Member Info for 2MustardSeeds

You numpties think the private investor doesn't know this share is going to be suspended next week!!??

Honestly, it's incredible what greed does to people!!

The investor knows and is probably behind the plan!

I'm hoping it's a deliberate use of the suspension availability to implement their RTO strategy.

I don't like ramping and rampers...in fact I hate them but thermae goes for deliberate and false derampers!! They're just as evil.

We're getting word from the horse's mouth but let's not extrapolate it into the unknown....still encouraging though for sure!!

It's been a long time since we've had an encouraging news come directly from the company....

I'm now back in profit once more but for sure I'm not selling!!

I either lose it all or I get the mother-load!!

More dilution....even if a private placed. Its simply a money generating vehicle ...but none that benefit share holders!!

I told you so.

I sound pleasant to whom exactly? ........Yes, to the deceivers!

I have spent enough time calling out the lies, the manipulation, and trying to point genuine investors toward reality.

But today I simply do not have the energy to keep pushing against it all. If I end up making money off rumours and smoke then so be it. At least I have the peace of knowing I am not the one behind it.

There is a difference between profit and integrity. One fades quickly, the other endures.

I will leave judgement where it truly belongs, in the hands of the Lord God, who sees beyond the noise, beyond the schemes, and beyond the masks people wear.

Scoffers and deceivers may seem to thrive for a moment, but justice is not absent. It is simply patient. I rest in that.

Even if today appears to favour the vultures, I have peace knowing that in the end, justice WILL catch-up with the vile offenders.

....I think I will just watch with amusement this time...let's see where this goes! 😊

“Got to be some sort of deal being negotiated.”....Based on what? The mustard to bread ratio in your sandwich? 😂

Man has one ham sandwich and suddenly it’s insider confirmation of an RTO. If Colman’s starts releasing RNS statements we might finally get clarity!!! 🤠😎

the bid twitched half a pip with that Michelin star imagination.....

Enjoy the sandwich, mate. ....that’s the only thing with real substance in this story so far 😆😂🤣

If asking for actual news instead of emoji-powered optimism counts as being “off my meds”, then I’ll book myself in immediately 🤣

Meanwhile I’ll stick to the dangerous habit of reading RNS statements instead of horoscope charts.

Oh when the rockets come out I’ll have the popcorn ready......

You know the drill… one tiny blue tick and suddenly it’s “to the moon lads 🚀🚀🚀”

I’ll just be there quietly asking, “Has the horse actually spoken yet… or are we (YET AGAIN) fuelling this thing with emojis?” 🤣

Spartac,

Long enough to have seen more “imminent” RTOs than I’ve had hot dinners.

Long enough to remember when dilution was called “progress”.

Let’s just say I’ve done a full tour of duty in Shell Land… and I’m still waiting for the parade 🤠

Pricing in potential is fine… but pricing in five years of unfulfilled potential is just wishful recycling.

When the “change” finally moves from theory to fact, I’ll clap....... Until then, it’s still a shell with a track record!

Yes, it’s conditional. That’s the whole point. Until there is an actual signed deal with substance, revenue, assets and funding, everything else is theory.

You say some focus on history and others on potential structural change. True......But history in this case is not ancient folklore. It is five plus years of dilution, failed RTO talk and zero delivery. That carries weight.

Potential structural change is hypothetical...... History is documented fact.

Both approaches exist in markets, agreed.......But one is evidence based and the other is outcome dependent.

As for the long replies,...might as well respond properly rather than chucking emojis and whispers about 😎

Spartac,

You’re very smooth with the wording, I’ll give you that. “Speculative cycles”, “anticipation”, “narrative”, “structure”. It all sounds wonderfully academic.

But let’s strip it back.

When you say anticipation, narrative, rerate, shells moving from a few hundred grand to thirty million on sentiment… you’re not describing gravity or weather patterns. You’re describing the exact psychological fuel that drives speculative spikes.

You say it’s not a promise of outcome. Fine. But repeatedly outlining the path of how it could rerate, before any asset, before any deal, before any signed agreement, is exactly how expectation gets seeded.

You accuse me of arguing against guarantees you never made. I’m not arguing against guarantees. I’m challenging the framing.

Because in a company with:

Five plus years of failed RTO attempts

Billions of shares issued

Repeated dilution at fractions of a penny

No confirmed target

Talking about narrative cycles and how shells “tend to unfold” leans heavily toward hope mechanics, not structural strength.

You say both views can exist. Agreed. But let’s not pretend they carry equal weight!!!

One view is based on documented history and capital structure reality........The other is based on “if a credible deal lands”.

If............that single word is doing a lot of heavy lifting.

I don’t mind speculation. I mind speculation dressed up as inevitability through market psychology theory. That’s where lines blur and retail gets swept up.

You’re right. People can read both sides and decide their risk tolerance.

Just don’t be surprised when someone points out that describing the ignition sequence of a rocket does not mean there’s actually fuel in the tank.

Spartac, you can’t say “don’t tangle me in with the rest” while quoting textbook anticipation narrative and momentum logic …... That’s like saying “I’m not part of the circus” while still wearing the clown shoes.

Your language isn’t of a steady long term holder…..but of someone eyeing the swell before the wave breaks.

That’s not motherload investing, that’s classic pre story ramp logic dressed up as patience.

I’m not a mug who buys into a chameleon story. Words are cheap. Consistency isn’t.

There are plenty of hypocrites floating about these boards. People who say they’re here for fundamentals while pushing sentiment. People who claim patience while nudging anticipation.

If it walks like Rampadocia and talks like Rampadocia, don’t be surprised when it gets called part of the crew.

Speculation first. Volume second. Narrative third. Reality later........That script has a postcode and it’s Rampadocia.

Sparta, let’s not pretend your earlier comments were exactly the language of a cautious, level headed investor …….

You said:

“First you usually get speculation that something’s happening. Volume creeps in, price starts waking up.”

That is literally describing the exact pattern rampers rely on. Speculation first. Volume second. Narrative third. Reality optional.

Then:

“At that point it’s not about current fundamentals, it’s about the narrative.”

That right there is the line that makes my ears prick up. When someone openly says fundamentals don’t matter and narrative does, that’s not investing, that’s sentiment surfing. And sentiment is precisely what coordinated posters try to manufacture.

You also said:

“Shells sitting at tiny valuations like COR around £500k can rerate quickly… £10m £30m range just on sentiment and the new narrative.”

That is classic “small cap lottery” framing. Could it happen? In theory, yes. But quoting best case rerates without naming a target, a deal structure, a funding plan, or management track record is exactly how hot air gets inflated.

And this one:

“Most of the move usually happens on anticipation.”

That is the core of every pump cycle. Buy the rumour, talk up the anticipation, hope retail chases, exit into strength.

You can’t deny those phrases line up very neatly with how ramp narratives are built.

There is a difference between, I am here for the motherload or bust

and

Let’s hype anticipation and sentiment because that’s where the move happens.

If you genuinely mean motherload or bust, then you should welcome hard scrutiny of management, funding history, dilution track record, and actual RNS substance.

Because if the deal is real, it won’t need anticipation talk to survive.

It will speak for itself.

Until that exists, decoding SINT versus XLON is just intellectual cosplay.

You are analysing the wrapping paper while pretending the gift has arrived.

It hasn’t.

And that’s the only thing that actually matters.

The dramatic tone about the LSE “hiding information” since the upgrade is pure theatre. Market structure evolves. Consolidated tape formats change. Execution flags get simplified. That is infrastructure, not conspiracy, and certainly not evidence of a brewing £30m transformation.

You keep presenting mechanics as meaning.

That’s the flaw.

Trade codes are mechanics.

RTO completion is substance.

And right now, there is no substance.

No named target.

No agreed terms.

No prospectus draft.

No timetable.

No funding package.

Ahhh here we go… now we’ve moved from “£30m RTO certainty” to decoding trade flags like it’s The Da Vinci Code.

IfIKnewIwasaBERK, listing out XLON, AIMX, SINT and ECHO doesn’t magically turn this shell into a deal machine.

Yes, those are execution venue codes. Yes, they tell you where a trade was printed. No, they do not tell you:

– who is buying

– why they are buying

– whether it’s strategic

– whether it’s a transfer

– whether it’s a market maker shuffle

– whether it’s just retail flow

You’re dressing up plumbing as prophecy.

“XLON = Main Market” … and? That just means the trade printed on the London Main Market book. It does not mean smart money knows something. It does not mean an RTO is imminent. It does not mean institutions are quietly loading up for glory.

It means… a trade happened.

Also, the “AIM has no price limits attached 1 pound whatever” line is just noise!!!!!!.

AIM share prices can be whatever the market sets, but that is not some new special rule that makes ramps valid, and it certainly does not rescue a company with a multi year pattern of dilution and missed delivery.

Bottom line

Quoting 30 million minimums and banker folklore does not change the only question that matters.

Where is the signed transaction

Where is the target

Where is the funding

Where is the timetable

Where is the prospectus

Until those exist, your posts are not analysis!!!!!! Lol

They are a sales pitch dressed up in FCA terminology. And people reading this board should treat it as exactly that. What a numpty! Lol

No...Hornyington-oz...i dont like your lying crew out for selfish gains at a cost to others you are trying to delude!!

IfIKnewIwasaBERK, you have done the classic Rampadocia move. Link two legal PDFs, skim a line, then leap straight to a fantasy conclusion that magically benefits a ramp narrative.

Yes, the FCA listing reforms kept a minimum expected market capitalisation of 30 million pounds for certain Main Market listing categories such as ESCC. That part is broadly true.

But you have then twisted that into three misleading leaps.

You are treating that rule as if it guarantees an RTO outcome

It does not. It is a threshold for a listing category, not a promise that COR can secure a target, fund a deal, pass due diligence, publish a prospectus, and complete a transaction.

You are using the 30 million rule as if it proves this must rerate

Also nonsense. A rule is not a catalyst. A catalyst is a signed deal, named counterparty, funding terms, timetable, and a prospectus that survives scrutiny.

You are openly admitting the game is pump first, deal later

You literally wrote “plenty of scope for a pump, leading to a deal”. That is not investing. That is marketing. And it is exactly why people get burned in shells.