Member Info for Gitfinger

BB......Ah, the next step on from "not a shareholder"......."not going to the AGM"... as if wasting time attending a pre orchestrated presentation with limited opportunity to challenge anything give any more credibility....
Red Hornet.....The very very sad fact is that many of the posters on this board seem so desperate for this thing to succeed to the point that they simply cannot accept any suggestion that things may not be going according to plan. The pint I am making is that people should only invest in AIM with money they can afford to lose, and should regard the investment as little more than a punt; it is within this context that I am saying I am not desperate for the share price to go up, simply because to me, this is a punt, and if all comes good, then happy days, but if not, then so be it. This does not preclude me from airing my views on the company's performance or governance, whether you like it or not.....

BB. How does this work, I correct a statement made by one of your uber gang that is clearly incorrect (and one could argue designed to mislead, so, in this instance, who is in fact the liar, Mr Buena Vista?) and the only response you can come up with is "na na, you don't own any shares"
The unfortunate fact is that I probably have a larger holding that you. However, where we differ is that, I'm just not that desperate for the share price to go up that I live in the perennial world of delusion. It is for this reason that I can take an even handed view on how the company conducts itself, and comment accordingly, even if it is at odds with the uber party line.
As for the comment about obsessive, that's a bit pots and black kettles, isn't it? how many posts have you made in the last 30 days? Oh, I see 193 compared to my 80.......

M3
I think I see where you are coming from……however, the only INCOME that the company is going to receive out of the deal is £2.0m under the amended terms. Of this £2.0m, £1.4m was deemed to have not been earned as at the balance sheet date, hence the phrase “deferred income”
The other £2.0 m is in exchange for 10,000,000 shares in your company subscribed for at 20 pence. This is a capital item, and effectively a fund raise which has been done at your expense by virtue of the dilution you suffer on your shares. Sorry OUR expense, WE suffer…..
Because of this share giveaway, the actual contract price is, of course £2.0m
On the report, is it not misleading to group in one earned with income not yet earned in arriving at the 200% plus improvement?

M3
Can you please explain what you mean by £3.4m…..

Mr Incredible
"The company did very well and made money"
Can you justify that statement with some actual facts please

So who exactly has been thrown out of the happy place? Never been there, the level of sycophancy here is unbearable enough....can you just imagine what its like in a place where the entry criteria seems to be swearing an oath to never express any doubts about the ultimate delivery of jam tomorrow?
BB (AKA Mr Incredible) . But the thing is, Jaknife did call it right after all. He predicted a cashflow crisis, and that's precisely what happened. Surely if he was in league with Lanstead, then he would have known that the company share price would ultimately have been manipulated up, and wouldn't have shorted the thing, which is what you are implying, would that not indeed be incredible?

Mumble
As you're the undoubted expert in the historic testing regime, why don't you enlighten us with the pearls of your wisdom. I fully admit, I haven't researched the matter at all, but then again, I'm not the one professing to know the answers but not being prepared to prove it. Maybe your next incarnation could go under the name of "Mr Incredible" because most of what you say doesn't stand up to scrutiny, and has very little credibility.

Buenavista
So what's your interpretation of nameplate capacity? Or is that just another question that's only difficult to answer if the correct interpretation doesn't fit with your narrative......Until you uber boys are prepared to be remotely realistic and try listening to the counter argument, I will continue to challenge your stance on the matter, and highlight weaknesses in your argument. Unfortunately you all seem incapable of actually engaging and putting forward a convincing counter argument, but simply resort to the standard "you're not invested / basher troll" so the game continues.
Remember, we've been here years before, when a certain Jaknife expressed doubt about the company's cash reserves and rate of cash burn, only to be shouted down....subsequently the company entered into a toxic round of financing, and suffered a massive downshift in the share price....so who was right then? and who may be right now?
I appreciate that many may be hurting at the current low share values, and are desperate for it to improve, but the power of wishful thinking only goes so far......

Xcitintimes.....nope, no one pays me, I do it for free....

Aaron J
Me not owning shares is supposition, just the same as the company actually delivering anything of commercial value at this point in time is supposition.....

BB : Good. That means you wont have to answer any difficult questions.
Cheeky : No, not towing the uber party line doesn't mean here to disrupt, do you actually know what a debate is? it's two sets of people, with differing opinions discussing their respective positions in a rational manner. What we have here is one group who are so absolutely emotionally invested in some thing that they cannot see / will not see any possible negative, in spite of the evidence to the contrary. I thought that the telegram group was meant to be the home of the evangelical AFC fans, if that's so, why are you all over here trying to suppress free speech.
Brettington : Ah, the old "you're not invested" line..... firstly wat's all the they them twaddle? I suppose you'd be happy if everything is we and us, but actually within the context used, they is actually more appropriate, and in no way indicated non investor status.....must try harder on that one....In any case, is the owning of shares mandatory to post here? I think not....
Buenavista : It would be nice to have a lovely view of AFC, but the performance over a number of years, and the current situation doesn't make good reading unless you are a fanboy who is absolutely blind to the facts.

Cheeky
On the basis that the share price is in the doldrums, every product that they have announced with great fanfare has failed to sell, the latest RNS trumpets the fact that they have entered into a short term lease (on what terms we don't know, same as all other "leases" with apparently no tie in thereafter, the company gave away 10,000,000 shares for no apparent justifiable reason, the publication of the accounts is going to be right up to the wire, they are seeking the advice of the auditors, there is ambiguity over the phraseology in the ABB deployment RNS, I'm not totally sure that anyone who is still 100% keeping the faith cannot be regarded as anything other than at least a little deluded.
OK, I may be wrong, and maybe the planets will align and there will ultimately be a saleable product (in which case, happy days, we all make money), but at this particular point in time, I think taking the stance that the ubers are right, and the realists are wrong, is possibly erring on the side of rose tinted specs just a tad too much....

BB
I take it from that you really don't know the answer....You seem to be getting a little stressed chum......so do you agree or disagree with my interpretation? simple question which requires a simple answer......

Not a leading question, or attempt to stir things up, but genuinely curious. the new thing ordered by Acconia seems to be an amalgam of individual, scalable parts which AFC have presumably already subjected to in house testing. If the thing is based on using modules that the company had already developed, then why was the initial offering on 10KW? Why not hit the ground running with a 50KWh unit on day 1?

Haggis
Complete twaddle. You obviously don't know how audits work, so can you please just confine your cut and paste drivel to stuff that you might actually know a little about....
Ignore the fool. He's either insanely delusional or a very dangerous ramper.....

BB
That's not really a definition, is it? What is your interpretation of what the phrase nameplate capacity means. Mine is the ability to deliver in ideal conditions, a defined amount of poser on a sustained basis. As an example, a 10KW nameplate capacity generator should be able to provide 10KW of power, on demand, for a sustained period of time; this is why generators / batteries are commonly identified as KWh capable, i.e. the ability top deliver X KW of energy per hour. I'm just asking you to either agree or disagree with me, and if you disagree, actually provide some kind of evidence to support your case, and also your interpretation of said evidence.

Bumble
So are you saying that a unit with a nameplate capacity of 100KW can produce 100KW per hour on a sustained basis for an extended period of time?

Cheeky
counterpoint to the deluded......

You said it squire......the madness comes from people only listening to what they want to hear, and not what they need to hear....

Garonne
Don't panic!
Bumble is, no doubt, at this very moment beavering away on a positive spin on why the company gave away 10,000,000 shares when, if all in the garden is rosy, and ABB have no leverage, they weren't contractually obliged to do so.
He's probably also looking for some obscure alternate definition of nameplate capacity which doesn't use the word sustainable, simply so that he can say that the ABB unit did indeed deliver 100KW (even though it may have taken weeks to get there, and probably only got there with the used of a hulking great battery pack)