed to buy Tipperty farm. The more efficient, straightforward way to do this transaction would have been like this; An approach is made from PITREADIE Farm Ltd to PMG with the openly declared objective; receiving cash to help buy TIPPERTY farm. The "potential" for renewable would be the selling point and an option to join in a later renewable development is offered. PMG COULD have then loaned to PITREADIE Farm Ltd; in order they can complete the buy. The question we will never know the answer to is; When did someone come up with a plan for PMG to buy the enlarged Pitreadie Farm Ltd (including Tipperty Farm ).? But; we can look at what the transaction evidence suggests. By using "repaid" EMAL cash instead of a direct loan from PMG into Pitreadie Farm; the potential was obvious; a bigger allocation of PMG shares, in any future sale of the enlarged company. Was there an EARLY, already formed intent to sell the enlarged Pitreadie Farm Ltd to PMG and an expectation so they could receive a lot more PMG shares? A VERY important point that supports an early 'sell' plan are the Bank Of Scotland £3.6 million loans with just FIVE years to maturity ( now 4 years). They HAD to have an INTENT to sell on; how else would those loans be covered? They HAD to find a buyer. Was it just a coincidence that buyer would turn out to be PMG? For me; there are just one too many coincidences; one too many related party transactions. Its convoluted, but makes sense out of the strange loan to EMAL and the cash movements. Remember; PMG have NOT received ANY advantage (apart form 2.5% interest) from their loan to EMAL; NO joint ventures. There is no justification in extending the loan another 2 years. The big winners are the CONCERT PARTY; the CROSS’S and affiliates It did not have to be that way. If £2.6 million was Loaned directly to Pitreadie Farm ltd the concert party would only receive, in the takeover; PMG shares for their £2.3 million in loans and equity. By going round the houses, and cleverly using PMG cash initially loaned to EMAL and then loaned to Pitreadie farm; resulted in PMG having to create ANOTHER £2.6 million worth of shares and allocate to the CONCERT Party in the takeover. Was this really all accidental ? It appears PMG's cash was used to the disadvantage of PMG's shareholders but WAS used to the advantage of the concert party.
19/9/2019
10:07
cyan: One must reflect carefully on the use of language. Before anyone calls an individual a “crook” the accuser should be able to offer serious, compelling evidence of dishonesty; that’s a crucial defining characteristic of a “crook”. The recent controversy surrounds the PITREADIE Farm Ltd acquisition and the discovered money trail that appears to link it to the ENERGY MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES Ltd £2.9 million “credit facility” (now described as a loan). The loan to EMAL was described to the market as; “By providing this facility, Parkmead benefits from an exclusive arrangement to join EMAL in new ventures being evaluated by the Company, including inter alia potential opportunities relating to renewable energies.” The documented removal of £2.865,272 from EMAL by T & L. CROSS, and the deposit in PITREADIE Farm Ltd by L. CROSS of £2,585,156 gave rise to many forming a conclusion.; that; on the balance of probabilities; the PMG £2.9m loan was not used by EMAL for the benefit of shareholders; BUT was largely REMOVED from EMAL ,in furtherance of L. CROSS farm ambitions. The important question is this; was the market DECEIVED as to the TRUE purpose of the EMAL loan? Remember the wording of the RNS was; “ By providing this facility, Parkmead benefits from an exclusive arrangement to join EMAL in new ventures…̶1; The facts are clear; the directors of EMAL; T & L CROSS; removed £2.865,272 from EMAL. It went to them PERSONALLY and what ever happened to the “repaid” cash, it was NOT to the benefit of EMAL with whom PMG had entered into that “EXCLUSIVE arrangement”. If someone made untrue representations to PMG as to the ultimate purposes of the £2.9m “credit facility” and its "benefits" to PMG; the situation is very grave. If the PMG decision makers were fully aware that the ultimate purpose of the £2.9m loan was to facilitate a PRIVATE (outside EMAL) purpose; the situation is also extremely grave. The FACT PMG broke AIM rule 13 by not announcing, AT THE TIME, the related party transaction does not help the suspicions regarding corporate governance. PMG have not seen fit to rebut the evidences and the conclusions that have been drawn here and elsewhere. They should be open and provide PRECISE DATES for the movements of cash and state what BENEFIT PMG have gained from the “exclusive arrangement” with EMAL that justified the extension of the £2.9m loan. If PMG continue to maintain a NO COMMENT stance ; people will continue to make adverse inferences. Its in PMG’s court , so to speak ; for now!
Parkmead share price data is direct from the London Stock Exchange
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
LSE
PMG
Parkmead
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20201127 16:57:33