Member Info for HeadInTheSand

He's baaaaaack.

Oh well, the sharply increased levels of sanity and politeness were nice while they lasted, however briefly.

I see George has realised he's now used up pretty much all ANGS's existing authority to raise cash by issuing new shares, and so is now having to rush through a GM in order to get the right to issue more confetti. Two things instantly come to mind:-

1. This is obviously urgently required (which very strongly suggests that more cash is also urgently needed). Otherwise why not wait till the AGM (scheduled for March, so only 10 weeks later) and seek the authority then?

2. George isn't actually expecting Saltfleetby to generate any meaningful cash for the company any time soon, no matter what he may have publicly assured.

An RNS should be a good place to start... however, demonstrably not in ANGS's case.

Just go through any of its previous RNSes and check out how well any predictions and assurances made therein have ever turned out to be true or accurate. They've all tended to be wildly out, notably on cost and timescale.

ANGS's standard modus operandi seems to be to issue an RNS with a prediction or assurance, to say nothing as that slides by unmet, then at some later date issue another RNS with revised prediction and assurance. Rinse and repeat ad infinitum.

Okay they may get it right one day. But their track record so far is 100% miss - and that explains the by now near total lack of confidence in the company and anything it says..

If a £1k share purchase represents 7% of what snout in the trough Sando trousers every month (after income tax, NI, any personal pension contributions he's chosen to make etc etc), it's 10 seconds' effort to work out he's pocketing well over £14k per month, every month... clear.

As commented, nice work if you can get it...

Another genius recommendation. Hope nobody listened to this, given the SP is down 13% following this board's answer to Warren Buffet's latest prediction.

Yanis, as mentioned, don't forget about HSE approval (also promised for "early December"). I don't know how long thios usually takes, but it's another required barrier to clear before first gas.

As to the "new recruits" (good term, for a number of reasons) who allegedly bought in at around the 0.75 mark, they (or rather he, because there's only one, operating under multiple IDs) seems to be having an admin-imposed time-out. LSE's new policy of requiring a valid and unique phone number per ID seems to be clipping his wings rather drastically....

...and when does HSE sign-off happen? From memory, I think this was promised for early December, but of course, there's precious little completed infrastructure on site to sign off...

Well, if that pitiful and six months late purchase of about £1k's worth of shares is equivalent to 7% of Sando's net monthly take home pay (presumably net of income, NI and whatever personal pension contributions he's squirreling away), we now know he's trousering over £14 grand a month clear....

Nice work if you can get it,,,

Bud I'm making no assumption. The question was lowest possible score for a total clearance.

However, it is indeed a load of balls.

...and actually bud, even your way is not quite right either. Your answer should be 24.

Say it happens like you describe. Player A smashes the pack, all 15 reds drop... and the white also goes in, so his opponent gets 4 for the foul. Player A = 0, Player B = 4.

Player B then pots all the colours up to and including the pink , gaining 20 points. Player A = 0, Player B = 24.

Player B then pots the black, but goes in off, so his opponent gets 7. Final score? Player A = 7. Player B = 24.

nom, see answer I've just posted elsewhere, Remember, it's a total clearance, so a single visit with all the balls being potted.

It's 37. (Actually in the old days it might have been 30, because a foul was points away, but these days those points are given to one's opponent).

Bud, that's not a total clearance, which requires a single break.

The correct answer is 37. All 15 reds go in off one shot (a tad unlikely, but that's not the point) = 15.

The player takes a yellow. 2 + 15 = 17.

The yellow is respotted and the player clears up to and including the pink. 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 17 = 37.

The player then slams the black in... but goes in off. He gets no score for the black, but his opponent gets 7.

So... a total clearance ends in a score of 37 to 7.

Absolutely. You're definitely on the right track, but one thing hasn't occurred to you.

72 is way out.

31 is wrong.

Better, but still not right

Good answer, but not right.

...who knows what the theoretical minimum score possible is at snooker for a total clearance? (i.e with all 15 reds and all colours on the table at start of break).

True, because the various multiple IDs still exist. Mind you, he must be positively seething in frustration...

...and in the accuracy of your much-trumpeted predictions too?

...and by the accuracy of your predictions too?