Member Info for Gitfinger

No it wasn't. There has been a fundamental change in the nature of the contract. What was a contractual right to receive £2.0M as a part of the contract to deliver (which is fundamentally different to the warrants) has been re written so that, under the new agreement, ABB gets 10,000,000 shares for something they were in fact contractually obliged to pay. No income relating to the ABB contract was recognised in the 2021 accounts, so the whole of the issue falls within the 2022 accounting period, and I guess that the £2.0 M had been recognised as income in the accounts as at the balance sheet date, but that, as a known post balance sheet event, it needs to be re visited at it patently now is certainly NOT income. It also raises the matter of whether or not expenditure on the ABB unit should correctly be capitalised, and this will be dependent on the underlying reason for the alteration of the original contract, worst case the milestone hasn't been met, and previously capitalised expenditures need to be released to the P&L. If this is the case, then maybe shareholders not having too many waiting days to consider the annual report might not be a bad thing......I must admit, the AGM is going to be a right old hoot this year....

Mc Rampup simply doesn’t have a clue about the role of an auditor, and his latest piece of drivel about “seeking the auditors advice” is a classic example of complete denialism.. as the old maxim goes “he who shouts loudest……has the biggest mouth, and that’s about all…”
Just ignore the melt, as his ramping prose is dangerous to your wealth….

AIM is basically gambling, and only gamble what you can afford to lose. It's a punt and no more than that, so actually thinking it's a case of WHEN as opposed to IF is on a fools errand. We've all taken a punt on the share, and all HOPE that it will come good, but there should be no EXPECTATION of this. I suspect that many are into this share far too deep, and are in denial that it may in fact be a case of IF....

The question is, who are the crooks around here? Are they
a) the ones who are expressing concern over the speed of progress, and the fact that every release from the company indicates "Jam Tomorrow" or contains so much ambiguity that it can be read both ways,
or
b) the ones who continually seek out every piece of information that could possibly have a positive effect on the share price, even if the connection with the company is so tenuous as to be irrelevant, with those people being precisely the same ones who set up their own radical splinter group on another platform, where only positive voices are allowed, but still infest this board with their pro company propaganda, and attempt to shut down all dissenting voices.
The fact that the main protagonist mentions that LSE should clean up their act is an absolute gem of magic mirror theory....
Funny how the uber gang has become far more vocal and hostile of late, this usually happens when the jam tomorrow is kicked into the long grass.......given the change in narrative ref performance metrics (cumulative, anyone) I do wonder if the veil of optimistic delusionalism is being lifted, and maybe its a case of "if you shout loud enough, then we must be right"...............shout as loud as you like, but the market doesn't agree with you, otherwise we wouldn't be languishing where we are at the moment...

For the pedants, should read “anywhere near”
Anyway, why would there be any need to eject anyone from the happy place, as the overriding qualifying criteria is that thou shalst only accept what the company says from the perspective of a pant optimism and never criticise the company, or CEO….if you buy Ito that then fine, but do yourself a favour and stay over there……

Bovril gate
Really? Never been anywhere the telegram group….why would I want to join a bunch of delusional fools?
So who exactly was kicked out who you assume was me?
A bit pathetic when you can’t even identify the people you’ve shut down……

Anyone other that whenever an RNS is released that doesn’t state that everything is rosy, or even ambiguous, a couple of Uber posters go into overdrive? It almost looks like there is a definite ploy to neutralise any rational debate arising by the generation of vast amounts of positive white noise, and attacks on any of the so called naysayers…..seems somewhat more orchestrated than just exuberant enthusiasm…..
Bump

McRampup
So are you going to take a wheelbarrow load of share certificates out of your safe and pop along to the ISA shop then?

Ah, the apologist in chief speaks. there's always a reason for everything, and its always positive.....
Can someone please tell me what's positive about the revision of the ABB deal, as all I can see are negatives.

Mucksy
No, they're not traders, they just pretend to know about charts, just like they pretend to know about revenue recognition, the role of an auditor, etc. etc.etc.....

Expansion of point on Bed and ISA
isn't reflected as a transfer
For the pedants out there that should read "isn't reflected as a transfer in the markets"

Ah.....the old "not invested" ploy.......

"Any volume spike yesterday is people moving stock into their ISA's by selling it from their trading accounts and buying it back into their ISA's"
Nope....that's a bed and breakfast transaction. A Bed and ISA is an assignment of the holding into the ISA and isn't reflected as a transfer. A bed and breakfast is a different transaction and generally doesn't work as it means that the shareholder is out of the loop for 30 days, otherwise the transaction doesn't work for CGT purposes.......

Alt
I respectfully suggest you read the earlier post properly before getting onto your high horse......if you care to have a look it states "some people" and NOT "me, in one of many iterations of bashing con men trader identities".....that's the trouble with firing from the hip, sometimes you can shoot yourself in the foot......
Sorry to disappoint.........

Alt
What’s iii got do with the price of eggs? We’re talking about this board…..

Alt muddle.
The thing I object to is the supposition that simply because the account was opened in 2018 there wasn’t a prior involvement, which is just another indicator of a desperate attempt to neutralise anyone whose narrative doesn’t match your own. It is absolutely possible to have an interest in a share without feeling the need to post on it, and that was actually where I was until it became apparent that that this was becoming a one party state.
No previous accounts, sorry to disappoint…..

Rampmaster
"AFC Energy is working with its auditors to confirm the appropriate accounting and disclosures for the revised agreement within the accounts."
"So as with everything in the accounts, including 'note 5', this is all done WITH the auditor's advice and sign-off"
Your interpretation of the above indicates how little you know. Do you actually know what an auditor's role is, and how the company interacts with the auditor? I guess not. It is the company's responsibility to prepare the accounts in accordance with GAAP, and present these to the auditor. They then undertake the necessary verification work to ensure that the accounts presented reconcile to the base records,. and that all entries accord with the correct accounting treatment, as set out in the various reporting standards (FRS). The auditor's job is NOT to advise the company, they are an independent review function, and are by definition, reactive, it is because of this impartiality that large firms have different ring fences departments to deal with accounts and tax advisory and audit. If there were an area that the company was unsure about, it would have sought advice from the reporting accountant, and NOT the auditor, and the matter would (or, more importantly SHOULD) have been resolved before the accounts got anywhere near an audit. Your supposition that auditors are advisory is simply plain wrong.
The more likely scenario is that the accounts were prepared and presented to the auditors, who then had concerns over revenue recognition, namely whether the company could realistically regard the £2.0M as current income, or deferred income (the treatment is dependent on the contractual obligations, which we as mere investors simply don't know). In any case, it doesn't look good for the FD to have his considered view on the treatment of items in the accounts which HE IS RESPONSIBLE FOR to be given consideration by the auditors.... if he doesn't know how things should be treated in his own company's accounts then what hope is there?
I think we can all guess what the salient points requiring consideration are.....

Set
The sad thing is, back in the day, we were all as full of hope and optimism as the Ubers, but the continued stalling of progress and apparently never ending road to commerciality has basically beaten it out of us…..

Jonny boy
Been around for in excess of 12 years, so have seen all of the earlier false dawns, great new opportunities to explore, various exciting MOUs, all ending up as a load of hot air. The current exciting times are nothing new, and much as we all want it to succeed, we have the same pattern all over again, and we’re all just getting a bit jaded…..case in point the recent RNS which is hardly a paragon of clarity and raises more questions than it answers for those with a more analytical mindset.

Rampmaster Flash
They’re not actually deals, though, are they? All that’s happened is that certain companies have allowed AFC to trial units in the field on very uncertain terms with absolutely no commitment to purchase at the end….if you’re effectively giving away an opportunity for someone to have a bit of free greenwash with no commitment, then that’s not really a difficult sell, is it?
The only exception to this is of course ABB who did actually stump up cash, but even that deal has been re written massively in ABB’s favour (10,000,000 free shares, anyone?) so please don’t insult everyone’s intelligence by making out that the chubber is a great deal maker (yup, if Seg thinks it’s OK to use the phrase “mong” then I reckon chubbier is more than acceptable) when all he’s doing in reality indulging in a bit of smoke and mirrors