Member Info for asimpleinvestor

"Simple....ton... so the 15m mcap isn't relevant then at all????"

Not if you take on board the 50 billion shares required to get it there. I am indeed simple; I can simply apply the maths and see what is required to "move the needle."

You should try it yourself. Take a look at the volume over the last few months and calculate how many shares were required to move the price by a reasonable margin. As the share count increases, it takes progressively greater volume to move that needle the same distance.

As the issuance grows, the volume required becomes so heavy that the price eventually becomes static. At that point, no matter how positive the news is, the volume needed to make a dent will be so immense that the market won't even notice the company's progress. The share price simply remains anchored by the weight of its own supply.

To put that in perspective: In December 2024, a 0.01p move required only £650,000 in value shift. The "needle" was light and easily moved by standard retail momentum. Now, after the recent dilution, that same 0.01p move requires a staggering £5,000,000 shift in market cap.

Belittling and insulting someone doesn't change the maths and it makes me smile when people for some reason thinks it does.

What wealth is that? You literally have a 50 billion share issuance worth a meagre £15 million. There is no wealth here. 4545 shares equates to the price of your standard loaf of bread. If you wanted to "push the boat out" for an artisanal loaf, it would cost you 8,117 shares. Holding this stock is beginning to mirror holding the Reichsmark during the era of hyperinflation where the sheer volume of paper (or digital entries) completely outstrips any tangible purchasing power. There is no wealth here; there is only denomination.

I've come to the conclusion we will have to wait until the July ATM to get any answers.

@ZagEgypt Nope, my only interest is getting this share out of suspension as soon as possible so I can sell my holdings. As others have mentioned, management reads these boards, so I’ll keep posting the legalities and pitfalls of every suggestion the BoD makes in discussions with shareholders, even though they lack the governance to confirm these ‘talks’ in RNS format and move them from conjecture to a legal standing. I follow the platform’s posting rules have you considered doing the same before making unfounded allegations toward others, myself included? If you want to decide who can and cannot post on these boards, then apply for a job as a moderator, but until that day comes, all users are allowed to post regardless of whether you like the content or not. Of course, I know you enjoy my posts because you find them informative you just don’t want to admit it. Otherwise, you’d use the filter button and place me in a little green box, content invisible to you.

Quote "Staged dilutions over time for each RTO of which there could be 3 RTOs in total. He clearly said that by doing it that way it would ensure the company value is maintained and INCREASDED as they complete each one."

The idea of "3 consecutive RTOs" to build value sounds great in theory, but in the real world of the Main Market, it is a massive regulatory mountain to climb. Under FCA rules, every single Reverse Takeover (RTO) usually triggers a mandatory cancellation of the listing. This means for every deal, the company basically has to "re-IPO" which involves writing a massive, expensive prospectus, getting new audits, and begging the FCA for re-admission. Doing that three times in a row is almost unheard of because of the sheer cost and red tape.

The biggest red flag for us as shareholders is the "Suspension Trap." Usually, the moment a company announces an RTO deal is on the table, the shares are suspended. If management is planning three of these back-to-back, we could be looking at years where our capital is completely locked up and untradable while they cycle through prospectuses and FCA checks. We’ve been suspended long enough; we need liquidity, not more paperwork.

Most importantly, management seems to be ignoring the clear message we sent at the December 23rd General Meeting. We already voted down the special resolution to remove our pre-emption rights. By rejecting that 75% majority requirement, we made it clear: you cannot just issue shares to whoever you want behind our backs.

Regarding the upcoming May 6th AGM and Special Resolution 12:

Management is now trying to force this through a second time, claiming they are in "breach" of their obligations to lenders. Let’s be clear: this "conflict" only exists because the board signed a deal they didn't have shareholder permission to fulfill. They promised shares they didn't have the legal authority to issue without our consent. Now, they are using their own mistake to pressure us into giving up our rights.

A "breach" of a loan agreement doesn't mean you have to dilute us; it means you might have to pay back the loan in cash or negotiate a deal that actually respects existing shareholders. 2026 was supposed to be the year we got back to trading. How many more years of "staged" delays and "forced" dilutions are we expected to sit through?

"ASi is not even a shareholder but insists he needs to educate people here. Just report him"

For your information, I hold shares in both my main trading account and my ISA. If things go south, I can offset the loss against gains in my main trading account, but in my ISA it would be a loss with no tax benefit. Since most of my holding is in my ISA, I’d take the bigger hit there. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, that clears up the matter, and as my posting history shows, I’ve shared this more than once. You, however, have never mentioned your own holdings, and as they say, when someone tries to misdirect onto others, it’s often a reflection of themselves.

Regarding the quote, "Clearly he has far too much time on his hands and gets a buzz out of posting here and on others’ shares with a constant stream of negativity," as shown before, when you make this claim, your posting history shows a six-to-one ratio compared to mine. So if I supposedly have too much time on my hands, then this must be all you do. Six of your posts to one of mine says a lot about you, much more than it does about me.

Quote "He is the the true definition of a troll."

No, the true definition of a troll is as follows - "An internet chat board troll is an individual who deliberately posts inflammatory, insincere, digressive, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, blog, or social media) with the primary intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses, or to disrupt, harass, and sow discord."

Now lets look at your post shall we. Its inflammatory, insincere, digressive, extraneous and an off-topic message with the primary intent of provoking readers into displaying emotional responses, or to disrupt, harass, and sow discord. You suggest I'm the troll and yet your postings towards myself fit the official definition to the letter.

@ZagEgypt When you mention shareholder sentiment, how many shareholders are we talking about? Or do you just mean the handful of people here who seem to have their heads buried in the sand while the BoD has informal talks with you, yet says the opposite when releasing RNSs? It’s true everyone wants the share to resume trading, but that’s not happening anytime soon, and no reasonable explanation has been provided in the form of an RNS, which would be good governance. If you want to know who the real culprits surrounding diminished shareholder sentiment you need to look at the board.

"Yeah right, the bod are working tooth and nail getting specialist companies involved for consultation to get everything right only to ignore the very basic step of not checking if a company’s name is already in use thus sinking the company as a result."

Any particular specialist company you have in mind to get the company relisted from suspension, as the only specialist company it needs is a solicitor an accountant and of course a functioning board.

"Phoenix energy was just a general example,"

"Good names NU!"

Whether they’re good names or just examples, it should be up to the person proposing them to do the due diligence, rather than leaving it to the company to spend scarce funds. Better to be the killjoy who does the research than the one who risks sinking the company by making blind suggestions.

I think before anybody gets ahead of themselves with regards to thinking up names to rename the company you should consider three things.

1) The company is still suspended and as such not publicly trading, which makes your investment of nil value. While the shares technically represent a portion of the company's underlying assets, for an individual investor, the inability to trade means the investment currently lacks any functional market value.

2) According to the 23 April 2026 filing: "The outstanding questions that the Company, through Spark, are resolving with the FCA are in the majority, legacy issues which must be dealt with prior to the FCA being satisfied that this Company is suitable for re-admission to trading, rather than the alternative, being cancellation from listing on the Exchange." Resolving legacy issues and restoring the company to active trading is of far greater importance than considering new names.

3) One should perform due diligence to ensure a name is not currently in use. For example, "Phoenix Energy" is already registered as an American energy company, a Canadian company, a utility in Northern Ireland, and part of a US group of companies. Any company seeking to rename itself "Phoenix Energy" would likely face significant legal and regulatory hurdles regarding trademark infringement and "passing off" in multiple jurisdictions, given the presence of these established firms.

Anything discussed in a shareholder meeting or phone call has no basis in law; such discussions are informal and lack legal weight. Notably, these meetings are not preceded or followed by an RNS announcement, which is the standard requirement for disseminating price-sensitive information to the market.

Nowt new then still suspended. So much for change in governance and good governance practices. Keeping the share trading is one of the most important not the least as some would believe.

The disruption within the Strait of Hormuz extends far beyond the volatility of global energy markets, impacting critical supplies of helium and agricultural fertilisers. Currently, approximately one-third of the world’s helium supply is inaccessible, a deficit that analysts project will result in sustained shortages lasting between three and five years. Simultaneously, the blockade has halted the distribution of fertilisers essential to agricultural output across Europe, Asia, and Africa. Given that Europe is presently in the midst of its primary growing season, the lack of these inputs poses a direct threat to crop yields. This situation suggests that the geopolitical consequences of the blockade may manifest more severely through long-term food insecurity and supply chain collapses than through immediate fluctuations in fuel prices.

Quote "Good riddance, they deleted the thread started by ASI asking me if trading has started or not."

No, you’re mixing up posters. I asked you directly if the company was trading on the exchange or suspended after you mentioned RMD and claimed the company had done wonders in providing value and good governance. My question was simply whether the company is trading or still suspended, which you still haven’t answered. The thread was originally started by ZagEgypt. Good governance and value apply to a trading share, not a suspended one. Until it’s trading, both value and governance are hypothetical. So far, all that’s been added and requested of the board is more debt, not value. So back to my question. Is the share trading or is it in suspension?

@NetteProfits Which county in the UK is known for speaking the King’s English? I’m Lancastrian by birth, with a Scouse mother and a father from Derbyshire, and we all had distinct ways of speaking. While we shared many common words, some were similar but not identical, yet carried the same meaning within their regional context. Setting AI aside, real interaction with regional differences shows this in action. Also, if the goal is to preserve the English language, who today speaks Middle English?

@AlphaBravo85 The cost for a public company (typically on the AIM market) to publish a Regulatory News Service (RNS) announcement ranges from roughly £300 to over £3,000+ per announcement, depending heavily on the complexity of the news and the extent of Nominated Adviser (Nomad) involvement.

@SpotTheNutters If you think the helium shortage is bad for the tech sector, consider the impact on the global dinner table. One-third of the world's fertiliser trade transits the Strait of Hormuz, and we are hitting the peak Northern Hemisphere growing season with a supply chain in tatters.

With urea prices nearly doubling in some regions and exports from Qatar effectively halted, farmers are facing a catastrophic choice between ruinous input costs or lower yields. The real question isn't just about the ROI on QHE; it’s whether the global food system can sustain a three-to-five-year recovery period for this infrastructure without facing widespread famine.

https://www.csis.org/analysis/chokepoint-how-war-iran-threatens-global-food-security

@Gandernee Historically, the English language is in a constant state of flux. If we strictly 'saved' the language from change, we would still be writing in Middle English. Standard English is essentially a formal convention, but in practice, everyone writes and speaks through the lens of their own regional dialect. If the meaning is successfully communicated and understood, the language has fulfilled its primary function, regardless of whether a specific regional merger like 'bought' and 'brought' is used. To address your point about the evolution of language, here is a response written in a style consistent with the Late Middle English of the 14th century (the era of Geoffrey Chaucer):

"Ye seyn weł that tunge and speche ben evere in chaunge. If we sholde 'saven' oure fair langage by olde weyes, thenne mote we speken as men diden in dayes goon, and write as Chaucer took his penne. Ech wight hath his owene manere of speche, and if the herte understondeth the sentence, the wordes han doon hir craft."

Don’t you mean the Prime Minister now has grounds to curtail the royal visit on the basis of safety and security? The decision lies with the Prime Minister, under the advisement of the Home Secretary, rather than the King.

It was staged; the secret service agents didn’t follow standard protection protocols for such a situation. They don’t panic, as their intense training makes their actions second nature in real scenarios.

@Jeffbeckett If you are of the opinion that everything I’ve shared is just negative garbage, then you’re basically saying that RMG and the company are spreading nothing but negative garbage, since I’ve only shared what the company has put out and what it says within the Companies Act with regards to company governance. So I guess that means you view the company in a negative light.