Member Info for addicknt

GS, This time last year all three of your last observations were either true or possible. This is not the case now; which shows how far the company has come in 12 months.

One other thing with regard to S&G. QPP failed to make the business model work on very limited leverage. S&G took on a big pile of debt to fund the acquisition (combined with a big equity raising) If the cash flow didn't work for QPP from an un-leveraged position, why will it work for S&G with much higher leverage? Bordersman will tell me it's because the WIP will begin to unwind and will fund the new cases. Fair point. But, they still have to fund and expanding case load (according to the projections), at the same time as funding the new debt. It will interesting to see how this unfolds.

GS, I think the dd point is a fascinating one. I have absolutely no doubt that they were satisfied with what they found...I guess they wouldn't have been happy to pay what they did otherwise. However, if indeed it was as good as they thought, this surely supports Bordersman's argument that the business should never have been sold? Similarly, it is more than apparent that the Aussie market doesn't believe that they got their dd right. Believe me, it's very easy to get things wrong during this process. My pub mate is of the opinion that S&G were suffering from 'walk on water' syndrome. He spoke very highly of their existing business, particularly in the UK. It's his view that they were overtaken by a degree of hubris and have made a fatal mistake of indulging in land- grab at the expense of rational thinking. Who knows? This whole thing is clouded in layers of mystery and obfuscation and I suspect we'll never really understand what went on.

Good God Rocal! You drive a diesel?! Do you realize how many polar bears you've killed?

Newboy/GS, that was the interesting thing about my conversation. When I asked him about the model being 'disruptive', he replied that initially the industry was intrigued by the prospect. However, when they examined the model, they realized it was not disruptive at all, but was simply a case of being done on a much larger scale. They also understood the cash flow implications of this, for the simple reason that, on a smaller scale, they all faced the same problems. He was at pains to say that he had previously held S&G in high regard, but feels they must have completely lost the plot when they paid what they did. His real scepticism kicked in when the company issued its expectations for hearing loss claims. As he put it;'it almost implied that 1.5x the population would be making a successful claim'. (there was obviously a degree of comedic value in his comment, but I think we understand what he meant) GS, you talk about a friend who has recently joined. Is this is the old company, or the new one? i.e is he working for S&G or QPP? You also make the observation that my acquaintance would have been 'less robust' if it had worked out. His view was that there was never any way it could have worked out; so there was no hindsight involved. Hence he did not wish to work for the company, nor did he invest.

none of you guys are interested in the past and get peed off when I and others waste time banging on about it. Your interest, as it should be, is focussed on the future...you are shareholders and that's all that should interest you. However, there are still one or two dinosaurs like me lurking around who are interested to know what went on. You'll love this anecdote: I've just been talking to a bloke I know in my local boozer ( I know, a horrible cliche), who's a solicitor involved in exactly the same space as was the old company. Indeed, he's a local competitor. We were chatting about the old business model and, apart from being surprised I'd ever invested, went on to give me a blow-by-blow deconstruction of what went went wrong and why is was doomed to fail. Indeed, he told me that not one of his fellow solicitors ever believed in the model or the supposed results. Apparently, and I wish I'd seen this, all of the legal magazines cast doubt on the company. Most of the local solicitors were aware of the characters behind the company and, despite being offered generous remuneration to join, declined to do so. Most local corporate teams also declined to act for the company. He was simply bamboozled that S&G paid what they did for the business, but accepted, when challenged by me, that it was brilliant price.BTW, he also said the hearing loss calculations were just barmy. Curiously, Blake Lapthorne, who were my own corporate lawyers many moons ago, did act, and not one of the others could understand why they did. As it happens I have met the partner at BL on a number of occasions and he is a thoroughly decent bloke. This begs the question; why did he get involved? The obvious response to all of this is; so what? I have no answer, other than it raises even more questions in my mind. Before I get castigated for being a troll/de-ramper or whatever insult you care to throw at me, I re-iterate that I genuinely hope the new business succeeds and that you patient holders recoup your losses.

is that the rise today was caused by the announcement that the NHS will cut spending for special needs folk in hospitals and that the money will be re-directed into care homes. Glad I bought in on the dip.

Following last weeks cri de coeur, I sincerely hope you are feeling better in yourself.

Phronist, one point of fact: the FSA (sic) have ceased their investigation. The SFO took up the baton.

I'm really sorry to have to ask this Ash, but have you read the RNS? The directors have admitted their guilt already. They are facing the slammer for this. As far as GT are concerned, if one were to give them the benefit of the doubt, they will have been fed erroneous information and were clearly taken in by what is a simple, but well hidden fraud. If you want another recent example where an accountancy firm perhaps didn't perform as they should, look no further than QPP. Someone asked earlier, why did the directors do it? The obvious answer is because they thought they could get away with it. And had it not been for the American outfit, they would have continued to do so. This is a truly shocking development for shareholders and they have my sympathy (I speak as someone who lost badly out at QPP)

I had forgotten that I own shares in this company...not one of my best investment decisions. Advance...would you like to buy them? 5p a pop.

I'm afraid to say you did.It formed part of a rant about what you regarded as the de-rampers on the IMTK board.

You really don't 'get' this investment game, do you rylidan? If you did, you wouldn't be invested in a company which is teetering on the edge and similarly, you wouldn't waste your time making childish observations about short term movements in this share price. Your motives are crystal clear and and are intensely dull. Still, as you said over on your favourite share bb, people who spend their time de-ramping are 'clearly mentally ill'. Your words, not mine.

Oh, and by the way, I notice you are a fan of IMTK. I struggle to see how a company that's being kept afloat by a $100k loan from its chairman could in any way be regarded as superior investment to this. Oh, sorry, I forgot, the great Rob Terry is also a shareholder...so that's alright then.

Honestly Rylidan, you really must try harder! That was a very poor effort.

I will remind you of your recent post on the imtk bb in which you said that people who post about shares they don't own are mentally ill. I beginning to think you were right.

So, to repeat my last message, which you obviously had removed, your stance here is in direct conflict to what you posted yesterday on the imtk bb. I suggest you stick to ramping over there.

But you're not invested here, are you?

Why do you care so much about this share?

"Where the price should be"? I'm sure you'd love to be able to dictate share prices, but sadly you can't. You keep waffling on about £ 6, but even if it fell to that level, why would you buy? You repeatedly say it's overvalued, so there would be no upside, would there? I'd stick to QPP if I were you.