Member Info for Foxhill

He’s already got two.

Concur.

That’ll only taken six plus years to get to draft contract - encouraging, but tiny.

I’d like to think we’d be above 2 bloody pence in anticipation of an update, whether that be a shiny new nomad, a contract or a set of year end figures confirming that we have comfortably exceeded, blah, blah.
3p was fair six months ago - heading into an historically H2. Surely we should be heading back toward those previous heady heights of c4p with perhaps, this time, more justification than the hype that sent us up last time.
Need some juicy contracts without the drag of associated funding issues. Confirmation of funds from the North African contract, suggestions of another 2.5, plus anything else that might roll over from 2018. We might have more than 50% of next year’s revenue lined up before kick off.

Seen driving a truck full of Norton Antivirus containers out of John Lewis....

:-)

Lmao.

Yes - very timely eskers.

You too mate. And all the LSLTH’s. Mossy’ i’ll my glass to you later mate. Let’s hope. :)

.It sounds like? ..and you don’t think that if they’d resolved ALL of the issues that they might have said that in the contract update??

There’s a massive difference between ‘majority’ and ‘all’.

Seems your ears have something in common with slipperz eyes.

Post. 3rd Dec. ‘Still believed - even put it in caps for those loonies that didn’t.

“We continue to work towards signing AT LEAST ONE FURTHER LONG TERM MANAGED SERVICES CONTRACT THIS YEAR although, as always, there is never certainty as to timing or outcome in these matters.”

Whoops.

The trading update should show improved revenue courtesy of that tech contract - and perhaps an upturn in Lungi income. But that isn’t why folk are invested here. But, I doubt any useful light will be cast on the anonyMoU’s or Iran, unless there are political developments.

I hope that they can complete the Iran contract.

However - I look at this in context. The update had nothing new in it. They offered specifics previously. Workable solution in respect of.... etc. There is nothing in the update to confirm any progress since those key issues.

If there has been - what is it? That’s the purpose of an update - surely?

Runn

Yep - not sure what happened there. But the sentiment merited repetition so not too bothered.

Hey Etin, I thought of another explanation (multi ID allegation). Just perhaps - and I’m going a bit left-field here. But, maybe, there is more than one investor that’s disappointed with the complete failure to deliver on any of the repeated 2018 expectations. Outrageous suggestion. :-)

Yes - get on with those IP checks. Then look for something else.

Thanks for you addressing so many outstanding issues. Not.

Ask what they feel has prevented a sale thus far and what’s being done to address the issue?

Ask Peter why they haven’t sold it. Who is instructed to sell it and who, within the business, is charged with overseeing it’s disposal. Might be interesting?

Let’s not forget their failure to sell the SQ (18 months and counting) and at least put something back in the tin.

There are perhaps 10+ MoU’s being worked. They love to tease with suggestion of unannounced MoU’s being added - (so much going on) but resolutely refuse to furnish investors with numbers or tangible progress. When they do, contrary to their own non disclosure policy, they fail to deliver. Even when they give themselves 16 months to finalise a contract that must (or should) have been very advanced in order to have been singled out and offered up with timescale. You’d hope that they could look at that inventory of possibilities any get one right, after six years. We rely on their judgement. It’s been woeful. Namibia gives a clue as to how forthcoming they might actually be.

They made a very expensive, complete farce, on the ferry.

Their projection of revenue out of Lunghi was a joke. Growth is covered by Big’.

They have produced one decent tech contract in 6 plus years. That’s not a trend - it’s a freak. The pipeline was once suggested at £300m I recall, from our super website.

The border contract has vaporised.

With just a few weeks into Christmas they held the ‘expectations’ line - then failed. Relying on those caveats.

They move from key issues to challenges to avoid comparison.

Any effort to clarify something like Namibia is met with (for me) disturbing evasion.

They are the common denominator.

Lit’s Not negative - it’s reasoned and realistic.

I suggested back in September that we’d probably be having the same conversation in March. I suggested nothing would convert before Christmas. Both positions were considered negative - and here we are. Others, in capitals, felt otherwise. They (the bulls) were all wrong.

Why do I get slaughtered for being realistic?

Perhaps get yourself back over to ADVFN and your best mate Graham?