Member Info for HeadInTheSand

Three of a kind indeed. Shame it's Curly, Moe and Larry....

Microcap *

A "partner" in a potential RTO situation like this...

On one hand, you have a cash-strapped UK AIM-listed microwave that cannot generate enough revenue out of its sole worthwhile asset to meet the costs of its already incurred obligations...

And on the other? Allegedly privately operated transatlantic fossil fuel assets that are "cash positive" and "low decline"...

Not really a putative marriage of equals, is it? So, how do you reckon the cake (if it does come to be baked) will be sliced? "A great deal for existing sharehoders"... dream on.

Unfortunately for you, Onrtomany, what you've fervently and consistently labelled as "tripe" (that being anything basing any appraisal of ANGS on facts and cold hard numbers, rather than blinkered pipedreams) is becoming more obviously accurate by the day - as it seems that you're finally starting to realise.

Despite the baying and continuous assurances from the cheerleaders over the years, it's now clear that ANGS cannot get Saltfleetby to wash its face. Today's RNS on a potential (and no doubt hoped for by the board) reverse takeover is the final capitulation after years of big talk and promises, but sadly zero delivery on such.

Massively significant dilution ahead if this goes through. Mind you, no matter how painful that may be for holders, it'll almost certainly be better than the alternative.

...and "hence", not "he certainly". Effing autocorrect.

Encumbrance, not endurance.

This feels strangely similar to Sanderson's desperate smoke and mirrors show with Basur.. I do hope not.

What seems abundantly clear - as it has been for ages, frankly - is that, what with the levels of debt and other financial endurance it has already committed to, ANGS cannot make Saltfleetby commercially viable for itself. He certainly the 'out of the blue' attempted ( or should that be forced?) transmogrification into something radically different.

As Oofy has commented, since ANGS still cannot generate enough cash to wash its own face, any successful reverse takeover would almost inevitably be massively diluting for existing long-suffering holders. Time to grit one's teeth, methinks.

Seems like Tony needs to make himself aware of the teensy difference between revenue, gross profit and nett profit after paying off all incurred costs, including already taken on obligations falling due.

Here's a hint. One's a positive number, one's also a positive number albeit a whole lot smaller, but the last is very firmly negative (or very obviously would be, because ANGS currently at least cannot generate enough shekels to actually pay debt and other obligations off in cash, rather than kicking them down the road, refinancing for the umpteenth time or issuing yet more confetti).

Quite correct, Beretta... except one should be aware that Amit and his helping hand hirelings have long taken advantage of the fact that it's impossible to prove a negative.

Again in my view, the vast majority of the abuse has come from those defending Cloudtag (God knows why they still do, but anyhow). It's been that way since the start, all the way back to DavidGreece.

Helx's suggestion to get in touch with Johnson Controls is of course a good one. Reliable third party corroboration should indeed be the name of the game, whether one expects any to be forthcoming or not.

As Amit didn't specifically name J&J (though he clearly made damn sure it could only be them), it's possibly not appropriate to start bugging them quite yet.

Hiya Simon.

I rarely pop in these days, simply because nothing ever changes. Same old ANGS, same old lack of cash, same old payments being deferred, or paid in confetti, or refinanced, same old SP levels slowly circling the plughole, same old Ocebot posting irrelevant PR snippets, same old Onetomany promising untold multibags just around the next corner...

So as I am unlikely to break out the ANGS pompoms any time soon, I'd agree... probably a good thing not to hold your breath. After all, for mammals, oxygen's just slightly a necessary gas... and fortunately one more far reliably available than the sort ANGS attempts to pump.

All the best to you.

I can't help smiling at OneToMany - the world's literal worst Mystic Meg - trying to take the moral high ground.

I mean, just look at the following "absolute certainty" prediction from over a year ago from the universe's least successful ramper, promising at least 4 bags. Shame the SP has actually dropped by well over a third since he burbled that nonsense:-

Onetomany

Premium Member

Posted in: ANGS

Posts: 441

Price: 0.35

Strong Buy

RE: Very modest EBITDA valuation

11 Apr 2024 10:20

If timing is off due to some external factors then so be it. End game hasn’t changed and you will, with absolute certainty, see 1.5p in the near term.

@Moxie, you're correct. In the UK at least, a director does have a fiduciary duty to act at all times in the best interests of shareholders, However...

Just because a director of a UK company has a fiduciary duty obviously does not mean that said director will necessarily follow it. If a director of any company does not follow said fiduciary duty, thus causing others loss, then the only recourse is to go down legal routes (whether criminal or civil). Again obviously, as Spikey has pointed out, such recourse needs to be mountable effectively.

Secondly, I have no idea (and I doubt you do either) what fiduciary duties on directors apply under St Vincents company regulation. Nor what recourse is available/practicable under St Vincents law in the event of breach.

I suspect that Amit's defence would be that yes, he has (repeatedly) issued information and assurances that (invariably) turned out to be entirely false - but that he always did so with good intention and in good faith and just (repeatedly) got things wrong inadvertently. Decide for yourself how credible such an assertion may be.

@RedRoger, genuine posters here who have followed the sorry CTAG saga for years, whether positive or negative, whether still invested, once invested or just interested, all want the same thing - namely clarity and closure. One way or the other.

Furthermore, the point you make about "what exactly are people trying to achieve by posting opinions?" applies every single bit as much to cheerleaders as it does to doubters - nothing anyone posts is going to make any difference either way... it's just opinion. As such, choosing to post a positive/supportive opinion is as totally useless as choosing to post a negative/sceptical one - neither have any practical point.

The only thing that *may* help to force a conclusion one way or the other is the current legal efforts.

I disagree, RR. She saw the opportunity early, invested a sum and quite deliberately got out early too - with over a 100x gain. It's the getting out part that demonstrates the smarts IMO.

I was also going to point out the more recent attempt to "cryptocurrencise" art with the appearance of Non Fungible Tokens, but a) Blast beat me to it and b) to me, they really are way WAY too much along the lines of the emperor's new clothes.

I also have a very smart friend who made herself a tidy seven figure sum by getting into (and then out of) Bitcoin in the earlier days. There very clearly was money to be made back then (and of course, I wish I'd done the same). However, there is also without doubt less money to be made these days, with Bitcoin value showing wide fluctuation. I'm not saying it's a non-starter, but it's also no longer a geometrically rising ticket to retirement.

In terms of stability though, Bitcoin does have the longevity argument to support it, unlike many of the other crypto currency horror stories that have abounded recently. It's liable to stay around, in my opinion.

Entirely irrelevantly, kudos to FallingInReverse for picking that ID name. I've no idea if I'll tend to agree with his/her opinions or not, because he/she's not been around long enough - but picking a moniker that gives a nod to one of the best and most innovative bands to emerge out of the last 15 years or so isn't a bad start.

I think there's an element of cross purposes here.

The chances of any UK financial or regulatory authority being interested in going after Cloudtag the company at this late stage are effectively zero, in my opinion.

The chances of any St. Vincents financial or regulatory authority being persuadable to go in going after Cloudtag the company at this late stage are also effectively zero, in my opinion (and that's assuming that Cloudtag is currently incorporated under the notably lax St Vincents regulations, which is hardly guaranteed).

However, if there is deemed to be sufficient evidence that Amit as a UK resident (assuming he still is one) committed fraud by knowingly misleading investors up to some point in time and thus obtaining funds under false pretences... then I'd have thought there would be at least civil if not criminal action to be mounted against him as an individual. I imagine that Mr. Cotter would be of like mind.

Again, the possibility of action against Cairns, the nomad with the obligation (i know, don't all laugh at once) of being the guardian of PIs' interests by assuring that all RNSed company information was truthful should be mentioned.

I do wonder if there's a statute of limitation when it comes to fraud offences? 2 minutes of Google suggests that in the UK this might be six years from the date on which the fraud became reasonably perceivable, as far as a criminal charge might pertain and I have a vague suspicion that any civil action might have an even shorter time period.

And that might provide the best explanation so far as to why Amit persists in interminably stringing things out.

My reply *

Trombone...

a) You are clearly the master of the non-sequitur, since your post has literally no relevance to my rely to moxie.

b) Mildly amusingly, the nature and tone of your post beautifully makes the first of my points for me.

I'd suggest that comprehension should come before reaction but hey, each to his or her own...

Two things.

1. Over the entire sorry history of CTAG, in by far and away the vast majority of cases, the abuse has been directed by the cheerleaders at those of a more wary opinion, rather than the other way around. Of course, many of those cheerleaders were/are not who they purported/purport to be.

2. Hope is all well and good, but propagating false hope (especially knowingly)? Given the incredibly long-suffering audience, that's one of the more contemptible acts I can think of.

Indeed.

As has been clearly evidenced more than once before, a standard Amit tactic is to specifically name institutions and individuals that have literally nothing to do with Cloudtag in an effort to borrow some utterly unjustified credibility.

Hugh Risebrow,anyone? That Chicago bank "definitely" holding those funds in escrow? It's one of his preferred go-to porkies.