Member Info for A_E_Marsh

Thanks for that Mullins58, a good find. I'm not taking any joy from the situation S&G shareholders are in, to be honest. I feel a little bit like I already have been there, done that, and already have that Tee shirt.

Gone through, if you believe in that. Personally, I don't.

Filter me, PLEASE. You are plainly in a different world to me and I believe you truly are incapable of "getting it".

...we have survived another day.

Dar_.... Can't you see? I'm not "having a go at you"! I'm having a go at the original poster of the comment. (Don't want to use his(?) name, I am feeble and may swoon) You really must get the hang of this interweb thingy!

"Let us hope the court case commences before they go bust" ha ha Shirley Knott? You can't WANT that, it gives you one less site to troll. Ha ha.

... to glow in the dark.

Yes but! The advice WTG would have received is that as the other company were in breach of the rules WTG would win the case. I see no point in rules and Acts if people can break them, be held to account and get away with it. As such I believe WTG were right to pursue the case and the judge needs her head examined. This is like the FIA and Ferrari.... anybody else breaks the rules they get penalised, Ferrari break the rules and the FIA apply "common sense". If the rules aren't "common sense" why does everybody else have to follow them? Precisely the case here. Are WTG now meant to say, OK, we won't go to court with the next case because although the other companiy broke rules, that's OK now, a "Judge" has said so? Although we will have the book thrown at us by the SFO for..... breaking the rules! (Oh no......, they are DIFFERENT rules... yeah right, but you can't "slightly" break the rules) Anyway, what I'm saying is that I am confident WTG took good and proper legal advice and pursued the correct course of action. They are not the first people let down by "British Justice", I hope they continue to fight for justice.

Apple Oggies, *�650K of course.... One of us will get it right at some time.

""Judge Elizabeth Jones QC found that OS3 breached their duties under the U.K. Companies Act 2006 when they carried out special shareholder resolution in June 2015 without Quindell's knowledge, but ruled that Quindell did not suffer any prejudice from various share transactions that took place..."" As OS3 had breached their duties I do not see how WTG are in the wrong, perhaps we are talking about something different.... Can you please tell me where you got the figure of �650 for costs awarded against them? Here is what Winnifrith said about the case I am referring to, note, "a minor setback". ""This is a small side issue in terms of the greater Quindell (ALLEGED) fraud which will, in due course , see Rob Terry and others go to jail (WINNIFRITHS VIEW, NOT MINE) but this week Watchstone Group (WTG) as Quindell is now known suffered a minor setback against Terry and others. We publish the ruling in full below.."""

If I remember correctly WTG DID win but were awarded nothing! I don't know how you can allow for that in an estimate of chances of success in a court room, if your side say you will win they cannot guarantee you will get a worthwhile award. Factor in the element of "British Justice" variance and anything can happen.

""....a buyer is more interested in performance and potential than in history ..." Here, Respective, you're not me, are you? I don't know how many times I have tried to get that across...

""It also allows everyone including Wishbone to do the same."" Very true but of course conditions apply and a solitary investor here does not (I assume) have access to the resources of a financial fund so, having invested when "all was rosy" perhaps they do not have the ability to top up at a lower rate. They may well be in at a considerably higher average than the current price (and yourself!) and feel they have seen nothing to warrant "throwing good money after bad", which is fair enough. You have, in the past (IIRC) stated that "funds have access to information we don't have". Well, good for the funds, that doesn't help us though, so a slightly less generous attitude is only to be expected. I'm not saying this won't come good, but I will repeat, based on the performance of the present BoD why would anybody feel encouraged to invest (even) more here. Let's see the change of sentiment, and let the BoD be the leaders.

""RT works on inflating the value of a company whilst these guys work on deflating it...."" I agree entirely with that view. They have done next to nothing to change sentiment and have, in my view, failed to protect shareholders from further loss. Their performance so far has been lamentable.

"It is worth what someone will pay" That is certainly true if you consider nothing is ever over-priced and nothing is ever under-priced, however the concept of such a comfortable world would receive a split vote, IMO. ""So really not sure how people can say it was worth way more than was paid."" How about this, (both of which may have variable levels of accuracy) """Hubio have just sold multiple deals worth millions...."" or "I seem to recall RT said it was worth many times that figure."" There are other options of course, most of which would see my post hastily removed, but I'm still sure you can use your imagination or experience to envisage them. I wish to make it clear, I'm not supporting any view, but I can and do question the actions.

""Would be nice to know where the money from all of this is actually going to don't you think ?"" Wentworth? Ascot? Watchstone is so much closer now. No... I'm just kidding..... It equates to a fantastic seven and a half pence per share. Who knows, perhaps the "bargain of the century"? Not for us though, I don't think. No wonder there wasn't an RNS, they were hardly going to boast about it, were they?

""RT still tweeting criticism of WTG board actions ..."" """...... �3.5m for Hubio Enterprise Insurance.."" ""I seem to recall RT said it was worth many times that figure."" Well, if you had thought it was worth more than that wouldn't you be critical? I know my comments will be seen by certain individuals as defending RT but he has claimed, according to one source, Hubio is/was worth "many times more" (we have no quoted figures). It has been sold for less. RT is critical of that. Why does anybody find that strange? Where is the proof that it isn't/wasn't more valuable? Perhaps people would like to fall back on the professional standards of the S & G valuation of PSD for evidence? Don't shoot the messenger, people have to come up with facts supporting their views on his claimed guilt. They are required to do that in a court of law. All I see here is spite and venom directed at him with no factual support for many of the claims made, most of which would (IMO) be inadmissable anyway. Or perhaps the judges are simply RT apologists like I am, apparently? We can all disagree or agree with him, that is a matter of opinion and fair enough, but it makes nobody right or wrong either way without any credible evidence.

""You have a very subtle way of Ramping I might add."" Yes, you could add and you'd probably be very wrong and failing totally to see the point. I don't think he is in any way "ramping", in fact, having been here several years and still well down despite all the pie in the sky promises I agree with every word he says. Ramping? Jeez! You couldn't make it up! Let us know how you feel in several years time, you might see the point by then.

I've been here for far tooo long, to be honest! Now, what other company does THAT fit?!

Thanks for your detailed and polite reply. It is much appreciated I am sure, by all other Boom investors. As I said, I hope the advice I gave is as good for you as anybody else and knowing how life works I am sure somebody will need to remind me of it sometime soon! ATB. PS. I am neither 14 years old nor a University Professor.