Cobus Loots, CEO of Pan African Resources, on delivering sector-leading returns for shareholders. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
One B*stard gone, two to go Better than Brexit!
Harpman old son 'Software needs a developer, it aint going to work without one' You don't really know much about Teathers do you? All the development work on the app was bought in. No-one in the company has a clue themselves how it all works. You suggest that if the BOD changes somehow this expertise will be lost - obviously not so as it can be purchased anywhere. But again you know that being a self styled I.T. expert...... I know you have no interests in the accounts whatsoever but how does your statement that intellectual property rights reside in the brain of the developer and can walk sit with Drummond's capitalisation of such software. Can't have two owners can it? You lash out calling people Muppets and Dorks but you showed no such bravery in front of Oliver Fattal did you?
Why didn't you ask for and press on why the accounts haven't been shown, you're basically saying vote to keep the current BOD because they gave a good talk. They've had over a year to sort it out and haven't. If I was voting I'd vote to remove those thieves and put a real BOD in sort the company out. Funny how you turned up, maybe this is the donkey Olli in disguise.
You want ANY good reason to back the new directors over the previous. Okay how about the fact they're going to show us the accounts? The current directors could have done them this morning.....
Ill respond. What exactly is the IP of the app? The value in it was first to market and gaining a foothold and being aggressive from there. That hasn't happened and could have pressed ahead with any developer regardless.
Thanks Toffee, you have saved me time responding to the 'Muppets'. Everyone has a decision to make on which way to vote. I stick to the gut feel of giving it a go. Here's a fact already set out below: Software needs a developer. It ain't going to work without one. Draw your own conclusions. The intellectual property rights of any piece of software sits in someone's grey matter. They have feet too.
Doh, rookie mistake in posting too long....part 2: I didn't expect to get (and nor did we get) any disclosures that weren't already in the circular, and frankly I'd have been worried if they were saying something on Tues that undercut what has already been documented in the circular. It doesn't sound like the timing of the egm called by the action group has helped the rest of us, as the threat of winding up the company from the action group puts the going concern of the business into doubt as far as I can see (if the action group are indeed set upon liquidating and losing the value of the app, which seems heavily predicated on Oliver Fattal) To alwayswinning... How ever did you guess that the fourth attendee was a woman, you genius.... ? Might it be because I said I was sat next to a lady perhaps? Muppet. You seem particularly vocal, which strikes as odd given that back in April you said that you'd disposed of most of your holding and remaining shares were neither here nor there to you.... I'll draw my own conclusion, thanks. To the silent majority, whether that's 70 or 80% of shareholders, I do hope as many will choose to vote with their own minds. For those local enough to vote in person, I happened to be in town this week and went in Tuesday to the Peterhouse office where the vote is taking place next week (only to find that this week's meeting was moved around the corner, doh) and it is just outside Liv St station, so easy to get to for those in London. Stay well everyone, and may this all work out in the long run. Toffee.
Some fascinating responses... I don't foresee myself becoming a prolific poster here by any means, but just for the sake of biting, here's my response after logging back on today in irked mood. Oh, and Naps, excuse the length of the post, but I thought I'd do this in one go, just to avoid the risk of scaling up to the heady heights of 13 posts too quickly and inadvertently gain some higher level of credibility which I can only dream of right now.. :) I posted my thoughts on the meeting in good faith yesterday morn, just for the benefit of those in the silent majority that may be considering their options. I don't much appreciate the accusation of being a stooge, by those that have clearly made up their mind. Whatever. Personally, i invested in teathers at the start of 2015, and hold a not immaterial sum, on which I was down at the point of suspension, but prepared to be patient upon. We all take our chances in aim, and I heard nothing in the meeting that caused me to doubt the BODs integrity. Do I think its been a master class in comms and transparency? No. Of course not. But I'm beginning to appreciate the catch-22 of whatever they say seems to be assumed as untrue, and they have a brand and prospects for recovery to look after, which aren't helped by the conjecture that is being spouted by some here. To anyone else interested in balance, is there ANY good reason why we should back the partucular proposed directors from the action group as being credible options to deliver a better outcome in winding up the company and realising ANY value from the app? Stuart Langelaan (whom I realise now is Stupot, interesting ....) was there at the end of the table on Tuesday, and is, according to google, a trance DJ and record producer... Which is all very admirable if that's your bag. Absolutely came across as a polite enough guy, if that's a qualification.... From what stupot has posted previously, he is a holder of 177,741 shares, so a smalltime interest. Kudos for being active, but by his own admission "how can we collate facts and work as a team, I've no experience in this and not a lot of free time but prepared to do my bit" (20 April 16) Ben Turney....? An 'aim activitist' and blogger for share prophets... First article of his that I clicked upon by chance was from Nov 15, warning off against investing in 88e at 0.49p, deriding their Icewine prospect. Haha! Alongside the fact that he's busy doing the same action with NEW at the moment to make a name for himself, I don't see any other credentials. Some very dubious suspicions cast by Guerilla Investing last Sept that there's a background of failed directorships and dealing in legal highs as a past career choice. Nice. David Kipling?? No idea who this is, but am prepared to be wowed. As for other responses.... Cloak and dagger?? What is cloak and dagger about them inviting shareholders to meet??? I didn't expect to get (and nor did we get) any disclosures that weren
Just thought I'd pop a post on here, mainly in response to rylidan, as I've just been watching and waiting for info in the last few months. If you check my posting history you'll see that I have backed this for many months as I believe the concept of the technology is a very good one. I have also been willing to give the BOD the benefit of the doubt along the way as introducing disruptive technology is never simple. I've Argued against BnS for months as I haven't agreed with much he has written and I certainly think his approach has been off the mark. However, with all that said the BOD have had months to sort this out, offer up info and provide a plan for a way forward. In the last 6 months, regardless of whether they've taken a salary, they have made no progress. What has stopped then signing up another broker? Why haven't they further developed the app? I don't necessarily want to liquidate the company but I do want to get an idea of what the state of the company is.... the current directors have had months to be transparent and they haven't, why is that???? For these reasons I've voted to get rid of them. As for the 'new posters ' who attended the meeting. What a load of crap. I hope these lot get criminal convictions out of this.....
Rylidan, you admired ages ago that you have sold out the majority of your shares and now only have a small holding. You said you sold when the likes of soniap put doubts in your mind. Your one of the lucky ones if you sold up
As far as never seeing your investment again goes, do you seriously think letting the current board give this company to one of their friends will lead to your investment being worth something.
I put it to you again. Think about this logically. Why have the board REFUSED to show the companies accounts, why do they refuse to discuss the accounts, and why are they so desperate for a new board not to get their hands on them.
Thanks harpman for taking the time to produce the write up. Sadly this board is swamped my non-investors with a grudge against the BoD. They are best ignored IMO, I am a shareholder and will be voting with the BoD. I don't want to liquidate this company, or my investment. How Beer/Sonia managed to sway real investors is beyond me.
Harpman, saying its the Aim regulators fault that Teathers was suspended is rather like a thief saying its the judge's fault he is in prison. Tell me, with all your considerable corporate experience, did it not occur to you to say 'Thanks very much for the presentation chaps, by the way any news on the jolly old accounts?' You have sympathy for the BOD being 'inconvenienced' by the vote next week. Strikes me they have had plenty of time to prepare a detailed and strong defence in order to achieve the outcome they would wish. It has not been forthcoming though, has it? Your good fortune is that you are/were a high earner and your investment here is meaningless. What about your fellow shareholders though, many less fortunate than yoursel,f who have been materially affected since suspension due to their inability to sell shares. Wheres your sympathy for them? You may not be a stooge but you have certainly acted like one.
How much do you want to bet that the final shareholder/stooge/care in the community case is a woman. I wonder whether it will be Oli, Nil Desperandum or Drummond who'll be putting on the lipstick to write the next essay. Well, we'll just have to wait and see what the 3 little pigs come up with..................................and the 3rd little pig built his house out of..............yep, you guessed it.............................BULLSHZIT.
Pretty sad really isn't it. Surely, the most obvious question should have been WHERE ARE THE ACCOUNTS, AND WHERE IS OUR MONEY NOW. Unlike harpman, what with me not being an IT specialist, not having a corporate background, and having absolutely nothing in common with this set of gobszhites, I've no sympathy with them whatsoever, so maybe it's just a personal thing, so shame on me and everyone else here that's been ripped off. What I find incredibly intriguing with both posts from the "other shareholders" that attended the meeting, is how they've both virtually no posting history prior to these posts, and have both appeared on here at almost the same time, and have both posted seemingly "level headed essays" in favour of the BOD. MESSAGE TO OLI, DRUMMOND AND NILESH DESPERANDUM: WE KNOW THAT ONLY THREE PEOPLE ATTENDED OTHER THAN OUR MAN. YOU'VE HAD TWO STRIKES NOW, ONLY ONE MORE TO GO, HIT US WITH YOUR BEST SHOT, WE COULD ALL DO WITH A GOOD LAUGH.
This makes me laugh. I bet the reality is that the meeting was attended by two directors, one shareholder and 3 stooges, the latter 3 being then tasked with writing nonsense on the bulletin boards to help sway voters. Why anyone would give these guys a second chance is beyond me.
Well the vitriol here is as expected. I went to the meeting as a very small shareholder. The reason it has taken me this long is because at my age I need 24 hours to recover from visiting the filthy City of London! Ordinarily I would not have gone, as the amount of paper loss is about what I could earn in a few minutes had I beeen still working, however I was in London and the times suited me between appointments. My other motive was that I did not understand what the company was about till yesterday. As a former (yes I was the old git there) IT specialist on top flight market data systems, I am interested in the app doing well and making me a buck or two. By the way I was not a plant by the BoD and taker offence at any suggestion that it may have been the case. I didn't suspect any of the attendees of being in that position either. We questioned the board on the history of the company and the future for it and the app. There seems to be these two threads to the company. App development and as an investment company. It is hard luck I think, that caused AIM to have it delisted for not having the correct investment strategy. There's nothing to be done about that now, but build it up again. I can't make any statements about the two members of the BoD that attended other than they seem to be the typical directors of small companies trying to make a go of a particular business. Having run several businesses myself, I identified several similarities with my former small companies and have empathy with what they are trying to achieve. Could there be a way forward? We discussed what the results of a vote next week would mean, but no decisions were made. I suggested co-opting a shareholders member to the board, but no decision was made either way. The shareholders' group representative said they had discussed this before, but again no decision was made then either. I decided to not vote against them, but as my investment is tiny, it would make no odds either way. My decision is based on my gut feel only and my empathy towards small company directors. I think they have made some mistakes in the past, but we all do that from time to time. I see a good future for an app of the nature of the one discussed. It remains the best part of the business from a technologist's viewpoint. Whether it is what makes the company in the future is anybody's guess. I came away with the notion that the BoD need four weeks to put forward a deal with the investor via a circular, etc., and that the vote next week gets in the way of that. I have to say, if it was one of my companies, I would feel pretty ****ed off to, but that's life in a company with multiple shareholders. What the shareholders have to do is make a judgement based on the known circumstances. There must be some substantial corporate shareholders in this one, so the outcome for next week is not guaranteed either way. Good luck to the BoD and to the shareholders group in their endeavours.
LOL, I heard it was held in a portable shzithouse.
I heard the meeting was held in a ford fiesta
That's my feeling also. I didn't for one minute think many people would turn up to their shzitty meeting. All of a sudden Jolly Oli's back on his Twitter soapbox, and he's feeling happy that everyone at the meeting agreed with him, what a total cock. We can now confirm that only 4 people turned up, and at least one of them didn't agree with a single word him and Nilesh Desperandum said. Now we have "shareholders" popping up on here who agree with dear old Oli and Nilesh Desperandum, writing "detailed" accounts of a meeting which apparently explained everything and explained nothing, which has completely restored their faith in this mob of dik stains. Just to recap, 3 people turned up to the meeting excluding stupot, and now "everyone" is feeling a lot more positive according to the likes of Oli and co, which says a lot about what the board are trying to pull here, pity it ain't working, lol. MESSAGE TO OLI AND DRUMMER BOY, TRY A BIT HARDER NEXT TIME FELLAS'.
The more I think about this so-called shareholders' meeting, the more I'm wondering whether it could merely have been a device in order to disseminate pro-BOD comments on bulletin boards from supposed shareholders. After all, the BOD have been employing whatever tricks they can in order to obfuscate the truth of what's been going on; this could easily have been their last throw of the dice to influence the vote.
Yes, didn't hear anything to convince me to change my stance of removing current BOD.
Sounds flipping awkward Stu - assume you're voting to get rid then?