Member Info for bluerill

So he is being fired and it certainly looks like its for cause based on his PERSONAL conduct, as I suspected. As for the Don Nicholson-for-Andrew Allner, not sure yet. Allner is not rushing off and will provide a transition period, which is encouraging, and both he and Nicholson have both had substantial industrial careers. In addition, I never crossed paths with Andrew during fundraises for Fox or Eco, so I don't think he was in any way intimate with the day-to-day engineering operations. As for gravitas, the Company still has Mark Lyall-Grant as (I believe) senior non-exec so I reckon the Company is still punching above its weight with the quality of its Board, which augurs well for the future .

Https://www.londonstockexchange.com/news-article/ZED/zenova-expands-into-latin-america/16288024

Well, first off 368, if that's 'respect' I hate to see how you treat someone you really disagree with. Second, unfortunately, I don't think you know what 'hypocrite' means as your attempt to criticise me has nothing whatever to catching me being anything of the sort. Third, the quote of mine you site was completely correct. I explained clearly ONLY that the Company's RNS must necessarily be the best possible versio of the truth at the time otherwise the NOMAD would not and could not have allowed it to be released; in other words, the money WAS coming one way or the other, which of course was absolutely true. Therefore the only possible explanation for why it has not landed in the Company's account MUST be what I further speculated several times (even BS agreed with me on this if I remember correctly) was a halt by either a money-center bank in the US or the regulator themselves for reasons that are not required by US law to reveal to any of the parties involved If I'm right, its likely the size of the transfer and the fact that Nigerian interest are involved that triggered the freeze, which unfortunately is not completely uncommon in the US these days. That is all I said and/or all I meant, and it appears I was correct. If not, as I further explained, the NOMAD would have forced SLE to PUT OUT A FURTHER STATEMENT. As for your attempt to double down on the 'short and curlies' comment, it is all there in black and white, if you could be bothered to take out whatever reading aid you use and sound out the RNS properly no matter how long the 5 sentences take you to get through. Stand down. You're out of your depth.

Sorry, 36800, nothing you've written is remotely accurate. Again, read the RNS - and this time carefully - and you will better understand that your reasoning , while it may make you feel a bit better to speculate that management is being held hostage and using silly phrases like 'short and curlies', it just doesn't comport with the reality of the situation. Again, there is simply no way on earth a Company - let alone one that has been suspended for as long as this one and hasn't yet published its most recent accounts - could ever, ever, ever be allowed include a clarification like '....Over the past weeks the Company has identified and has been in discussions with a new potential financing partner in relation to a potential funding solution THAT IS SIMILAR (my caps) to the investment from TRAM ...' if it weren't true, making your claim of Oisin somehow being held over a barrel by any new lender, an entire empty one. Do better.

Just a figure of speech, qf. It has been speculated here and/or on the other board, that the most likely reason for TRAM's funds not landing is some kind of investigation by a US bank or banking authority or both that has nothing to do with sle but if true, are notoriously difficult for any of the affected parties to get any hard information about. Since no other decent reason has yet been advanced anywhere, I have been defaulting to that as THE reason.

Easy with the zombie nonsense, cd. I don't think you appreciate the AIM rules on disclosure - especially in light of the current environment of utter fear that surrounds every NOMAD in their constant efforts to uphold them to-the-letter currently. Because of that, there is less than zero chance that SLE could have put out this RNS this morning, unless 1. they were genuinely unaware of any new reason why TRAM's funds have not landed; and 2. even more importantly, if they had a genuine new deal to replace the TRAM one. Especially because of the Company's history and the most recent long suspension (ie, the NOMAD's management are not going to risk sanction, their licence, or (much) worse), we have to assume that the standard of proof needed by both the NOMAD and by extension, the regulator, would necessarily have to be very, very high indeed, and thus the only conclusion you can fairly draw, on the merits and for the moment, is that the RNS is factually supported as read.

Yup. Having to assert your relative 'success level' to a compete stranger on on a manky financial board, is indeed a classic means of evidence, nobs. No damaged-ego-breeds-fantasy-claims to see here. Still, despite the absolutely bulletproof demonstration of your bone fides, nobs, I still can't help myself continuing to re-read your fantasy CV. 30 year career in the City, huh? And yet you knew nothing of the problems at PKF, which anyone with 30 minutes of experience would have. Got it.

Yeah, nice try, nobs. `You certainly read from a CV alright, but I think you were copying off my paper. And it's precisely because of the vast imbalance in our respective abilities that I've been able to out you so quickly. Anyway, I hope you've enjoyed your time as c-ck of the walk here exploiting your bit of inside information from your brief time with the Company before you were most likely sh*tcanned, because its about to get a whole lot harder for you to cosplay from here on.

'....you are right that they have completed the tasks set out in the admission document but the problem has been timing,...' It's like trying to argue with a Trump supporter, only dumber. That doesn't even remotely conform to your position towards the Company these past months. All you've done to date is engage in wild speculation regarding everything from the auditor-led suspension to production milestones that consistently pushed as negative a narrative as possible, and you've been wrong wrong wrong. Now all of a sudden, when the evidence of positive progress is irrefutable, you're conceding the Company is delivering on its promises (btw, still waiting for that apology on your auditor-led suspension faceplant) and the real concern is funding?!?! Move the goalposts much? As I've already written, its apparent that the further you get from your likely (brief) time with the Company, the weaker your information becomes which, combined with the bitterness borne of whatever wrong you feel was done to you, disrupts your remaining brain cell from even helping you appreciate what a senseless hypocrite you're being.

since i've never been a fan, i only highlight the positive piece tw has written in his year-end edition of *************, because no one else here has. for one thing, he echoes closely my theory about redfern, which is a nice to see. having satisfied himself that there was nothing financially sinister behind the redfern announcement, tw then goes on to reveal that he 'understands' that ecob's current trading is 'as expected' as the company begins 'fulfilling an existing order book of an expected e114m for the next 3 years'. then, after noting again the current competitive advantages of ecob's production process, tw reiterates his 'buy' recommendation, noting that he expects 'double digit millions of euros profit potential from just (my emphasis) the group's current positioning......as cash flow is announced as really starting to kick-in, and further contracts are won, we expect the shares to spark.....' sorry nobs, guess he didn't get your memo either.

Truro - The theory behind Redfern's suspension (and likely dismissal I would assume) was covered well on the other board. Since the market rules are very clear on these matters, and no NOMAD is going to risk sanction (or worse), by far the most likely explanation is personal misconduct by Redfern serious enough to warrant immediate suspension and a review by the rest of the board. If there were any connection to a breach by the Company or any financial impact, it would have had to be disclosed, which would more than explain the lack of an adverse share price impact. In fact, seeing as nobs, from his extensive 'research' (ie., he worked with him for 5 minutes), revealed that Redfern was a toxic waste of space, there's probably an argument for the sp to rally rather than fall!

Wow nobs, triggered much? What got to you most, pointing out that you've been wrong about everything relevant happening at the company so far, with those proclamations getting increasingly inaccurate as your connection to the company fades? (seems likely as your assertion that your 'predictions have been based on research, knowledge and experience in this sector' has been your funniest fantasy claim yet by a mile.). Meantime, you 'grant' that the 'AIM market has not been great...'? How very generous of you, nobs. I guess you'll be visiting the message boards of those many hundreds of other AIM companies then that have suffered 50%+ falls this year primarily because of that 'not great' small cap market, to explain to those shareholders how the current share price is all that matters and they should give up on their 'pathetic' businesses as well. As for the rest of us, we'll continue to remain confident that, while the Company builds on its recent milestones and begins to deliver into its twin contracts in Albania early in the new year - as forecast (that particularly eats at your spleen, doesn't it?) - and the early signs of a small cap market recovery seen late in 2023 continues, our share price will more than take care of itself in 2024. (small note: good to know about that 'wouldn't work for millions' thing, because rumour has it the Company may seek to recover the 2 bob they actually paid you...). Finally, you should think about actually doing some research instead of just claiming it and maybe you'd learn why bigger competitors like Ilky have failed. (Hint: it wasn't for lack of capital, you poor, angry bird).

Thanks for that, foxy. The Nobbies of the world will always infect discussion boards like this with their thinly-disguised grievances dressed up as legitimate analysis, and their bruised egos spewing self-righteous assertions against the Company, all in a near-constant attempt to block any sunshine from breaking through.

Typical default position for a villain like yourself, nobs, to try and create a 'battle' that never existed so he can try and claim dominance, no matter how fleeting, against someone consistently owning him. Meanwhile, against your trying to crow about a bogus non-debate over the timing of the 'first wall' (admit it: you never thought they would get to that key milestone, certainly not well within 2023), there was our one-sided 'debate' over the reasons for the length share suspension, during which you consistently argued, with no evidence, that the reason(s) for the suspension were threatening the Company's very existence, even while I (completely correctly) explained it was likely due to troubles at the auditor (guess I'll wait forever for an apology on that massive face plant of yours). And now, as it's dawning on you that the Company is likely on the verge of entering batch production early in this coming quarter, you're just going to become more desperate. Listen, we get it: you're an angry critic who probably had a direct affiliation with ECOB - possibly even as an ex-employee - with an obvious ax to grind, clearly committed to promoting a constant 'glass half empty' narrative, rules of evidence be damned. You're far from the first poster with that kind of CV to end up as a miserable troll haunting a financial message board, and you certainly won't be the last. However, your immediate problem is the same as many of your kind that have come before you: the more time that passes, the weaker your knowledge of the Company becomes, and at the same time, the less willing remaining insiders, that you've become used to using as sources, are to speak to you. Thus, further diluted by your continued bitterness, the result is you end up making increasingly less cogent, less relevant and/or accurate arguments while defaulting more and more to ad hominems and general ranting against anyone who dares see progress. Me go back into 'hiding'?? Maybe instead of trying to lob flaccid insults at me, you should consider your own position and withdraw with what's left of your dignity.

If that's what you've 'heard through the grapevine' (ugh), then why not share that in the first place instead of the usual snark? (hint: this is a rhetorical question. It doesn't require you 'answer' as that is self-evident).

Good thing he served no useful purpose anymore, nobby, and the Company will now save on his needless compensation. Kind of parallels your story arc perfectly

At least the narrative is getting clearer and the Company is becoming more visible in its IR/PR. A couple of major extinguisher clients coming out of an industry consulting group like Bells and Two Tones in yesterday's RNS and it would producing recurring revenue that would make the current market cap look pretty miserly. I love their FP paint, but their extinguisher fluid formula genuinely looks like magic (the video they show in the middle of the interview is kind of amazing frankly) and I'm getting much more bulled up over the prospects of that side of the business. The sample orders in quick succession in both the UK and Germany seem genuinely encouraging.

https://youtu.be/NV0i7DaAM4k?feature=shared

https://x.com/StockBoxMedia/status/1737127017714200911?s=20

If they keep the momentum going, let's hope they can actually 'beat' most recent expectations and start delivering on the Albanian contracts middle-to-(maybe even)-early in Q1 2024.

You're being silly. This is just a reference to the previously announced, dual approaches the Company revealed they had received at (if memory serves) at 33p. In fact, I do think this clause will have been debated over with the NOMAD as they would doubtless have argued it will likely be seen by the market as a pretty transparent attempt to try and artificially sweeten the bitter taste of an unexpected placement at 23p. I'm a huge fan of the asset and near-term economics here, but I agree with this theoretical take by the NOMAD. In the end, the Company should have left the reference to the previous approaches (which of course have never been independently confirmed) out and just taken the PR hit.

Who wants to tell him?