Member Info for Gitfinger

McStockCheque

If the tech is revolutionary, and everyone who wants it will be beating a path to the company's door to buy / lease the wonder product, why on earth would the company's share price be affected by the performance of it's peers?

Maybe I'm having a bit of a senior moment, but can someone please explain the relevance of the statement that the cracker uses only 5 percent of the electricity that an electrolyser does.........they are two completely different processes, and its a bit like comparing apples with pears.....

Ttny…….fine rhetoric….except no one ever really challenges me on fact……as for flip flop, nope, same cynic I’ve always been, just had a bit of a laugh seeing whether it was possible to put a positive spin on things, I quickly ran out of steam…

B3…..The fact that I see a flaw in the Speedy deal doesn’t mean any kind of flip flop. As is always the case, if there’s a flaw in the company line then I’ll expose it…..the fact that you don’t like the fact that someone’s saying that things may not actually be as presented is your problem, and not mine….how about this….if you don’t like my hypothesis on why possibly we only hold 25% of the JV maximum, perhaps you could come up with your own reasoned argument.

And, for the avoidance of doubt, it not a case of “my way or no way” it’s just that no one ever puts up a valid counter argument……

Surf

I fail to see why they should anticipate making a loss. The units purchased from AFC will sit on the balance sheet, and unless they are a complete dog, then the depreciation / impairment shouldn’t be that excessive, and all other costs should be variable and in reality should only be as a marginal extra cost to speedy who should be looking at using their existing infrastructure to deliver in the early days in smh case. . Even of the assets are brought into trading stock, rather than as fixed assets, the only P&L hit will be the impairment.

Just seems odd that someone seems keen to be able to group relieve losses when in reality there shouldn’t be any .

Surf

So you know what group relief is? It’s all to do with the ability to set losses in a subsidiary against profits in other parts of the group……if Speedy want 75% in order to have group relief available to them, doesn’t that kind of imply that they aren’t realistically expecting to make……a profit?

Might be good for Speedy, but certainly not good for AFC if viewed in this context…..bit like the ABB discount really where there are all sorts of hidden incentives that only come to light once the initial “woo hoo” factor has died down…

Surf

Here's a clue on why we appear to have less than 26 Percent..... its a thing called group relief......funny that......

Surf

You’re wrong….the PSC notification states that speedy asset owns over 75% of the shares. Speedy asset isn’t an spv set up for the purposes of this venture, so by definition, the speedy group must in some form own 75% of the shares. Read the notification for clarity…..and I do agree that the agents acting for the JV partners wouldn’t have got it wrong, so I’m afraid it looks like we do indeed own less than 26%…….

Surf…..are you having a laugh!

They aren’t HIS forms, they’re forms that need to be submitted by the JV company which, as of this moment in time we apparently we hold less than 26 per cent of. So you would be quite happy for him to cot comply with a legal requirement then….on that basis I presume you’d be quite happy if he failed to comply with the need to inform the markets of price sensitive developments…but then again you probably are, because the only ones withheld would be those relating failure to meet targets, and as we know, these events are just allowed to wither on the vine in the hope that they’re simply forgotten….

If he wants to go on a beano at your expense, you’re quite happy to be happy with it, but don’t expect others to share your enthusiasm, because we all know what’s come out of all of his beanos before……you could square it, cube it or whatever and you’d still and up with the same number…..zilch!

Reonin.....I am calm most of the time, buy what winds me up is when I make a statement of fact, namely that the documents in the public domain specifically state something, and people go into denial about it simply because it doesn't fit their narrative.....

Hahahahah!

I bet he's happy to be invited to the UAE....So, in what capacity is he going....

Oh, I know.........IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE RECIPIENT OF A VAST AMOUNT OF PHILATHROPIC HANDOUT FROM HIS SHAREHOLDERS.......

Mc Stock

What precisely are you on about? So it's all OK to not comply with the requirements of the Companies Act? I don't think so!

Oggs. So we're all getting excited about the company getting involved with a company that is not on the ball enough to be able to file a simple form on time.......but never mind, they probably just forgot.....

And I used to think that B3 was apologist in chief, but you two seem to have jointly stolen his crown.....

Oh, and I see that they have had to re file the SH01 ref the share issue.....they couldn't even get that right......

Mc Stock.......

Aye captain......time to engage the improbability drive......

Mc Stock

By the way, my verbatim statement off the companies house website was taken this morning, so hardly out of date, as its the latest filing.

Mc Stock.....#musttryharder

Mc Stock

I shall repeat this from the hard of thinking. The company was formed with Speedy as the sole shareholder. The PSC notification was made at that time. The company has 14 days in which to file an amended PSC notification if there has been a change. This needed to be done by yesterday if there was indeed a change in control. It has not been done, so if there has been a change, then the company is in default of its obligations. As mentioned earlier, these tings are filed electronically, and even if posted yesterday, would be shown on the companies house website today. Ergo, the information I am quoting is either correct, and the company has complied with its obligations, or the information is outdated, and the company has not met its obligations....So which is it?

Answer the question, which is it?

Mc Stock

I'll do it for you....direct from Comanies House

1 active person with significant control / 0 active statements

Speedy Asset Services Limited ACTIVE

Correspondence address

Chase House, 16 The Parks, Newton-Le-Willows, Merseyside, United Kingdom, WA12 0JQ

Notified on

6 November 2023

Governing law

United Kingdom (England And Wales)

Legal form

Limited By Shares

Place registered

Companies House

Registration number

06847930

Incorporated in

England And Wales

Nature of control

Ownership of shares – 75% or more

Ownership of voting rights - 75% or more

Right to appoint and remove directors

Is that clear enough for you? and yes, any revised PSC notification issued after the issue of the new shares is technically late......

Oggs. I get that, but its generally good housekeeping to do it at the same time as you submit the SH01...On the basis that its all done electronically, its normally on the site within a couple of hours. I know this for a fact, because sometimes you need to change the PSC before you can file a confirmation statement, and we've done the two tings within the space of an hour before now. Give them the benefit of the doubt, not panicking, but simply highlighting that the rampers may sometimes need to exercise a little circumspection, rather than accepting everything hook line and sinker

And as you like quoting tings verbatim from your cut and paste, maybe you'd like to cut and paste the current PSC notification shown at Companies House.....

So which is it then clever boy? Speedy own 75 percent, or they have misrepresented the position at Companies House.

You can keep cutting and pasting whatever drivel you want in order to support your ramping agenda, but it doesn't alter the fact that, according to information in the public domain, Speedy own 75 percent of the voting rights of the JV. I challenge you to PROVE me wrong, so either put up, or shut up.

Stock / cheque / whoever you might be.

I’m afraid you’re yurt plain wrong there. If the shares have been issued, and there is a change in the nature of control, then the company is bound under the provisions of the companies act to submit a new persons with significant control notification, the company has t done this, so by definition, speedy still hold over 75% of the shares, unless of course you’re saying that it is 50:50 and that the company is in breach of its requirements under the companies act….which is it gonna be then sonny?

It’s one thing spinning stuff up, but you can’t deny facts…..