Member Info for fatherelmer

JamesSimon, ALL CEOs "massage the figures to suit their agenda" it's part of the role description, so if Neill is doing it he is just acting the same way all the others do (and I don't mean just upon AIM).

As for a fund raise the company did say it was a possibility - they also highlighted that there were other ways of raising money too - and so whilst it may be the most likely it is not a definite. The other thing they said is also important which was it would not happen this Financial Year, so not before 1st October at the earliest (as you may have [conveniently] forgotten about the change to the year end).

NM, you clearly don't understand how the Lanstead deal(s) work as they really don't care what the value of the monthly payment is as for them it is always, in effect, "free" as all they have to do is sell the same number of shares each and every month to cover the payment, regardless of the SP. Where they make their money is in the "free excess" shares they have ie those they were given as "fees" and those that cover the 33% differential between the VRS b/e price (40p) and VWAP target price (53.33p). Here you would think they would want the SP to be as high as possible to maximise gains, but then as these shares are, in effect, "free" perhaps they don't really care and as long as the SP is above some minimum internal target they are happy.

Stop misleading folks.

Two points:

1. that's not what it said - a placing is but one of the options
2. it also said the "next Financial Year" which given the change in date (and the cash on hand) will mean not before 1st October as that is when the next FY actually starts

To be very clear about my 10% vs 30% savings point - for a slab with no additive do you normally use more concrete than for the same sized slab with an additive. if the answer is yes that would (help) explain the 10% vs 30% difference - context is important.

Two questions from this video (thanks for posting):

1. What is the robot printing?
2. Is the 10% less concrete reference specific only to concrete that is laid including a fibre additive (which may mean that normally less concrete is required compared to a slab with no such additive)? This would then make sense in respect of the Amesbury pour where there was a 30% saving (but obviously had no additive and so the gains could be bigger in "concrete" terms)?

Afterall VRS have always said they can "fine tune" there mixture to meet different requirements.

Was also good to see a regular Tarmac ReadyMix vehicle in the video which supports the supposition that it is easy to integrate within existing operations.

I too am of the belief that once they are out that will be good - it was always going to be the case that they sell - and so at this rate I think, as suggested by the company, they will be out within the next six months, though under disclosure rules we will only know if the company tells us or if they dispose of the remaining 3%+ in one hit.

As for a future fundraise there may well indeed be such a thing at some point in the future, though Lanstead not being on the register has NOTHING to do with the timing of such an event, should one come to pass, and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

A couple of other points for context.....

5. the original £6m deal resulted in 15,750,000 shares being issued. given the SP at the time (£0.26) to raise the same monies would've required significant extra dilution as ca 23.1m would've been required

6. for the second £3.5m deal 9,375,000 shares were issued, given the SP at the time (£0.3773) this actually meant ca 100k additional shares were issued than would otherwise need be, so whilst perhaps at first glance not such a good choice given the upside potential (at the time) but well worth it to gain access to that potential upside.

7. in fairness to VRS I don't think anyone expected the disruption caused by COVID19 to last for 2+ years and so any disruptions that this may have caused will have been outside of expectations at the time

8. final point in the Full Year results the company took a £3.3m charge against profits (one of, if not, the main reason for the increase in losses that the bears love to point out so much) as opposed to the original belief that a £1m gain would be had . If we revalue the two Lanstead deals to £6.2m proceeds (rather than £9.5m) we see the average SP from the "raise" (from the issue of 25,125,000 shares) is a net £0.2468 or actually not that different from where the company would've been had they just done a "straight" raise originally (both in terms of proceeds raised and shares issued).

No, you can't say they sold because they were unhappy - whilst it may be true - it is just as likely (if not actually more so) that the investors I speak of here (eg Herald) sold out because either the VRS MCap had exceeded the rules of that particular fund (at that point in time it was £100m+) or VRS was sold as one of the BETTER performing investments to enable them to meet fund drawdown payouts (if I recall correctly a number of funds experienced quite severe cash calls a few years back).

I see the bears of very little brain are spouting their usual nonsense in respect of the Lanstead deal on the other board.....a couple of points for the intellectually challenged to consider (not that they care - they seem to work on the principle that if you repeat something often enough it must be true, and mistruths suit their agenda)......

1. Is the Lanstead deal a good one? Ultimately no it has not produced the returns it could have produced nor even the same value as a straight up issue of the same amount of shares, though I can understand the attractions of the Lanstead proposal

2. is the Lanstead deal "death spiral" financing. This is also a NO. "Death spiral" financing involves a fixed value of payment made by selling an ever increasing number of shares thus increasing dilution and depressing the SP resulting in the next payment requiring ever more shares to be issued with further dilution etc. This is NOT the Lanstead model who instead sell a fixed quantity of shares to make a variable payment (either up or down) the number of shares sold at any given point DOESN'T change, though the amount of proceeds does.

3. Is there an SP below which Lanstead loose money? No, because of the fees associated with the set up of the deal (a fixed number of shares issued at the start) and the payment calculation mechanism Lanstead are in effect given a significant number of "free" shares (in total ca 6m shares across the two arrangements here). As a fixed number of shares need to sold every month to deliver the payout, with the payout varying in line with the SP, for Lanstead it is risk free, they then have the "free shares" that are all pure profit at whatever price they sell

4. But what about the overhang (ie knowing that Lanstead will sell all the shares) isn't that "death spiral" financing? No this was always going to happen, just the timing varies with the SP if the SP is climbing they are more likely to retain them for longer "to maximise returns" with the same being true if the SP is falling. Obviously like any large investor selling a large quantity of shares is likely to depress the price (or the "overhang" holds it back) but that would happen with any Institutional Investor who is not really there for the long haul eg previous VRS II holders who sold out several years ago

In of itself a fundraising is not necessarily bad - it all depends upon the context, and planned use, of the funds generated: eg earnings enhancing acquisition or to major plant build / expansion to support the delivery of (very) large orders. Unfortunately most BB warriors only ever take, and emphasise, the negative view as that supports their agenda.

Personally I have no view as to whether or not one is in the offing and the upcoming 'meeting' may just be an honest attempt to communicate better (that has been seized upon to make 2+2=200).

From memory this is all to do with his bluff being called - years ago he was doing the same thing and NR used to call him out on it, eventually challenging him to public independently moderated debated at some public event, there msy even have been the promise of money going to charity if TW turned up, which of course he didn't and ever since has had a bit of a hard on for NR and VRS.

I also saw it suggested that the way TW arranges his personal affairs is in such a way that if you were to successfully sue there would be no assets against which to be recompensed (or possibly even pay the legal fees) and so there is no point bothering.

Marksman go to https://www.assetmatch.com/

It's not listed anymore - you can only trade via Asset Match - where the last price was 0.03p......

Fossiebear, I don't think that's how AssertMatch works (the clue is in the name) and so both sides have to match for a trade to take place and so if there were 0 buys showing that means there were also 0 sales, even though many shares may have been available at a given price; or range of prices eg

100,000 buys at 3p vs 1,000,000 sells at 3p and 1,000,0000 sells at 6p results in ONLY 100,000 sells at 3p being made (ie the amount that matches with what someone is willing to buy at). With the shares that are sold being decided on a first come first served basis (ie those shares listed first at any given price are "matched" [sold] first).

Because its not very costly to do so and it's really good PR as well as being the "right thing to do" given that the business hasn't been badly affected (due to the excellent on-line channel)

I see the instant idiot is alive and well on the "other site" having been embarrassed by Wyedean School tweeting last week to thank Neill Ricketts for his help / support in enabling the delivery of their revamped STEAM Lab (thus undermining one of his favourite rants and also apparently the main thrust of his legal action / case against Neill) he has now switched tack as the Tweet also mentioned the National Cyber Security Centre (NCSC) who have also helped, and thus trying to throw into question the entire tweet. If only the poor deluded fool would actually bother to do some research he'd understand as NCSC are pat of GCHQ who have been running a trial programme with schools in Gloucestershire before going national.......note the list of schools to have achieved "Gold" Status on the page below

https://www.ncsc.gov.uk/cyberfirst/cyberfirst-schools

https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso:ts:21356:-1:ed-1:v1:en

Slowly coming together - and for those doomsayers that will say negative things about the Graphene Council accreditation that VRS has they need to remember a couple of things:

1. The National Physical Laboratory (NPL) in the UK undertook the accreditation of VRS graphene as part of the Graphene Council process
2. The NPL will be heavily involved in creating / agreeing all these ISO standards
3. VRS have close relationships with a number of people who are actively involved in the ISO committees, and technical teams, that agree these standards

So all in all this should be a good thing for VRS as the wheat from the chaff will now begin to be weeded out from the graphene marketplace leaving only genuine producers behind.

I see the dangerous misinformation idiots are out in force on the other board dissing the above accreditation, however they showed up their idiocy by saying that VRS should've hot their accreditation from a reputable body such as the National Physical Laboratory (NPL) yet if they actually bothered to read the 1st April 2019 RNS that announced the accreditation they might be surprised to see who actually did the material (ie Graphene) validation........ yep you guessed it it was a fly by night organisation that no one has ever heard of called...... NPL!! If it wasn't so sad and damaging it would be funny! ?????

To me the entire point of this exercise is all about the BoD (just call me a cynic) trying to maintain the share price at current levels as the SP will be one of the metrics that affects their Long Term Incentive Plans and any Share Options, and so the consolidation is required to do this (as the MCap otherwise reduces by the value of the SD).

Lutra, already applies to VRS - when they announced REACH approval it was for up to 10 tonnes