Member Info for addicknt

wolf, the downside risk isn't 25%, it's 100%. But let's all hope it never gets to that point.

In fact, I'd urge you to consider under what circumstances the Proceeds of Crime Act is usually employed.
Some of you guys are shareholders in Whet; do any of you know why he's been subjected to this Restraint Order? What are the allegations of the FCA that have led to it? Were they disclosed when Whet started trading? By law, should they have been?
These are genuine questions as I do not know the answers. But one thing I can guarantee, is that if he'd been about to be appointed a main board director of say, Tesco, it would have been declared.
The other thing that perplexes me about Whet, is why people who I know have reasonable reputations in the City would get involved in all this? Why bother? There are plenty of other people they could have backed who don't have quite the same baggage. This is a great mystery.

TC, your last point reflects my view:Once point 5 is no longer a possibility, I'l re-invest, although I'd like to see a change of CEO at the same time. And boy! do I wish I'd sold at 150p! But don't we all?
Wolf, agreed; the upside is huge; but the downside risk is anything but low.

Funnily enough, I had a very boozy lunch with him last week and he talked about the album.

Produced by my good friend Chris Thomas.

TC, if only we had the power to do so.

adv, that's very kind of you and I agree with your second sentence. I cannot recall any of the shouty nonsense appearing on here. Sure, people have disagreed, but the conversation has always been conducted with respect and politeness.

A Restraint Order under the Proceeds of Crime Act.
I wonder how many other publicly quoted companies have directors in the same situation? None?

Mullins/Newboy, thanks.
If I keep posting the problem will be that some people will start moaning that I'm not a holder anymore so should keep my gob shut.(at least that's what happens on most of these bbs)
Mind you, that's never deterred me in the past!

jayblu48, it wasn't panic selling caused by the email, although I did take note of the content. One of the main reasons was the combination of my exposure here and SOLG. Together, they had come to represent a significant amount of money and I felt over-exposed to speculative miners. So, after considering where both companies are at the moment, I decided to stick with SOLG.
Bandit1, I absolutely agree with your post, and stroga, you are right about Zinnwald.
I am not in any way suggesting I've got this right, but merely that i had to take some action to reduce my exposure. As soon as finance is announced, I'll be back, as this will de-risk the whole thing to a satisfactory level. As for Secker, I regard his mistake with regard to the fund raise as elemental. It was a complete disaster and he should accept full responsibility...as should the advisors. It would be no bad thing if both were replaced.
As the saying goes on here; GLA.

Fuku, I absolutely get your conundrum. And now, in the interests of absolute transparency and due to the fact there are some really decent people on this board, a revelation:
I sold 100k of my shares a while back in the 70s and I have sold the remaining 100k today.
This is a matter of real regret for me, but I need to preserve my capital and I don't like the feel of things at the moment.
I happen still to believe in this stock, but will sit on the sidelines until I see evidence of progress on funding. Secker has proved to be a major disappointment and I'm not at all convinced he's got what it takes to get this over the line.
Fuku, as for tactics, my view is that I've removed myself from harms way, but if the funding does land or indeed any other deal apart from a takeover, I'll have plenty of time to get back in. If a takeover happens, sure I'll miss out, which, after all these years will be annoying. But it's a risk worth taking.

TBTT, it's not written by him, he's merely re-publishing an email sent out today from a "City expert"
By the way, although he may well be a knob-head, he very often gets things right and has a good track record of exposing fraud. Mind you, I normally completely ignore his stock recommendations, although I did follow him into SOS and made £45k in the space of a couple of months...which along with SOLG has more than covered my losses here.

barksy, the links don't work on this site. I think they're banned.

to have report this, but there's a truly awful article on the web site that we can't mention on here...it begins with sharep.......
It makes for very depressing reading and is particularly damning of Mr Secker.
It's not written by everyone's favourite bogeyman and I'd urge you to have a look.
I'm mentioning it on here as I'm not the kind of investor who buries his head in the sand and ignores negative commentary. And neither should anyone else.

So here are the options:
1) trade sale.
2) trade investment on hugely dilutive terms.
3) investment from existing institutions on hugely dilutive terms.
4) sit and wait in the hope that commodity prices improve.
2,3,and 4 seem like very poor options to me.
There is a fifth option, but I'd prefer not to think about it.

Oh, and whilst you're at it, could you please bid for BCN? I'll happily accept £3.00 per share.

Ivy, I think it's time you launched a bid. At 1p per share you'd have more friends on here than you could shake a stick at.

our huge asset base, we are now valued at £46m. This effectively rules-out the public equity market for further funding, and we know the debt market isn't the answer.
We need a further £100m; there or thereabouts.
So, who do we turn to?
It appears our existing investors (Hanwa excluded) weren't interested last time around. But perhaps the reason for Secker's insouciance was that he has an agreed plan. The discussion with the iis was; "I'll give the public market a crack, but if that fails we know our sp will collapse, will you step in when we need the cash sometime next year?"
They replied; "Yes, but only at a low valuation" Which they've now got.
The alternative is that they said no and have instructed him to find a buyer...which is what he's doing right now.
I've been scratching my head trying to think of the alternatives here and can't come up with many. What are your thoughts?

my guess is that Mr Earley has been advised to say nothing else whilst he's being investigated by the FCA. It didn't make much sense to me to attack them while that investigation is ongoing...they might not take it too well.
Btw, anyone heard from Mr Squid and his fifty quid?

so we could could get a double dose of utter tosh? Are you a masochist?