Member Info for asimpleinvestor

"Asi engaged also means watching it on the tv:)"

Even if we accept the broadest possible definition of 'engagement' including every casual glance at a highlights reel on social media the quote still explicitly limits the location of these six billion people to 'across 16 cities in the United States, Mexico, and Canada.' That phrasing asserts that 75% of the global population is contained within those specific urban areas, which is physically impossible.

"By the way I never mentioned grass roots football and neither did you and you never mentioned a comparison to 40 years ago either stop changing the narrative to suit your argument."

I didn’t mention tier one football; I was talking about the spectator sport as a whole. As I said, “Each year, fewer people seem interested in it, with many baffled why so many still enjoy watching grown men and women run around a field chasing and kicking a leather ball.”

Taken to its natural conclusion, that statement applies not only to a few games in large stadiums but to any game played anywhere, from major events to street corners. So where exactly am I shifting the narrative The point from the start has been about the number of spectators watching football. If attendance were increasing, more clubs would be opening rather than closing, and at the community level, more people would be standing outside in the pouring rain to watch their local team instead of building houses on the grounds where their clubs used to be.

"engaging over six billion people across 16 cities in the United States, Mexico, and Canada."

Eh! You haven't attended the Trump school of economics, have you? 75% of the entire human population of the planet will be physically present in, or directly engaged within, these specific three locations.

@Gray1, you're conflating stadium capacity with national popularity. A sell-out at a 30,000-seat stadium for a top tier game doesn't prove that more people care about football today than 40 years ago; it only proves that the stadium isn't big enough to house the local demand for that specific event.

If you want to measure the sport's true health, look at the grassroots level, not the elite spectacle. Forty years ago, local clubs were the social hubs of their towns, anchored by community infrastructure like local pubs and volunteer networks. Today, we’ve seen a hollowing out of that ecosystem. Many towns don’t even have a club anymore, and the ones that remain are often struggling to survive against rising costs and a declining footfall.

Using Premier League sell-outs to judge the sport’s popularity is like judging the health of a forest by looking only at the tallest trees while ignoring the dead undergrowth. Much of the 'interest' we see today is driven by the 'event' culture people attending for the spectacle, the atmosphere, or social cachet, similar to how someone might attend a major music festival despite having no interest in the industry itself. That's a shift toward commercial consumption, not an increase in the sport's depth of popularity.

@NewKOTB, you are misrepresenting the situation. The thread wasn't removed because of the content of my posts; it was removed due to the conduct of those who chose to breach forum rules with insulting behaviour and personal attacks rather than engaging with the evidence provided.

You call it 'NSI & HMG rubbish,' yet you offer no evidence to the contrary. My position regarding the National Security and Investment (NSI) Act 2021 is based on the statutory implications of accepting government subsidies for critical infrastructure, a clear change in the corporate risk profile. I presented the legislative basis for this over the weekend, and it remains unchanged. If you disagree, provide the evidence that proves those statutory risks are non-existent. Otherwise, your 'scaremongering' label is merely an attempt to dismiss an evidenced based argument because it conflicts with your preferred narrative.

As noted, the SAU clearance on 20th May is already public knowledge, so I am not 'peddling' information; I am simply pointing out that the shift in ITM’s status from a private commercial entity to a core participant in UK energy sovereignty carries regulatory consequences that shareholders would do well to understand. I won't argue again, as that is clearly the objective to get another thread removed that doesn't align with your narrative. The upside is that the subsidies and government contracts provide stability and growth for both the company and its shareholders; the downside is that this comes with government caveats that cannot be ignored.

@STP Right now, the big buzz in the investing world seems to be all about the upcoming SpaceX IPO on Friday, rather than concerning themselves with the usual game of kicky ball. Each year, fewer people seem interested in it, with many baffled why so many still enjoy watching grown men and women run around a field chasing and kicking a leather ball.

"ASI is back after his ridiculous posts over the weekend, how long will he last this time, although its tone has change, wonder why .. hummm ?"

@NewKOTB, my previous posts were not about the mechanics of grant payments, but about the regulatory implications of ITM positioning itself as a core component of UK energy infrastructure. By entering into government contracts and subsidies, ITM has fundamentally shifted the goalposts: under the National Security and Investment (NSI) Act 2021, this designation means any significant foreign equity interest or takeover attempt now carries a heightened risk of being 'called in' for a national security review. You cannot simultaneously position a company as vital to UK energy sovereignty and expect its shareholder base to remain insulated from government scrutiny.

Regarding the grant itself, the Subsidy Advice Unit (SAU) report cleared the statutory review stage on 20th May 2026. This is a matter of public record; the market already knows the 'intent' is compliant. What we are waiting for now and what will likely be RNS'd is the formalisation of the Grant Funding Agreement (GFA) and the associated Final Investment Decision (FID) for the Chronos line.

My points were simply highlighting that state intervention changes the corporate risk profile. Disagreeing with the legislative impact of the NSI Act doesn't make that reality any less significant nor indeed any less true.

"The problem I see with itm is there news flow always seem to be jam tomorrow. I have pulled my money out and tried my luck with Gex . If they find half of what there looking for then it will do well . Very well"

"@stevehuges – Isn't 'jam tomorrow' actually the defining characteristic of both? The difference is the scale and the backing.

GEX is a £14m market cap, pre-revenue exploration play. You are betting on geology and the binary outcome of a drill bit. ITM is a near £1bn market cap industrial manufacturer with £40m+ in annual revenue, significant government grants, and a £150m+ order book. ITM is currently using its massive cash balance to build infrastructure; GEX is using dilutive share issues just to fund its next drilling campaign.

Fundamentally, there is no comparison regarding financial stability. It comes down to your objective:

ITM is an industrial resilience play. You are betting on them becoming a permanent, utility-like fixture in the energy transition. They are built for long term endurance, provided they survive the current political and policy cycle.

GEX is an 'upside explosion' play. If they actually hit a viable helium or hydrogen resource, the percentage return could dwarf ITM’s because you are taking them from 'unproven asset' to 'commercial reserve.'

One is an attempt to build a business that lasts decades; the other is a high-beta bet on discovery. They are very different tools for very different goals.

There an RNS informing us of the grant, so anything beyond that, like confirmation of the grant, isn’t necessary since we’re already aware of it. Next, you’ll be asking for an update every time they change the loo roll in the executive bathroom.

https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/ITM/gb-energy-40m-investment-and-desnz-465m-grant-8oig6sxaycpe5ud.html

The only way Trump could complete the mission in Iran would be with boots on the ground, likely sparking a war even worse than the one in Ukraine—engulfing the entire Middle East, lasting for years, and ending much like the final days of Vietnam. So far, there’s been heavy bombing, with intelligence suggesting around 30% of Iran’s missiles and drones have been lost. However, many of these weren’t destroyed in attacks but were used in its counter-strikes against Israel and neighbouring Arab states during the spring of 2026 and are being replenished in short order.

@Birdsong, you’re missing the point of the comparison. I am discussing the strategic difference between the UK’s focus on high-expenditure military hardware and the Swiss model of civic resilience.

To clarify the system. Military service is mandatory for all Swiss men from age 18. They fulfill this through military service, civilian service, or civil protection. Those who do not perform these duties pay a "military service exemption tax", a progressive levy on taxable incomeuntil age 37.

Regarding the "civil defence" age limit, it’s worth noting that the Swiss system is increasingly focusing on domestic disaster management and infrastructure protection. The core principle of the Swiss "militia system" isn't just about soldiers; it’s about a society where citizens are trained and equipped to manage essential functions, from fire and rescue to emergency civil support. This is designed for deterrence through total preparedness, rather than relying on a small, professional force that is prone to being overwhelmed in a high-intensity scenario.

Switzerland has approximately 360,000 to 370,000 civilian shelters, 360,000 are in private hands. I bet you don't even know the location of your nearest bunker if you ever found the need to use one. Under the Swiss Federal Act on Civil Protection, there is a legal requirement of "one protected place per inhabitant and up until the mid 1990;s it was a legal requirement for developers to incorporate one in the building design. Military-specific fortresses and mountain caverns are estimated at around 20,000 installations of varying sizes across the country.

I have firsthand experience of the scale of this infrastructure; I visited one of these bunkers nearly 30 years ago (decommissioned), and the volume of ordnance was still greater than what you would find in a typical UK army base some are built like underground cities. Furthermore, the Swiss Air Force utilises specialised mountain caverns known as Flugzeugkavernen at locations like Meiringen Air Base near Bern for active, daily flight operations. These aren't historical relics; they are functional, mountain-hardened military assets.

If you ever visit, you can see decommissioned mountain fortresses to grasp the scale of the commissioned sites still in operation. This is not about "hiding away"; it's a robust, society wide defensive posture that prioritises individual and national resilience over the expensive, short-term military footprint we currently maintain. The Swiss spent roughly £6.3 billion on national defence last year, compared to the UK’s £62.2 billion. The Swiss have national resilience through their entire population; the UK’s current posture offers, by some official estimates, only a few days of high-intensity protection. It is a choice of priorities, not an inevitability.

The debate over defence spending often ignores a fundamental question: what are we actually paying for? Current estimates suggest our high-intensity 'staying power' in a conflict is measured in just five days not because we lack funds, but because our budget is prioritised for a specific type of global military posture that hasn't evolved since the mid-20th century.

Take Switzerland as a rational alternative. They don't rely on being a global power-projector; they rely on domestic resilience. With a bunker system that guarantees shelter for 100% of their population and a focus on civil defence, they have redefined 'security' as the protection of the individual, not just the projection of the state.

When we consider that our current defence spending is already slated to rise toward 3% of GDP, we have to ask why we are pouring billions into systems that by the admission of senior officials leave us unable to sustain even a week of high-intensity combat. If we are truly living in the 'safest period in history' as some argue, why is the UK so focused on expensive, short-term military hardware, and so indifferent to the Swiss-style civil resilience that actually keeps a population 'warm, fed, and secure'? We are paying a premium for an imperial-era military model that neither guarantees our modern safety nor addresses the actual needs of our citizens

@Birdsong The assumption that national security is primarily a function of military scale is historically and empirically questionable. Switzerland remains a primary counterexample: it maintains robust sovereignty and security while spending roughly 0.7% of its GDP on defence, choosing instead to invest in a standard of living that ensures a resilient, socially cohesive population.

The UK’s insistence on maintaining an outsized military posture often ignores our current geopolitical reality. As an island nation, we no longer command a global empire that requires force projection across every continent. The geopolitical necessities of 1945 or 1845 do not equate to the requirements of 2026.

If 'security' is measured by the health, stability, and well-being of the populace, then the argument that we must deprioritise basic needs to fund hardware creates a false dichotomy. We could easily incorporate a model of neutrality and focused defence within the UK, not just as a military shift, but as part of a significant political 'reset.' A society that neglects the basic needs of its citizens in favour of excess military spending often faces greater internal threats to its stability than it does external threats of invasion. Security is found in a population that is warm, fed, and invested in its own country, a nation that is actually worth defending

There’s always plenty of money to keep the war machine running, but never enough for peace or anything. No excuse to buy a missile, yet more than enough of them to feed and clothe people.

Hydrogen stocks are down this morning, never a good idea to make predictions based on a days play.

There’s always that possibility, but if you invested based on a potential takeover offer, you accept the risk that the company might decide not to go through with it. This could lead some opportunists to jump ship in search of greener pastures. For long-term holders, however, it might be seen as the company showing integrity and not feeling the need to convince shareholders to sell the business for less than it’s worth.

The more in-house capabilities the company builds, the better it can protect itself from potential shortfalls.

The gas is there and in sufficient commercial volumes to be commercial hence why are already commercial with producing wells. Not only the proven Helium but potentially hydrogen and now argon. Are you sure you're commenting on the right company @molatovkid ?

I doubt they have but either way HEX saves on upfront costs with each drill and between drills can contract out to other companies so win/win.

Moving onwards this is a good deal, it will save HEX a fortune over time, remove any drilling delays and is overall a good investment. This can only improve the bottom line from day one.