Member Info for beechhurst

Given what is being forewarned in the Budget and bearing in mind the OO was at 57p strikes me this is more a CGT mitigation by crystallising some shareholder losses. Wonder what Ashley thinks assuming still hold a not insignificant stake albeit I reckon will be making a tidy profit on proposed exit price.

Albeit forewarned, unusually, against historic reporting patterns, there was not, in June, a specific Q1 TU this year, the only commentary to feed off being that said in the Final FY24 Results RNS, being :

"Current trading and outlook - gradual improvement in trading expected through FY25 :

· The rate of FY24's product revenue decline has moderated at the start of FY25, with Q1 declining by 6%

· This improvement is expected to continue as the year progresses, and for full year FY25 the Group anticipates product revenue will return to a moderate level of growth, alongside a modest improvement in the rate of decline in Financial Services revenue and a Group gross margin rate consistent with FY24

· Clear priorities to set the business up for 2024 peak trading, with the third of the three strategic brands, JD Williams, launching its new mobile-first website ahead of peak

· To support sustainable growth, planning to scale FY25 marketing investment by around £10m, funded by cost efficiencies

· FY25 year end adjusted net debt is expected to be similar to FY24's closing position. Strategic investment will continue to be self-funded through carefully managed cash flows

· The Board has continued confidence that the investment in the Group's strategic transformation plan, its differentiated brands and a new credit proposition in development, leave it well positioned to deliver future sustainable growth"

Not the most inspiring of prospects, perhaps tempering ones expectations for Thursday's results though how one would love to be surprised.

Many expressions/beliefs are being made here so let us look at well established definitions, namely :

FACT : a thing that is KNOWN or PROVED to be true.

REALITY : the state of things as they ACTUALLY exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

Now as far as I am aware there is no known or proven ......." FACT is it's going ahead .....", that will only come when/if the Tripartite Agreement is physically signed, the REALITY of what actually exists is that nothing is proven or guaranteed that any proposal will progress to consummation. It wouldn't be the first time there has been high expectation, much preparation involving costly expense only to "be left at the altar" so, to me, with still so many open doors, it is currently folly to think all is a"slam dunk" as much as I would wish otherwise. Put it into perspective, how many other times in the past has QED been on the verge of "taking off" with other "cast iron" ventures only for all to eventually dissipate to nothing!!

Came across another snippet, which you would like to think will prohibit any financial rewards/bonuses being granted in the foreseeable future, being :

Key Performance Indicators

The Group's key performance indicators are:

· Performance against its annual plan, including project timetables established with partners and clients ........

In the quietness of the evening an opportunity to have a detailed look at today's RNS finds more revealing/interesting words from the Chairman, viz :

- "In last year's final results, I commented that the year had been one of "continued strategic and operational progress, but without a breakthrough". The year ending 30 June 2024 may have been more of the same ....... severely tested by project delays outside the direct control of the Company". To me, this tends to confirm my earlier beliefs that something fundamental has been/remains at issue in the background.

- "We are not yet completely "in the clear", as trials still need to be successfully navigated ........... "

Given the above and the succession of previous time delays, good reason, at the moment, to remain more cautious than bullish although he perhaps offers shareholders a glimmer of hope by concluding thus :

- "We recognise that this has been another year of frustration and slower than expected progress, but we are confident your patience will be rewarded."

Let us hope so, fingers crossed but not surprising the market didn't share the same enthusiasm notwithstanding some reporters/promoters trying to present a more optimistic picture.

As the saying goes .... "There's many a slip 'twixt the cup and the lip ....". Given the exuberant proclamations of last December one can have good reason to think a fundamental issue has, this far down the line, blocked progress - whether insurmountable is the big question as from my experience of large corporate arrangements this, now, is nothing to do with the nicety of words in/posturing with documentation but something more operational/commercial that needs overcoming, if possible!! The longer this goes doubt will increase and it wldnt be the first time a deal of this potential magnitude gets pulled. The company's record on promises/forward expectations regrettably is not good and whilst some may regard my comments as alarmist it comes from first hand knowledge and the realities of the world of big business. And before anybody jumps down my throat I am invested well into 5 £ figs so I am wanting a positive resolve just like all others but at this stage you have to recognise not all things always turn to gold.

Fully covered in RNS 13/09 which also related to Barder - in respect of Options that would have otherwise lapsed at end of this month.

SC, you may well, IN GENERAL, be right about legal firms being short staffed but if you think "big business" would take that as an excuse to not get things progressed as speedily as required then you really have no understanding or appreciation of how all works in the higher echelons of the commercial world and with organisations of this stature. Yes, the "little man" will be told to take his place in the queue until resource permits him being given attention but the type of parties we are talking about would expect and get immediate service if they so demanded. That is REALITY, whether you believe it or not, so there not being the requisite level of resource or expertise immediately available to timely deal with legal matters with the Project Agreements, if the terms had been formally agreed, not credible to me. Each to their own, though!!

".... the most likely delay is the staffing shortage in the legal profession."

I doubt MSC & Cargill are using "tin pot" legal bods and given their size and status/value as clients I imagine they would have priority standing when it comes to requiring service even if the law firms using were short of hands.

In my day I dealt with large corporate transactions requiring weighty documentation and whilst there would always be some bit batting between the legal sides I cannot envisage this being the cause for this length of delay if the principal parties had agreed terms of any agreement.

To me there is also indication in RNS 10 July that it is not the legals or staff shortages but the concluding of inter party matters that holds things up, if one reads the following correctly ....." Quadrise continues to work with MSC and project counterparties to conclude the binding agreement ........" A similar statement, viz ........ "Quadrise continues to work with its project partners to seek to finalise the Project Agreement ......" was made in RNS 29 April.

A second tranche of 12 million warrants will be awarded upon securing a refinery supply source for commercial quantities of MSAR® and the signature of a Commercial MSAR® Fuel Supply Agreement with OCP, by no later than 31 December 2024. On vesting, these warrants may be exercised at any time until 31 December 2025, at which point they expire (the "Conditional Warrants").

Strikes me as a rather important part of today's RNS - just 7 months to get matters sorted, so somebody maybe confident can secure the necessary by the end of the year. In QED terms that would seem lightningly quick!! If successful would deserve every penny of award, would they not?

If one used sporting analogy and took Tuesday @ 07.00 as Kick Off the score at the end of the week, let say Half Time, is probably MARKETS 2 (being much more skilled these players know what things are really about) DOOMSTERS 0 and the scorers could be put down as 2 Own Goals from those less able to handle the onrushing flow of play . Unfortunately VAR not available for any claims of offside or other foul play. Roll on Full Time!!

Turnover is vanity, whatever the level it is what you get out of it that matters.

Over 90 mins since the TU and not one peep from the doubters. I wonder why? Still generating cash and a bank balance above previous report. Maybe have changed the colour of their flags and hoisted the white ones instead.

The expectations of all being sorted "imminently" meaning ...."about to happen" could be misplaced when you look back over relevant communications, viz

6th FEB announce the tripartite signing of a COLLABORATION AGREEMENT which sets out who does/is responsible for what. Also states the FIRST of A NUMBER of OTHER Agreements required including a TOLL MANUFACTURING AGREEMENT between Cargill & QED.

18th MAR state, within Interim Results RNS, .... "Once further binding agreements (plural!!) are executed ...."

29th APR now references a PROJECT AGREEMENT (which was expected by end of Q1 2024).

So how far down the line is everything towards implementing "THE TRIALS", the inference being there is still a lot to be agreed/signed off at corporate level let alone clearing the legals, so are things as far advanced as one might have been led to believe or perceived to be the case i.e none of the other supposedly awaited Agreements (means at least another two) have yet been consummated/announced. Smoke and mirrors comes to mind.

One hopes yesterday's RNS wasn't a softening up update pending the "Dear John" letter. Meanwhile, under the illusion of all progressing nicely the BoD could have played a blinder and lined the company's pockets (and essentially their own salaries) for another 12 months of unfulfilled delivery. Let us hope the doubts prove to be unfounded.

The allocation mysteries continue. Rec'd original OO number + c63.5% of Excess applied for. Similarly with other family member. Not complaining.

What a load of waffle largely regurgitating all previously said or reported. No forward looking indications of sales etc and "moving towards profitability" nothing new either which may well mean no improvement on past statement will not make money until FY 2025. No wonder market not impressed.

Rec'd notification from EQI mid afternoon yesterday and dealt with pronto in view of short time span for action and the fact 29th a Bank Holiday, is it not.

Other than making inane comments just to make noise latest comments show how little understanding some have of the recruitment process for an appointment at this level but all in keeping with the other claptrap often spouted by said persons.

My assessment of what the various actions have had on my investment is quite simple, viz :

- look at capital appreciation (or loss) over period held

- combine with actual dividend payments

and then annualise the total sum.

In my case bought in in Apr 21 and after the May 24 divi is paid, the dividend income (thru an ISA) will equate to 4.37% p.a., with capital uplift (based on today's SP) added in giving an annual yield of 7.3%.

Depends on your investment strategy whether happy with that or not - overall better than just receiving interest but I might have hoped for a little better - maybe such times are coming!!

The word used in the 05/22 RNS was ELIGIBLE meaning some qualifying standard to be achieved before entitled to receive various payments whatever they might be. Whilst the period to be used not specified, the term INITIAL could, 20 odd months on, by now have well passed without payment as :

- no revenues/income shown in 2022 AA's

- unlike with the Haleon payment, no reference made in either Interim Statement or recent TU, suggesting 2023 revenues more likely just purely sales related. If, however, the £3.1m included a/some one off receipts unit sales would have been less than probably expected thereby raising other questions

N.B. who is to say the £500K delayed sale into Jan when planned for Dec was not a strategic delay on somebody's part to obviate the triggering of a milestone payment!!

I have no knowledge of Pharma Agreements but for a potentially world busting product a 35/65 split, if that is what it is, ifo Coopers would look generous but who needed who the most - FUM of Coopers I would suggest, as had no commercial operational expertise or infrastructure within than to rely on others which is hardly a good negotiating position to be in. And why the rush to extend the Licence Agreement to 2029 when the existing one still had another 3 years to run and at that time the chance to get a better deal if all had gone swimmingly - do/did Coopers see a good thing and topped up as early as poss. to avoid seeing their position diluted if all took off as everybody hopes for. And you could ask what did FUM have to give up to Haleon i.e lesser terms in return for an up front cash payment which might have, for instance, avoided the need for a further Fund Raise as I imagine will continue to bleed cash during the coming months

All of the above might be seen as pure conjecture but whilst have seemingly got in bed with two industry powerhouses, they being very seasoned and experienced operators could well have taken the biscuit from others who had never been in this position before.

The overall story sounds good, as I hope proves to be the case, but you have to ask yourselves why with all that keeps on coming regarding ever increasing link ups, approvals, forthcoming launches etc why the SP sunk from the 50's to the 20's and now only just back to the early 40's. It could be the MM's playing ducks and drakes but, more likely as I have said before, being wary, until definitively shown otherwise, of the financial viability of Eroxon. After all it is no good having say £100M of sales if your terms with others won't make you a penny or at least a decent return, especially as it is this that will determine the worth/value of any business. As I see it the Jury is still very much out on that one. No doubt the investment wise men/gurus who seem to presently pervade this BB will likely want to tell me I don't know what I am talking about but hey ho I have only tried to apply logic and rationale rather than pump speculation or pure unsubstantiated rhetoric.