On a more possitive note GB442 came up with this interview on Ilyas Khan. Was it not for his heavy investment in TGL I would have written my investment off pretty soon after the suspension.
I just don't see why someone of IK knowledge and integrity would have the investment they have if there was not a possitive future for our investment. In the bleak winter with the rest of my portfolio cratering it would be nice if TGL gave us a boost.
This was posted by GB442 on ADVFN, none of us have the subscription to read more. The opening tag to hook people in is pretty damning.
I don't suppose anyone has a subscription to Insider Surveillance? I think it would be very interesting to hear their point of view, albeit negative....
"GOS Systems: All That Glitters is not Touchstone Gold November 13, 2015
GOS Systems, the UK-based provider of surveillance and secure communications systems, has experienced a turbulent year. Their story is a case study in what can go wrong when a good company is taken over by an outsider with zero experience in the industry. The long and the short of it: While GOS Systems was making...."
bamps, All speculation of course on my part, but a listing on the main markets would of course explain this long delay, the deadly silence, & no RTO into CQCL comments. Because we would be merging with the new CQCL business in some shape or form, so therefore and quite correctly NO RTO has ever been on the cards.
Is this wishful thinking? I keep coming to this conclusion, obsession of the mind maybe.... ;-)
Yes a listing on a larger exchange would be a good plan.Let us not forget that TGL forms a good sized investment in Stanhill's client funds so a big leap on relisting would do a lot of good to Stanhill's investors and their fund performance.
Still not available on the website and it has been now over two months. It was a pretty basic and uninformative presentation anyway which just makes me think it was something to keep shareholders 'happy' that there was some sort of communication. It was never the big 'master plan' and was written up in minutes over 8 or 9 slides. Like I say IMO it WAS NEVER part of the master plan hence why the presentation has not been published.
Just to add one think, when I used the term "gearing" in my last post I was a bit imprecise as this usually refers to debt of course. I meant gaining entry on the cheap of something something much more substantial thats in the pipeline.
Worse case scenario would be that TGL de-lists from AIM end of DEC and we have to wait into the new year as to news of what is going on, that would be bad. They should give us updates before de-lising, if we were indeed to come off AIM that is. If what they are planning is after all the fabled TGL/GOS, CQCL link up, then I personally would prefer a brand new listing on the main market since this would create a lot of attention.
"In the event that the Company is unable to implement its investing policy, release its Report & Accounts for the year ended 31 December 2014 and release its interim results for the six months ending 30 June 2015 by 31 December 2015, admission of the Company's shares will be cancelled in accordance with Rule 41 of the AIM Rules".
"Trevor Wells did tell me in our first chat that at that point CQ was not large enough to RTO"
That could help to explain why CQCL raised so much as $50million, which seems to be far above its own operational requirements. I.e. to give it the necessary asset base to exceed the value of GOS Systems. Which would be encouraging for the value attributed to GOS in such a RTO.
And the fact that Stanhill has strong influence with both companies clearly increases the chances of them reaching an accommodation.
bamps.Yes TGL became a shell when the Colombian gold exploration business folded, but IK along with Buchan were the main shareholders there of course having initially invested at about 27p if I remember correctly. They both lost most of the money as the chart clearly shows, a few million quid. You see I had a theory back then that they would want to get some of this money back hence my investment here. Now they may have had everything nicely planned out regards to purchasing GOS when TGL was re-financed initially Or they were simply shopping around and just by chance spotted an opportunity too good to miss out on when the company came up for sale: I would go with the former of the two because the business is a perfect partner for CQCL. Which leads us to the next big question, why a 6 month suspension if we already have our main business, fully funded etc?
I wonder if there might be some extra sort of gearing for IK and his investors from the TGL shares purchased pre suspension? Was the share price being suppressed so that they could issue lots of cheap shares? I mean we were suspended at a market cap of just above £3m, our real worth could be £10m or £20m so TGLs share of any new entity that is formed (Ie CQCL or another business) could be worth a hell of a lot more on re-launch. There could indeed be tough negotiations going on behind the scenes right now.
I think IK bought TGL as a shell with a view to some possible use/RTO at a later date and GOS just happened to come up for grabs at a bargain price.Clearly the CQ venture was always about to happen and many(including me) jumped to conclusions.Trevor Wells did tell me in our first chat that at that point CQ was not large enough to RTO with TGL but never actually said it was likely.Franz told me categorically that there was no plan to RTO CQ into TGL but I guess anything is possible and IK and his clients have built up large stakes in TGL for some reason. In a way the longer the delay the better.If there is a grand plan involving connecting 3 companies and possible listings on different exchanges it seems reasonable to take time!
Datafeed and UK data supplied by NBTrader and Digital Look.
While London South East do their best to maintain the high quality of the information displayed on this site,
we cannot be held responsible for any loss due to incorrect information found here. All information is provided free of charge, 'as-is', and you use it at your own risk.
The contents of all 'Chat' messages should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Limited, or its affiliates.
London South East does not authorise or approve this content, and reserves the right to remove items at its discretion.