Member Info for HeadInTheSand

Ocelot's attempts to polish the unpolishable reach new surreal depths:-

"This valuation provides very considerable comfort to the debt facility lenders: ANGS is looking to borrow (51% of £12m =) £6.12m and the AAOG RNS provides a valuation of £16.32m for ANGS's share, ie a margin of comfort for the lenders of £10.2m."

Seriously??? Just how, pray tell, is AAOG, a company forced to delist, with a market cap totalling just about £1 million and with literally no assets on its balance sheet, apart from maybe a couple of hundred thousand of cash, going to be able to issue enough paper to amount to £8 million of actual real-world value?

Answer... it's not. It's simply impossible. This "valuation"is just the latest in a never-ending line of BS solely aimed at hoodwinking the unwary. £8 million of value payable in AAOG shares? The whole of AAOG in its entirety is worth considerably less than 10% of that figure.

Separately, I at first thought that this was a great deal for SEL... namely get rid of half of their abandonment liability for a pile of admittedly worthless paper. But then again, what's going to be the difference now between AAOG, SEL and Forum? It's just rearranging the deckchairs.

ANGS PIs better pray that they don't now get as royally reamed as any investors in AAOG just have - but that presupposes that there is much room left for ANGS shareholders to get even more reamed than they currently have been by George and his board.

Yanis, that's the point. What opportunity? Surely you can't be thinking of buying in some more?

So where's this "opportunity"? There's none in reparroting Ocelot's deliberately disingenuous and vacuous PR BS.

Yanis I do understand the desperation, but for the love of God and the sake of your sanity, take an objective step back for a second.

Ask yourself this. How can a company like AAOG that has just been delisted and has no assets at all apart from a small amount of residual cash possibly come up with a real £8 million of value to give to SEL in exchange for 25% of Poundland???

Answer. It cannot. It's merely going to print billions of share certs which it'll claim are worth £8 million, but which are actually worth next to nothing... in fact, exactly nothing, because the shares are untraceable.

So SEL (which hasn't got any proverbial pot to make water in and yet which carries 49% of the abandonment liability for Poundland) is looking to sell off just over half of that 49% share (and liability) in the potato field to another failed micro outfit (which has just been forcibly delisted from AIM and which equally hasn't got any proverbial pot to make water in).

And the biggest laugh is that the 25% of Poundland is allegedly being valued at £8 million in this transaction. Of course, we're not talking about 8 million of hard readies... nope. Just reams and reams of untradeable AAOG paper, which is worth nothing.

This really isn't going to make all those lenders that Ocelot continually assures us are just gagging to lend far more than the £12 million that ANGS is seeking feel any more confident, is it? I didn't believe this could get any more farcical, but there you go. It's not April 1st, is it?

...and like they were confident that they'd be at first gas by Q3 last year?

...and like they were confident it'd only cost them £2.75 million (which they'd already got) to do so?

Yep, anything that ANGS ever says should clearly be viewed with nothing but the utmost confidence and optimism...

....

...(not).

"The finance package will be completed in the next 2 weeks.!" says Highroller...

The amusing accidental irony in that substance-free assurance is that this is exactly the same promise that George and ANGS made in their RNS dated 25th January.

And we're still waiting...

...yeah right. Just like George has also said "imminent", "in the near term" and "final furlong".

Why would anyone - apart from a desperate PR stooge - keep quoting George's words, like they're meant to be some sort of gospel truth that may be relied upon? Nothing could be further from the repeatedly proven truth.

Look at his track record on accuracy, timeliness, achievement and delivery... there's precisely none of any of those things. This latest substance-free puff is just more can-kicking BS.

Seriously Ocelot? Is that all that's left in terms of what can be scraped from the bottom of the PR barrel?

It's enough to drive one into a apoplectic rage - it's all very well ****ging off wind power as unreliable, George - but hey, the reason that potential issues with wind turbines are visible is because they actually exist and have been operational in the real world for some considerable time. Where's the ANGS equivalent, eh?

It would be far FAR more relevant if GL commented on the utter, flagrant and unrelieved unreliability of anything he and the company have ever said, promised, estimated or assured. Seriously, how stupid must he think investors are?

I think I remember Crocqman saying a while back that he'd filtered me (forget why - it may have been down to a piece of gallows humour - but in my defence, one might as well try to laugh in the face of ANGS and its eternal record of at best cack-handedness and utter non-delivery).

However and as usual, I find myself in agreement with him. It's encouraging to see him picking up on my oft-repeated mantra.

Forget all the puff, spin, empty assurances, broken promises, geothermal rainows and everything else George...

SHOW US THE MONEY.

Well, failing any RNS today, we'll be into May. Another month passes with more cashburn, more fat salaries, nothing achieved as usual and precisely no news. I wonder how those "reasonable due diligence" fees are racking up for "no win, still fee" Aleph?

Remind me again...

"...in the coming two to three weeks, with drawdown shortly thereafter" (25th Jan) - how long is 2 to 3 weeks from 25th Jan?

"...with a view to making disbursements during the month of March" (22nd Feb) - when does the month of March finish?

"...imminent" (25th Feb) - how long is "imminent"?

"...we believe that we are in the final furlong" (15th March) - what's the distance involved in a "final furlong"?

"...in the near term" (29th March) - what's the time period of a "near term"?

One cannot help thinking, given all the above direct verbatim quotes issued by ANGS - either by RNS, answer to investor question or in interview and all just in this calendar year - that they are either A) serially incompetent or B) deliberately disingenuous.

The fact that ANGS was assuring all investors right up until Sept last year that everything was just wonderful with Poundland and that the taps could easily be turned back on quickly and at a cost of just £2.5 million, which it already had the funds for... only then to drop the bombshell that it needed another £12 million to get started, would tend to suggest option B) above.

Especially since George let it slip recently that he had started talking to lenders about sourcing extra required funds for Poundland a year ago (back in March 2020)... so that's a whole six months before ANGS informed the market that these were needed.

Not great, is it?

My opinion (based solely on the evidence available and ANGS's unrelenting track record of utter non-delivery on anything at all) is this:-

Even if George - no doubt ably aided and abetted by Jason "another week, another brand new one-man micro-cap company incorporated" Joannou from "no win, still fee... and how those fees are racking up nicely" Aleph - has just managed to scrape together a motley collection of outfits prepared to consider lending £12 million in total, it's never going to get signed off.

Why? Because I reckon all the signs are that the total value of the assets that ANGS possesses to put up as security against such a large and high-risk loan come nowhere near offsetting the risk. So, as the ANGS Mar 29th Finance Update RNS hinted (but in the hope that nobody would pay much attention), I strongly suspect that there are huge and sadly irresolvable arguments going on between the putative lenders as to who gets first charge over assets, should the wheels finally fall off.

ANGS remains a company that is just so fit for certain adages. As Ocelot proves every hour of the day despite his best efforts, one simply cannot polish the unpolishable. Here's another re the lenders, the £12 million and the value of ANGS security... you cannot get a gallon out of a pint pot - hence the ongoing and seemingly never-ending delays.

Helluva "final furlong", eh?

Oofy, it's a gerundive. Apart from that, bang on.

Correct translation but incorrect parsing. No subjunctive there - it's a passive periphrastic construction with the gerundive conveying a sense of obligation and actually utilises the verb "to be" in the indicative mood and the imperfect tense.

It is errors such as that up with which I shall not put.

Aaaaand yet again in tiresome fashion and in typical PR person style, Ocelot continues to carefully cherrypick the snippets he chooses to quote from ANGS verbiage. Here's another direct quote from the same RNS.

... for the most part, in near final form. The exception being an Intercreditor Agreement and Security Agency Agreement governing the relationship between all of the Lenders. (RNS of 29/03)

Since we're speaking of quoting ANGS issued statements, here's some direct quotes from statements on the arrival schedule of the £12 million of desperately needed financing, all made by ANGS or George and all from this calendar year:-

"...in the coming two to three weeks, with drawdown shortly thereafter" (25th Jan)
"...imminent" (25th Feb)
"...we believe that we are in the final furlong" (15th March)
"...in the near term" (29th March)

In the light of the above, anyone else thinking that perhaps... just perhaps... we shouldn't be treating what ANGS says as being inevitably accurate and bang on the money then?

The design and content of that very basic (one single page plus a collection of utterly uninspiring piccies on the gallery page) website has indeed been amusingly and cack-handedly cobbled together.

The salon part might be accurate though, given that ANGS has repeatedly shorn investors...

Ocelot being economical with the truth as always, I see. It''s what he with his paid PR hat continually fails to quote from ANGS RNSes and puff pieces which is always of interest.

Specifically supporting my suspicion that there are issues with the value of the security that ANGS can put up, here's the sentence form the same RNS that he omitted to post this time:-

"....for the most part, in near final form. The exception being an Intercreditor Agreement and Security Agency Agreement governing the relationship between all of the Lenders."

I think it's entirely clear what that means.

I personally suspect that the biggest problem with the funding lies in the value of the security that ANGS has available to put up.

This has been indistinctly alluded to in the last financing update RNS. If the estimated value of the security being put up doesn't clearly reach required levels, then lenders are not going to want to commit. Doubly so if more than one lender is involved to come up with the required total - there's going to be massive and potentially irresolvable arguments over who gets first dibs on assets, should the wheels fall off.

This really isn't at all good. I still want to know the REALITY of exactly when the company suddenly realised it needed an additional £12 million to get to first gas - because for months it had informed the market that this was only going to cost £2.5 million (and not take long at all). It strikes me that the market was therefore left labouring under false apprehensions?

And you think UKOG's announcement that it's interested all of a sudden and out of nowhere in geothermal on the back of announcing its latest set of annual results (afer hours... and at an eye-popping £21 million pre-tax loss) is some sort of credibility-building thing??? Get real - Stout Steve has simply taken a leaf of of George's "frantic attempts at misdirection" playbook.

Let me charitably translate that UKOG quote you pasted that into real and truthful English.

"In desperation, we are increasingly active in trying to distract angry investors with our latest pixie dust fairytale, namely geothermal, where we possess the key spin and PR skills necessary to fool more naive PIs out of further funding to pay our fat salaries a bit longer. As well as new unrealisable geothermal projects, in the event of people seeing through that load of old cobblers, we'll then pretend that our oil wells that scarcely produce more than a dribble can be repurposed to simultaneously support geothermal. Along with George at ANGS, we are a founder member of the Hans Christian Andersen Appreciation Society."

Crocqman: "Sadly, the realism for some decent posters here is becoming more aligned with the 'I told you so' brigade"

Well, yes. The smell of the ever increasingly bitter coffee is now so prevalent as to be able to wake even the brain-dead.

However, I'd dispute the usage of the word "decent" to only describe posters who bought into and kept on believing the ANGS fairytale - especially in the face of an ever-increasing mountain of counter evidence.

Firstly, I'm not aware of any dictionary or thesaurus which would maintain that "decent" means "easily fooled" or "gullible". Secondly and to use the word "decent" in any of its correct senses, it is more than justifiable to state that those here who have expressed their ongoing doubts about ANGS, its unrelenting lack of achievements and its invariably missed deadlines and assurances are if anything far more "decent" than those who have eternally waved the ANGS pompoms.

Agreed. As more than a few have realised for some time, two of the biggest skeletons rattling in ANGs's particularly murky closet are:-

The Doriemus deal, which no matter how you look at it, actually caused a reduction in balance sheet/assets value.

When the company actually became aware of the unexpected alleged £12 million shortfall in funding needed to get Poundland to first gas. On this one, there's a very noticeable disconnect between what was officially being announced to market in both RNSes and by ANGS in various interviews and puff pieces, and what George has subsequently said regarding when he first started hunting around for lenders.

Both of the above scream out for investigation - but of course, that's never going to happen. However, both hardly cast any trustworthy light on the company.

Speaking of trustworthiness and dealing solely with the current position, I'd rather like to know answers to the following:-

How long is "imminent"? How long is a "final furlong"? How long is "in the near term"?

Also, how much have "no win, still fee" Aleph and Jason "Hey! It's a new week - I'd better set up another micro company" Joannou been paid so far for their "reasonable due diligence" costs?