Member Info for bluerill

And finally, as you seem so fond of trafficking in Holmes-ian deduction billy, ask yourself why, if there were any genuine, consequential, material disagreements with the auditor, why the Company would have stuck to an August release, even of unaudited results, in the first place? 'Obviously' if there were any serious breaches, the Company would have taken all the time allotted to them by the Regulator and announced much earlier that, because of blah, blah, results would be out by the end of September. They of course did not do that and that is very very very likely because they are supremely confident that all the important issues for these results are behind them, and any delay is down to minor issues which will resolve shortly.

sigh....its obviously (c), billy! The whole reason for the elevated 'expense' number that got some people exorcised was that, as I already mentioned, some of the options awards that RP and Nick Tulloch used to lure the current CEOs to Zoe in the first place (ie., Trevor and Antonio have nothing to do with these awards) have vested and it has clearly caused some heads to explode at the auditor's in how to value this NON CASH item. My guess is our 'unaudited' results covered this by being conservative and the auditor is looking to catch-up and sign-off. As stated, no dark conspiracy here; just covid-enhanced delays on largely meaningless details.

the 'unaudited' are effectively audited. The company would never have been allowed to publish the 'unaudited' results without the full blessing of the auditor, in particular the commentary on 'going concern' status and the expense recognition of the vesting of some options awards from the Robert Price-era, which were the only 2 things of any relevance in the first place anyway. Therefore the delay is unimportant, and very likely down to the auditor's own internal backup in getting signoffs, etc., and we will see the same numbers published as 'audited' - though likely with the current trading commentary we're all waiting for - very shortly.

There is a very good possible explanation of course for the decision to release the 2020/21 results comfortably after the market close today, which seems to be so confounding vascular/bb: This way, the company can release a backlog of good news around current trading in a second RNS tomorrow morning as a stand alone, thereby minimising the legacy results' ability to dilute the excitement generated by what are, by all accounts, very fizzy rollout results. Just a thought.....

Actually craig, it's 15 'recommends', but who's counting?

An extremely inelegant attempt to avoid answering the charge of flagrant fantasy posting, beebee. You shamelessly made up a pretty serious assertion about 1. that there was a genuine trade in the first place, which there most likely was not; 2. that in fact the buyer was john story, which you are nowhere even in the same universe to know; and 3. that you are financially sophisticated, which 1. and 2. make a mockery of. As for your literary criticism, I'll concede that it's better than your financial insights at least.

Look craig, here's some (very unsolicited) advice. Try and lose the 'aw shucks, sorry to bother you, I didn't mean to get in the way' routine. You posted something and I responded. My goal was just to explain why this beekeeper's post was objectively inappropriate, likely entirely false, and clearly not based on any kind of advanced 'research'. My response included a small personal comment directed at you that was accurate, if a bit sharpish. Your personal view of rkb and his posting history is indeed irrelevant to the issue of whether his confection about a couple of after-hours 'trades' was a hot mess or not. That's it. I wasn't having a go at you and my suggestion is, instead of issuing needless apologies and general genuflecting, try to address the content of posts like mine instead of the presumed drama or personal dynamics that may or may not underlie them. Because you know what? You ask rhetorical questions like 'why do I bother posting'?. A lot. Well, my guess is that it's because you enjoy the excitement of combining a bit of financial risk with the (mild) social media interaction that one gets on a stock market message board like this one. Nothing wrong with that. All I recommend is you try and focus a bit more on the stock market part and less on the 'social' side and I think you'll get more out of the experience.

craig - I don't have a 'beef' with anyone here, we don't have 2 'different opinions' and your view of this guy is irrelevant. He has posted something objectively irresponsible, likely completely wrong, and tried to justify it by claiming bone fides he doesn't possess (or else he never would have posted anything so wildly speculative in the first place). I get that this guy is a big fan of the company - so am I - but that doesn't protect him from being challenged, even ridiculed, when he posts something so baseless, especially while implying he has advanced understanding of financial markets. I've skimmed some of his stuff here and on twitter in the past, and I'd suggest on that admittedly limited data, his financial reach exceeds his grasp. After these last couple of posts, I'm sure of it.

What does any of that mean? are you high?

Rkb - unfortunately, your entire post is a pile of naive nonsense. Both of the bargains were done off the main market, on an obscure exchange, reported after the market closed, and at the middle of the undisturbed price. Any real professional would have explained to you that by far the most likely conclusion was that they were not 'genuine' trades - ie., with a unique buyer and seller - but rather a harmless cross of some kind, either within an asset management group from one fund to another, or even more likely, from one institution to another for the benefit of a single holder for tax or leverage reasons, etc. Therefore , your conclusion about John Story - or anyone else for that matter - having bought the shares and the follow-on about that effectively acting as a takeover poison pill, are not only wildly speculative and unprofessional, but then trying to present yourself as some kind of expert instead of a wannabe who plays one on twitter, was cringeworthy.

So clever, I wrote it twice.....anyway, under the working hypothesis that we won't see 'shakinallover' again until his next opportunity to stand in for other trolls who've been banned, does anyone else have a guess as to what NAMA was meant to stand for?

Ok, i'll bite, brand new, totally legitimate stranger: The National Asset Management Association? The National Automatic Merchandising Association? Not All Memes of America? Never Again, Maybe Again? Now Always Maybe Altogether?

Ok, i'll bite, brand new, totally legitimate stranger: The National Asset Management Association? The National Automatic Merchandising Association? Not All Memes of America? Never Again, Maybe Again? Now Always Maybe Altogether?

As echoridge on Advfn, I've had a couple of the most brutal hand-to-hand troll battle days since I began posting on message boards like this one, 5/6 years ago. As I've said many times here and on Telegram, I believe the lead villain on advfn is directly tied to winnifrith, if not the creature himself, and as such is a much more relevant virus to track and push back on, than an everyday troll like vascular, who plays a more common social-media role of an anonymous poster who indulges a deep-seated neediness for attention by acting as an obnoxious gadfly on a board like this one. analyst1 actively promotes fantasy narratives about crucial business activities and the overall health of the company. This active policy of, well, lying, makes this particular villain far more serious than vas on its face. [Fwiw, vas/billy and analyst do share a common ignorance regarding how the market in 2021 values high-growth consumer products companies. But I digress].
The reason that the last 48hours of this constant battle was so turbo-charged of course, was because of the share price's wild swings and high volumes. Let's face it, no matter the level of one's conviction for a company's prospects, there's nothing like having a rising share price at your back to give your exhortations-to-reason more heft, and of course vice versa. No prizes for guessing who was still standing by the end of the day with the share price up 12%, though not before this 'man' wished me dead by being burned alive at the stake. I know, pretty dark sh*t. Anyway, I'm not writing this to pat myself on the back (even though I just did) nor even to encourage more posters here to gravitate to advfn as well as that is where the (dis)information battle needs you most (though I'm doing that too), but because of one of anal's more pedestrian fantasies: that somehow the company's products are 'crap', 'sh*t', 'filthy'. (Again, such baseless claims are a feature, not a bug of the winnifrith approach which this 'analyst' emulates constantly: go straight at a company's greatest strength(s), even or especially, ones that are otherwise entirely uncontroversial, and do anything - very much including wholesale lies - to assert the complete reverse. This 'technique' has of course gained great favour in the US with the alt-right and Trump and here with uber-trolls like Tommy Robinson). Now, other posters here and on Telegram have been great on pushing back on this, especially for our Chill offerings, with photographic and on-line testimonials affirming that our smokes and chews are in fact premium-quality industry leaders, but still, anal's constant lying about Z's product quality grates, and so prompted me to look again at GQ's Grooming Awards for 2021 in which Z's Blood Orange oil won Best For Sleep, and I noticed something kind of great: it was the ONLY product, among 38 winners from the most elite brands, to be CBD-infused. What better refutation to anal's dark fantasies is there than that

Oooops. Poor bs. You finally manage to summon up the stones to actually face me on calling you out on yet another of your baseless, innuendo-dripping posts, and your lame attempt to slur me as some kind of company insider ends with you getting owned by a new-ish poster who rightly schooled you that what you smugly implied was me being unethical, is actually a foundational exercise in basic research available to any small investor who isn't boneheaded enough to not realise how simple it is. Run-on sentence maybe but....ya burnt

You met 'Lisa', have you? I have and she said she doesn't want you referring to her by her first name as if you know her. Its Ms Mitchell or the CFO to you. Oh, and what the hell does 'a bridge too far' mean? How about, She knows she will be excess to need post the merger so she jumped before she was pushed maybe.

pretty well actually. and how are you?

Whaddya know. Right on cue, anal1 appears to try and lie about whether some instos may be building positions and mock me in the process. Bless

Fred - At present, the point about the share register gaining traction with anything other than retail buyers (no matter how wealthy) - that is, from a small fund focused on retail products, to a hedge fund looking for growth, to a discretionary aggregator of HNWs (an increasingly crucial influencer in current markets in names like Zoe) - is not about how much they buy or even what price they pay, but that they exist at all. If, as I suspect, there has been some material position building by a number of such funds - for which I am periodically mocked on the other board - all of which remain under 3% for now of course, it will be a major re-rating event when they inevitably start to reveal themselves.

no harm, no foul on this one fred, but fwiw, I meant my post as a nod to you actually, recognising that your reminding me that engaging a soulless troll where one cannot, EVER, appeal to reason, is a horribly fraught process, and I really should be more circumspect with this scoundrel in future. So, in short, thanks.