Member Info for danieldavis

I agree. My point was more (as usual) JC suggesting it wasn't the great and mighty Robbies fault.

OCIM gave paperwork saying they wanted that commitment.

GCAT read it.

GCAT signed it.

GCAT announced the wonderful deal to investors.

We all bought shares off the back of it.

GCAT then (a couple of weeks after the event, nobody knows why....) announced it wasn't happening.

We all lost money off the back of it.

Rinse. Repeat. Every time they release an RNS. At least we're suspended now so the dry humping doesn't kick in.

Since OCIM walked? How rose tinted can your goggles get?

GCAT walked. They didn't meet the conditions of funding so funding wasn't given. A refusal to extend a long-stop date is not OCIM walking, it's OCIM saying "we did give you until the 31st December.... It's now January."

Sounds like one of those conditions was near on impossible / insane, but it's not OCIMs fault nobody bothered to read the paperwork.

Nobody knows for sure but it's fairly easy to spot them.

They tend to sell them in blocks of 50,000 ish.

They always report a few hours late.

Every other time I've counted up it's been pretty much on the nose, then an RNS comes out saying they're done.

I am pretty confident they're out.

I had them at just over 800,000 yesterday with about 400,000 to go today.

I think they are now gone, as of that most recent 50,000

I have an average of just under 30p and 50p (SIPP vs ISA). But before the 10p raise they were a LOT higher so I'm quite happy with 40p and a steady rise north.

Reminds me of GCAT too.

The bit I think you miss is that I also desperately want the share to come back. Just because I don't share your super happy outlook on this share that's been suspended for months doesn't mean I don't want it to be unsuspended.

I'm just bored of all the BS. It's 29th November 2022 all over again.

No but they quack a lot when being strangled.

Sorry Robbie, I know you get terribly upset when anybody suggests this shambles is anything but the fault of the company.

1) "We had a deadline of end Feb which we didn’t miss it was missed by PKF" - from the email.

If that was a deadline GCAT set, holding PKF to it only applies if it was contractual. If it was just "we'd like it done by the end of February" then it's not a deadline, it's a hope. If we really want to quote deadlines, the deadline was actually 31st December 2023.

2) My point is that on the one side you have a company with a history of governance issues and poor leadership and on the other side you have a global auditor. I know which side I'd bet on "doing it right".

3) Beyond unlikely.

4) The FCA aren't companies house. Without the late accounts being filed soon a compulsory strike off action will begin.

5) Achieved from the RNS that reads as "it's not our fault, it's them, stop being mean and blaming us". There are far more professional ways to write that one and all this one really does is to **** off the auditors who GCAT need WAYYYYY more than PKF need GCAT.

Anyhow, given Robbie could come and curl a fresh turd out on your carpet and you'd still find a way to blame external factors, I'll leave it there.

It is exceptionally rare for an auditor to be 'late' unless the audit turns something up. An internal deadline is very different to a contractual one, so best not to read too much into that particular point too unless GCAT are pursuing PKF for breach of contract too.

PKF aren't small. Given the history of GCAT and governance, they may well find it tricky to just replace the auditor. So it wouldn't be overly prudent to change next year. Especially if the new auditor sees the old one getting pelters in RNS's. That's also a slightly odd tactic, given an auditor can resign... If PKF were to resign now, that would be the death knoll for this listing.

Not really sure what is trying to be achieved from this one, it's just more playground antics best kept away from a boardroom.

Jersey - your words "And CGAT is not the only company in suspension due to PFK not delivering!"

It was in response to that. We are in suspension due to the board not delivering. Don't let them deflect it onto PKF. Audit should have been finished before PKF were even asked to start.

GCAT isn't in suspension due to PKF not delivering.

GCAT is in suspension due to the board not delivering.

Once again, they get SIX MONTHS to do the accounts before they're "late".

They had all of July, August, September, October, November and December to file.

They don't need to take a position. The warrants are at 10p and they can sell immediately for 25p per share.

Irrespective of what may / may not happen to the share price, they can make an instant profit. The common sense business move would be to bank that, not incur additional risk.

‘the company will come back on fully financed for the expansion and we will achieve our full valuation.’

No ambiguity in that. If he actually did mean something else he should probably use different words.

Auditors don't have neverending teams of people available, they schedule them in advance (quite often weeks or months in advance).

What I suspect has happened is that the GCAT audit has turned up a bit more than expected, that needed validating with the old auditors which is never quick, and subsequently we've got stuck at the back of the queue waiting for resource to become available again.

It's another example of terrible planning, but I don't think it's anything more malicious than that.

The answer given earlier is the correct answer. It's on a feed and that feed excludes data that hasn't been listed for X months.

It was given by, checks notes, errrr, you.

Cool heads, hot heads. Makes no odds doesn't it. We can't exactly do anything, it's suspended...

Yep, same. I think it's because six months have elapsed.

People present but not from caracal. Hundreds of companies registered there, it’s an accountants or a service office.

The new auditing company also be looking at what the previous auditors did and, quite commonly, challenging some of the more material elements. They're also mandated to talk to each other which isn't the simplest of tasks.

I'm not disagreeing that there is a chance this doesn't come back, I'm just saying audit is rarely simple and a change in auditor is always more of a challenge.

If they've not worked on this sort of operation before then they won't fully know what they're doing - hence tricky to give a timeline...