Member Info for A_E_Marsh

""Surely, if it is all bad luck, that must surely change... at some point?"" Do you know the definition of insanity? I'm not saying this to "have a go" at you, but just to point out why your fundamental belief may be flawed, anyway, here we go, "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein quotes from BrainyQuote.com." To me that indicates that it isn't all "bad luck". It could be down to "clever management" (For them, not us). But Albert is a tough one to argue against. Are we expecting the BoD to down grade their houses soon? I don't think so... they'll be alright. Any way, I wish you success although seriously doubt it will come from these Snouts-In-The-Trough, who have done nicely out of many.

Now that's not fair. Your comments are much too kind to these "people". I notice you appear to expect some sort of response reflecting decency and integrity from the action you would like to see the BoD take. Why do you think they will change?

What are you on about? I'm not talking about anything being simple. Forget the hype, right? The FACTS. DDD MUST abide by AIM rules to remain listed. If they CHOOSE not to, they will be delisted and get their wish.... OK? Why is that difficult to understand?

""They need to be a justifiable reason before they can thing about it...""(SIC) You're missing the point. DDD must abide by the AIM rules to be listed. They simply break those rules one way or another and get de-listed by AIM.

""Grandkids can have them."" You may need to explain that you thought you were doing them a favour. On an optimistic note, the BoD will be as the very dust beneath your camel's feet.

""".... that's why I gave an opinion on consolidations ...."" An account for 6 years and 9 months, feels a need to comment on the proposed 1/10 consolidation now, yet didn't "give an opinion" on last years 1/15 consolidation. I would have thought one might be inclined to under such circumstances. Hmm,

""A bistecca alla Fiorentina and bottle of Badia A Passignano ...splendid."" I was actually thinking of taking my own Morrisons tuna salad and a couple of bottles of Toro Loco from Aldi... How the other half live...... Still, I'll look out for the bloke on the top table who talks with a Liverpudlian accent!

""court approval for the 90 p is far from certain"" No, you are, as usual, quite wrong. The BoD have cleverly crafted this arrangement to be a virtual certainty, as you know, deep down. Well, actually, even at a superficial level.

""A_E_M, GZPLA, GrumpyScouser et al even bothering to reply to some of these utterly crackpot questions about the share-price consolidation?"" It's generous of you Rocal, to include me in the "knowledegable brigade" but to be honest, I haven't the faintest what will happen here. But I do know some certainties and will usually reply to anybody I am pretty certain is wrong. I may come across as self-assured and confident, but I am not. Nobody knows the answers. If I did I would be in Tuscany driving Aston-Martins and Bentleys, plus the odd Rolls-Royce (I wouldn't be seen dead in a Ferrari, unless it was a 250GT SWB) in the daytime and enjoying massive salads with steak and red wind in the evenings.

I just get this feeling.... the same IP address perhaps? Or a previous "visitor"? One joined today, The other joined ""Member Since: Fri, 27th Feb 2009""" and one post...... in 6 years 9 months?

It's actually a 1/10 consolidation.... Dilution does not come into it. I am wondering who the "we" is that keesay referred to, it was their first post. so there was no identifiable group to place him/her in. And I was wondering just exactly who had been stupid enough to claim "we" were getting a free 90p!! In a long time here I have seen no such claim from anybody. That was their first post and your second. I think perhaps you are both connected in some way.

""We are not getting a free 90p......"" Please explain.

Without going into details, I think Quindell has sufficient contacts to avail itself of all the expertise required to invoke favourable conditions for the intended plan to come to fruition. I will be shocked if they don't get exactly what they want. It seems these plans have not been cooked up overnight and I am sure the level of investigation into the intended events becoming reality is great enough to ensure success.

""Cant help thinking the clever strategy would be to help shareholders to believe there are prospects."" Prospects are minimum 90pps this year, minimum £1 per share late next year after consolidation. That is already more than most.

Yes, it is not a common practice after all. Glad to help. Re the 10p/£1.00, a clever strategy to maintain the share price after consolidation although hopefully we won't need it! GLA.

""Question is : if i still hold my shares on the 17th Dec does this entitle me to the 90p and the 10p even if i sell my shares after December ?"" Certainly not!! Just think about it. If you sell your shares in February somebody buying them in March would not qualify for the 10p (£1 after consolidation). You've sold... why should you get it.? They've bought, why shouldn't they? A date will be announced. Later. Much, much later.

""If you had a 8 cylinder Aston Martin capable of 200mph you cannot chop off 7 cylinders and retune the remaining cylinder to achieve the same speed. That speed is unrecoverable."" The previous performance is not unrecoverable. You buy a new engine and then you fit it. Speed recovered. Further more, you have missed out the profit made by selling the seven cylinders to use a car that is possibly only driven in 30mph areas so is still a valuable asset fit for purpose. Your BT story is far more relevant, but still not a comparator for Quindell. Each companies story is different. It is not possible to predict the future of Quindell from Tesco, Rolls-Royce, etc.

""I know you meant to add, capital reduction is , subject to shareholder and court approval, "" Firstly of course, you actually know nothing of the sort, I suppose you are now claiming to be a mind reader? Everybody except you is aware of the (virtually non-existent) "risk" regarding the capital return. The Bod have carefully crafted the procedure to enhance the chance of success well beyond "probable", IMO. If I am proved wrong don't hesitate to remind me. I know you won't.

Although these comments have been posted in the past, due to apparent repeated spamming of the board I think it is appropriate to remind ourselves of certain genuine facts..... This post was made some time ago but is constantly ignored by those with an agenda, as those new to this comment will see, Quindell fits virtually all the criteria. (Though not all as they haven't been taken over.) RE: SFO Matters to be taken into consideration in establishing that it is not in the public interest to prosecute a corporate entity "(f) The offending is not recent in nature, and the company in its current form is effectively a different body to that which committed the offences. For example it has been taken over by another company, it no longer operates in the relevant industry or market, all of the culpable individuals have left or been dismissed, or corporate structures or processes have been changed in such a way as to make a repetition of the offending impossible." Would seem highly relevant here. Taken from the CPS guidelines. Legalese

""Since the specific focus of the SFO Investigation is currently unclear to the Directors, it is not possible to determine whether the SFO will, in due course, seek to pursue a prosecution of the Company.."" We now know, following the Olympus case that the SFO will have no intention on "pursuing a prosecution of the company". Therefore this item is now irrelevant. rather like the contributor who keeps referring to it. An e-mail to admin explaining recent events should lead to these mis-leading posts being removed.