Member Info for addicknt

Mather, wrong. I've been ignoring the idiot, but when he posts something so outrageously stupid it merits a response. Of course, he's now scuttled off and is unlikely to accept he's just made a gigantic t1t of himself... again.

Fort, I agree with you about the 23p and said so at the time. It was a naive comment.

Just how thick are you? Read my posts on the matter you moron. You'll see that I'm the one saying there is no insider trading and have stated the reasons why there isn't.

And yes, in certain circumstances you can get Stock Exchange approval for what otherwise may be described as insider trading.

I can say without equivocation you are the most stupid individual I've ever encountered on any financial bb.

DBW, so I'll ask you the question. Do you genuinely believe a director would so openly and blatantly engage in an illegal practice? They risk jail for so doing and for what? A few thousand quid? Not a chance.

As I said earlier, there are two possible explanations; 1) there are no price sensitive discussions currently taking place, or 2) they received clearance from the Stock Exchange.

If anyone was going to trade on the inside they'd do so anonymously and they'd do it for far more money than a the pittance invested by CS and SC. You most certainly wouldn't RNS it - that's a bit like nicking a car and videoing yourself outside your home address. Actually, that's a bad example because in this country the rozzers still wouldn't bother to arrest you.

DBW, who are you referring to? SC and CS?

Fort, there's no equivalence between the 4.5m and director dealings. Totally different subject, particularly when you bear in mind SC wasn't even on the board when the cash went missing - NM was and it was entirely indicative of his style of non-management. Incidentally, when we became aware of the 4.5m I was one of the few people who initially kicked-up a fuss and from time-to-time I still ask why the company hasn't made any further announcements about it.

I take you back to my question; have the directors acted illegally? If you're so worried about it, why not contact the company or our Nomad and ask the question? Are there, when fund raising, certain circumstances that allow directors to buy? Can you get Stock Exchange approval? I don't know the answer, but I do know neither of these two directors would break the rules in such a blatant and public manner.

I share your frustration about the impending fund raise, but take the view they'll announce something when it's necessary.

Fort, do you honestly believe the directors would break the rules for the sake of a couple of thousand quid?

There are two possibilities: We are not currently in discussions about anything, which, given the funding requirement seems a bit unlikely; or, their purchases have been cleared by our Nomad and are perfectly legal.

Eloro, we can turn that comment on its head in as much as both you and Fort are on here day after day telling us SC is useless and are clearly of the belief you're right and everyone else is wrong. 2bn vs 15m.

SM, nail on head.

Do you know his personal circumstances? I don't.

I made the point the other day when Stackhouse bought in the open market, regardless of the sum involved, he wouldn't be buying if he was concerned about the outcome.

The thing I find strange about your approach is that you have praised the various recent positive announcements, but don't appear able to link them to SC and the fact he's the one delivering them. Very odd.

Your lack of understanding of what SC is trying to achieve has always been a source of wonder. Fortunately, as was proved at the agm, you're part of a statistically irrelevant minority.

Fort, I want the bloke fully incentivised and am therefore completely relaxed about it.

'84, quite right, but that's MDS for you.

One or two people on here are clearly suffering from MDS - Management Derangement Syndrome. The main symptoms are wild hysteria, confusion and predictions of the end of the World.

We can begin speculating about the meaning of close, closed and blackout again. Oh joy.

I can't recall ever seeing a share behave in this way. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but it does make you wonder.

Exactly. Particularly as the article stated "Solgold said on Friday..." Where did they say it? X is not a substitute for shareholder communication, although I suspect the infant we have recruited to do our comms seemingly disagrees.

The article posted by SM on Friday was specific and I thought would have led to an announcement today, but nothing has appeared.

It didn't appear to be a re-hash of old news and is definitely of material interest, so why no RNS?

'84, there are many people in this country who appear incapable of understanding who our enemies are - just as there were in the 1930s.

I guess we'll be seeing an RNS tomorrow?