Member Info for alfista

If you read the AGM, it simply reported that all resolutions had been duly passed. That's all.
The part below the signature line is clearly labelled as a aid memoire to reporters and editors, the brief facts to date of the progress of the company. It does repeat what was written in the last update, it couldn't legally report further information unless it was published prior to the time of the AGM.

What then, is the point of criticizing the company for complying with the law.
As for pointing things out to you, it is breezy today, so I may be better occupied trying something else against the wind.

Let's be clear.
Are you saying that there is no new information at all since the previous AGM?
Even though you have the second most ultra negative opinion amongst posts here, you don't really need to have the additional information spelled out to you.
Do you?

Good luck to attendees.
Enjoy your day out.

What open presentation?
When have companies ever announced that they are going to make presentations prior to placings?
For several placings now, the company told us that they had the involvement of a group of investors, a factor that has been useful in supporting the company through the difficult waiting time. The irritation with the timescale reaches right to the top of the company, but DSM are in control of marketing, and brands are in control of their own decisions. Provexis's role is to provide the science, the interview with Dr Niamh emphasises the ongoing nature of future applications for Fruitflow. It isn't a one hit product, the science continues to uncover more health benefits.
That's all good, of course we all want someone major to exploit those health claims. As several others have commented, the amount of own funded studies which By Health are currently progressing suggests that they may be the first to launch in a huge way. When ? Dunno.

Bern. Yes, correct. It isn't market sensitive information, just a normal element of a very long discussion.

China is a real powerhouse of middle class consumer growth. The brand image that SiS have carefully built will be very well received in this huge market IMHO

Doing what they said they'd do, building global presence.
Excellent progress.

They would want income.
There is income.
There is the prospect of more income.
There are people working on unlocking the potential and persuading big budget companies to launch.
The issue has always been that the decision to go ahead with such bigger brands is in the hands of those bigger brands.
Provexis are asked, many, many times, to provide all of the science behind the health claim, which they have been diligently doing. DSM doubtless follow up on all sales leads, and maintain relationships with all interested parties. Pushing too hard could burn bridges. They know their jobs. The brands themselves have the final say.
As shareholders, the assessment is whether all of this work will be ultimately successful. If it is, then the rewards will be there.

That is where we differ, every one of your comments refer to defeat, mine refer to future success. Opposite sides of the same coin.

Interesting that Dr Niamh talks about the potential for further health claims in sport nutrition requiring further tests and study. The same would be applicable to progress the alleviation of the effects of air born particulate inhalation.
More expenditure needed for years to come then.
That'll bring good cheer to our resident grinches I'm sure
:-)

I see what you mean gixer, but the maths don't stack up.
One trade of that size would give him the extra .43% just notified. Another the same size from that date would have to be notified by now. And, why have the MM's posted it up so late, it being just seconds after the first one? A swap of sorts?

Puzzling.

The trade that was marked as a buy on the 12th was approx. .43% of the total shares, the same amount as this RNS announces that Mr Lucas and family have added.

Why then is there a trade showing now, dated moments after that trade, showing a sell of the same amount and value?
If it were just an error being corrected, there would be no need for an RNS.

Perhaps keep an open mind for now.

You did.
A fiction is a fabrication of events.
The details of progress contained in the RNS are based on real issues. the fact that many can not be divulged due to confidentiality should not leave company officers open to be accused of making things up IMHO

Are you implying something?
My experience of Mr Ford's conduct is that he is very careful only to use published information in any communications. To accuse him of anything other than that is defamation.
IMHO

There is a very significant difference between having opinions on the content of the RNS's, and claiming that they are fabricated. Your confirmation is clearly a defamation, a serious matter.

To be very clear: are you saying that statements in the RNS are a fiction?

It was your referral to me standard of English.
It is a triesome trait, despite your acknowledgment the increased holding of Mr Lucas being positive, you then press the reset button and revert to "The End is Nigh" mode.

You took nothing from the RNS, despite there being multiple aspects that enhanced prospects. I read the same info and saw things differently.

Neither of us will persuade the other, I'm content to hold and add, you are not content to hold a diminished number, but you do. A paradox.

You at least have the consolation of superior language skills.

Fully agree. Growth of the agencies, and shrewd acquisitions, keep on enhancing prospects. It hasn't been recognised by the market to date. Hopefully that is about to change.

Well, it makes perfect sense to me. But then my English came from my wonderful grandmother, a retired English teacher, and a life long reading habit. My three children all have degrees, two of them honours, but don't feel that it has put them in to any more privileged category, especially as their relatively uneducated father still finds it necessary to support them.

When you read the RNS, what do you see?

At the other end on the scale, with utter cynicism being your view, and mine being guarded optimism, what do I see when I read the same RNS?

I agree about the known facts.
However, there are a lot of details in the RNS. What one investor would dismiss as irrelevant, another would consider important, all a matter of interpretation. Your own interpretation is at one extreme end of the debate.

Whether a legal with involvement in contract matters would be able to be an investor, don't know, but humans talk to each other so...

A presentation was made to the investors in the placing.
My estimation is that they don't appear to be in agreement with you.

Normal investors still form the majority, by a long way. If there are "plans in mind", the inference is that there is success ahead, but not for ordinary holders. As a conspiracy theory, it is consistent, but there is no published basis in fact.

I think that reference was to those who actually bought more shares in the new company. Most holders of the free shares wouldn't have enough value to make joining Britdaq worthwhile.

I agree, told you so's are pointless. Sympathies with those that read the claims, or believed the rampers, and got locked in. Share trading carries risk, so presumable most took a calculated gamble, with the result being no more or less acceptable than any other type of gamble. Some you win ...

Welcome Mr Lucas.
Presumably a partaker in the placing.
Connected to RJM perhaps?