Tesla, given that Darren uses his real name it's easy to verify the fact he lives in Ecuador. It's fascinating that both you and the Aussie Moron both presume to know about people's lives when of course neither of you have the faintest idea.
Fort, "Well...it stinks if it happens and guess we'll have to wait and see". Precisely, it hasn't happened and there's no evidence to suggest it may. So what's the point of getting excited about something which hasn't happened?
I agree that it would be good if the shares end up in the hands of someone like Barrick. However, my guess is Caldwell would prefer not to sell those shares and to seek alternative finance options.
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.
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.
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.
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.