Member Info for Gitfinger

Hahahaha!

What part of NOTHING BINDING don’t you get…..it’s all smoke and mirrors, my view is that nothing of commercial worth will come from this so called collaboration…..just my view, no one else had to agree with me, but let’s just see where this goes, and if it spins, I’ll willingly eat humble pie, the question is, will the shameless rampers fo the same?

So that’s a bit like a MOU then…..oh, we’ve had a few of them over the years…..the early payment WAS IN EXCHANGE FOR THE SHARES!….and yes, pipeline, opening up and all that, but nothing whatsoever binding……

Jimmy an

Is that the best you’ve got…..I lied about clocking off….I see no other lies, only statements that others are unable coy counter with valid arguments…..

Yup, I had logged off, but saw your lovely post so I thought I’d have another dig…..this is becoming a bit like laughing at fools (oh, sorry, only a narcissistic **** would say that) Well hey ho, you lot carry on shouting at the wall all the way down, makes no odds to me…

Mr Nash

They paid the £2.0 m For the shares………on top of this, they were given a discount on future purchases that they’re not actually tied into……so they’ve actually paid £4.0 m on a £4.0m contract and got £2.0m in shares into the bargain….how is that not a giveaway?

There is an undeniable fact that the contract was altered to facilitate a £2.0 m discount by proxy. The RNS stated that the terms had been altered, and that’s enough of a red flag….No, I don’t know the terms of the contract, but I do know that it was altered……..

So how do you know what the benefits of giving away £2.0 m of value are? Have you seen the notes of the cosy meeting? No, so don’t make out that you do…..

Traders

You just made that up…..it’s wishful thinking…..that’s a bit like me saying that the 100kw unit delivered didn’t meet the performance criteria and ABB threatened to walk away from the deal unless they got a discount, which, because an actual discount would be catastrophic from a PR point of view was wrapped up as a share subscription, which of course does exactly the same job, unless you choose to ignore the economic reality….not that I would suggest that this is what happened for one moment, but this construct carries just as much credibility as your statement without any supporting evidence…..

PS…..the phrase “Oh dear……” sounds like something another poster would say……

Mucky

‘But these paid bashers are just modern-day telemarketers. Most of them are uneducated when it comes to investing. They can’t think for themselves. They can’t adapt to new information”

That’s great coming from the side who cannot see that giving away £2.0 when there was no contractual need to is a bit suspect, and half don’t know the difference between income, cash flow, or understand the way a balance sheet works…..get real, what you’re saying is just an excuse for not liking the uncomfortable facts that are plain to see if you take off the rose tinted specs….

And, yep, back from a good old argument…..difference is, when arguing in the real world, both sides get to hear each other’s argument and there’s no ability to delete something the other side says which you disagree with……

Yep, narcissistic I may be, but I’m not the one with a singular inability to deal with the truth of the situation, and am in complete denial…..I’ll leave that to you lovely people…..crack on, keep attacking the people pointing at icebergs and carry on arranging the deckchairs……

Traderz is wrong

Traderz is wrong

Traderz is wrong

AFC gave away £2.0m and he doesn’t know why……..

Anyway, enough for today, the Lizard people have let me out of the bunker early today, so I can go and argue with real people this afternoon...which will make a change....

Crack on, onwards and upwards ....Jam tomorrow......

No. They contracted to pay £4.0M for the development of a fuel cell. There was no mention in this agreement that this contractual sum could / would be altered so that ABB get their contractual entitlement plus shares worth £2.0M.....That represents a fundamental change of the original contract. That's the issue, why would AFC feel the need to offer this, if all of the performance parameters had been met, and they were entitled to receive the full contractual sum. You can't simply justify giving away £2.0 of shareholder value simply by saying "they seem like good chaps" and expect everyone just to roll over and not ask why.....The fact is the company HAS given away a contractual entitlement and has yet to give a realistic explanation, which is why you lot are all struggling, because there is nothing tangible to hang your hats on....

Trederz

Congratulations, you are showing your complete and utter lack of understanding .

ABB were contractually obliged to pay £4.0M for the delivery of the unit. Full stop.

AFC were not contractually obliged to hand over shares worth £2.0M

So

The original deal was .....we build you a fuel cell thingy, and you pay us £4.0M

The revised deal was .....we build you a fuel cell things , you pay us £4.0M, and we give you shares with a sticker price (at the time, hahahah! of £2.0M......By definition, AFC has given away £2.0M in value.....

Spin it however you want, but you simply cannot argue with the economic truth. Daz is right, you are wrong.....

Change direction.....Again......Another excuse for more "R&D" more delays before comercialisation (never mind, Jam tomorrow)

Traderz

If ABB were that impressed, they would have put their hand in their own pocket, rather than AFC putting their hand in the shareholders pocket.....

Traderz

That's not an answer (well, it kind of is, it's the sort of answer you'd expect from Mr "Studies")

Pray tell me how giving away £2.0M that the company is entitled to, and agreeing a discount on units that ABB aren't tied in to buying is mutually beneficial?

Errr....JCB are promoting H2 ICE and NOT fuel cell. If anything, if they can get a small H2 ICE unit to work, then fuel cells are dead in the water.....never mind, no doubt AFC will go into the eletrolyser business.....

Rather than just getting the posts deleted.....that's not really an answer to the problem, is it?

Traderz

I challenge you to provide a full and rational explanation of why the statement over the £2.0 giveaway is lies and nonsense....try supporting your argument with reasoned logic for a change....

Errr...because the thinking is fundamentally flawed and delusional.....

See logical explanation, or come up with valid explanation of why a contractual right was given away at the shareholders expense.

"ABB bought £2m in shares. The £2m went to AFC, no discount"

if you actually believe this, you really shouldn't be allowed out on your own....