Member Info for HeadInTheSand

When you say 1p coming, presumably you're talking about the overall market cap?

I've no idea. How long is the expected lifespan of the universe?

What I would advise though, given their unwaveringly appalling track record when it comes to giving and meeting estimated time schedules, is that you don't put any such question to George or any member of the ANGS BoD.

So Ocelot says this morning... "Am looking for a considerably higher share price than 1.5p this year and, indeed, within a shorter time horizon than that."

I'll charitably forget the fact that this is the exact same sort of pipedream which he's continually been maintaining for months and months and simply ask what possible justification is there for such an opinion?

And any answer (I won't be holding my breath) should of course take into account the equally valid fact there's still no sign of the urgently needed £12 million of finance funding which George sprang on the market was so suddenly anddesperately needed (and in so doing, going against all previous assurances and estimates of cash requirements).

Plus of course the again easily verifiable fact that, despite having so far raised and spent tens of millions of pounds of investor-supplied funding, no ANGS board, past or present, has ever delivered on anything it has promised, nor ever hit a time schedule it has announced.

Again one can only be left with the conclusion that such bizarre announced expectations of the SP rising must solely arise from PR-inspired motivation. Because there is literally nothing within reality to justify such.

gkb thanks, but I'd not forgotten them. I simply limited myself to economies with the truth that ANGS have stated this calendar year.

I fully agree that all your cited examples - again all from the horse's mouth and quoted verbatim - are equally exactly on point, entirely supporting the view that throughout its entire history ANGS has never once delivered on anything at all, despite repeated estimates and "assurances" to the contrary.

However, if I were to post all examples of where ANGS or its directors have made statements and assurances, or given promises and estimates all of which have turned out to be just plain factually inaccurate, that'd quite literally pretty much consist of every single public statement via any comms vehicle that the company has ever made...

...and Ocelot's back, after manful efforts trying to promote the latest UKOG pump n dump.

It's more than a little amusing that Ocelot levels the criticism that someone's posts are endlessly repetitive spewings of archival material. As we all know, all Ocelot ever does is endlessly repost snippets of ANGS statements that sound superficially positive, but which on even a brief examination are just more substance-free puff, spin and pixie dust and which as a result of course never come to anything at all.

One can only be left with the conclusion that he/she's either on the ANGS payroll or works for Flagstaff, the company's long-suffering PR agency that does its level but futile best to polish the unpolishable.

..and of course - as RT003 conveniently omits to say - all the short-term traders infesting this stock that pretend to be long-term holders spend much time and effort frantically trying to talk the SP up whenever it suits their particular buying cycle. As do the fair few company shills on here.

Which is - again of course - why one needs to look at confirmed and verifiable facts and evidence. I would simply ask three things:-

1. Please name one single, tangible and above all, real thing that ANGS has ever achieved, whether under previous boards of directors or the current incumbents, that has delivered any value whatsoever for shareholders in return for the tens of millions of investor funds that the company has spent and continues to spend?

2. In very similar vein, please name one publicly announced assurance or estimate that the company has ever kept to?

3. Finally, please inform what you consider the difference to be between the latest and continually varying pronouncements of the incumbent MD regarding the schedule on raising the very unexpectedly needed £12 million of financing for Poundland?

"...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)

Rampers and derampers of course exist - but ignoring them and their agendas, I find that facts tend to speak very clearly for themselves.

As yet another day has dribbled by with yet again no news on confirmed funding, I do wonder how long it will take people to get actively incandescent with utterly righteous fury at George's decidedly unwise usage this calendar year of phraseology such as:-

"...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)

As by now everybody not in some way on the company payroll accepts, none of the provably inaccurate puff and spin above makes the slightest blind bit of difference - in fact it's counter-productive. ANGS really doesn't need to set yet more time estimates that it then invariably misses.

So forget the PR puff, George... nobody's buying it and every time such substance-free nonsense is issued, all it does is make the company look even less credible (though by this stage it's getting hard to imagine how ANGS's credibility could get any lower).

Instead show us the money. Literally nothing else will do.

So Ocelot has decided to parrot the last RNS and has posted this "In the last furlong ... see you at the finish post".

Really? Others may think on the fact that, despite having raised and spent tens of millions of investor pounds, ANGS has so far delivered on precisely nothing throughout its history, whether under previous boards of directors or indeed the current one. To continue the horseracing analogy, it would therefore be much more accurate to state that the ANGS pantomime horse still remains firmly stuck jammed tight in the starting gate, even after all this time and expense.

As to "the final furlong"? Again, given ANGS's recorded progress (or rather, entire lack of it) to date, others may think - to stick with the metaphor - that the ongoing lack of any news on the desperately needed £12 million of finance would suggest much more strongly that the course vet is about to erect screens around the broken-down ANGS nag and put the poor thing out of its misery once and for all.

And finally, this expression as used by ANGS in its recent RNS... "in the final furlong"? Here's a copy n paste from an earlier post of mine of this morning.

******

Separately, I'd REALLY like to ask George the difference in meaning and the exact timescales he intended to convey, when he has separately and recently used the following terms to describe the schedule on the confirmed arrival of said direly needed financing:-

1. "in the coming two to three weeks, with drawdown shortly thereafter" (25th Jan RNS)

2. "Imminent" (25th Feb Malcy Interview)

2. "We believe that we are in the final furlong" (15th March answer to investor question)

3. "In the near term" (29th March RNS)

Anyone else hearing nothing other than the sound of a much-battered can being frantically kicked down a dry and dusty road?

Ocelot, do you never stop?

"In the last furlong ... see you at the finish post." Really... by now, it's looking a lot more likely that a vet will have to come out onto curse, erect screens round the collapsed ANGS nag and put it out of its misery.

"Final furlong"? Don't make me laugh. Despite having raised and spent tens of millions of investor pounds, the ANGS pantomime horse is still firmly jammed in the starting gate - what, pray tell, has the company actually ever delivered?

Let me quote from a post I made just this morning regarding the words of the invariably positive "jam's just around the corner - honest!" Georgie Porgie - it says it all.

Separately, I'd like to ask George the difference in meaning and the exact timescales he intended to convey, when he has separately and recently used the following terms to describe the confirmed arrival of said direly needed financing:-

1. "in the coming two to three weeks, with drawdown shortly thereafter" (25th Jan RNS)

2. "Imminent" (25th Feb Malcy Interview)

2. "We believe that we are in the final furlong" (15th March answer to investor question)

3. "In the near term" (29th March RNS)

Anyone else hearing nothing other than the sound of a much-battered can being frantically kicked down a dry and dusty road?

Indeed, gkb. The ongoing non-appearance of any confirmed and locked in financing causes ever-increasing concerns.

By this stage, I can only believe that any potentially interested party prepared to stump up some of the financing must have issues with the value of the security being offered by ANGS to derisk such financing. This is actually alluded to in the latest RNS, with its mention of argy-bargy between potential lenders over who would get first charge on any asset in the event of the wheels finally falling off the ANGS bus. I imagine that first charge would be an absolute essential for any lender - and given that no lender seems prepared to offer the full amount, that's not going to be an easily resolved situation.

Separately, I'd like to ask George the difference in meaning and the exact timescales he intended to convey, when he has separately and recently used the following terms to describe the confirmed arrival of said direly needed financing:-

1. "in the coming two to three weeks, with drawdown shortly thereafter" (25th Jan RNS)

2. "Imminent" (25th Feb Malcy Interview)

2. "We believe that we are in the final furlong" (15th March answer to investor question)

3. "In the near term" (29th March RNS)

Anyone else hearing nothing other than the sound of a much-battered can being frantically kicked down a dry and dusty road?

If it's all the same to you Ocelot, given your own track record of accuracy when pronouncing on ANGS - and how is that £20 million you told us all was on the table coming along by the way? - I'll await the official RNS confirming results of the 15 million share placing, including (if announceable) who acquired them, how much was paid, and what the net proceeds are.

Geez. Nobody's still trying to peddle the £20 million myth, are they?

For the umpteenth time, despite what the cheerleading squad would try to have people believe, there's not £20 million and there's never been any question of £20 million. Not even Pinocchio George has tried to pretend it's £20 million.

...and why did the company feel it necessary to go ahead with what was only ever a conditional and non-obligatory placing to raise an absolute maximum of just £150k (and that's pre-costs), when it has repeatedly assured investors that it's on the very point of securing £12 million of financing?

...and now Ocelot weighs in by quoting some meaningless piece of "jam tomorrow" company puff and spin, no doubt to try to move this awkward thread down the reading list.

These people are so obvious...

And here's ANGS's long-suffering PR agency posting on this BB, doing its level yet futile best to polish we all know what...

Hey, Flagstaff PR? How about you do something useful and get the company to confirm the actual price at which these 15 million shares (plus attached warrants) are being placed?

And while you're at it, maybe suggest to George that he really should justify why investors should have to be diluted yet again, when an incoming £12 million is allegedly just around the corner?

I would further point out that today's RNS does not specifically confirm the price at which these new shares will be placed. Yes it refers to the Feb 1st RNS, but it does not confirm the price.

Remember that yesterday's passed resolutions merely allow ANGS to issue more shares and place them at any price it wants or needs to.

The point about why yet another diluting action should still be taken, when we've been repeatedly assured that the arrival of £12 million of financing funds is "imminent" remains...

The shares were meant to be issued at a price of 1p, according to the Feb 1st RNS. However at that stage, the whole transaction was conditional, awaiting AGM resolutions being passed, and the SP then was above 1p.

I'll wait to hear info on what price these new shares (plus accompanying warrants) actually get placed at, in the light of today's SP being 25+% lower.

Is anyone honestly in the least surprised? As JamesTheSecond posted yesterday, the AGM vote gave ANGS further ability to mug shareholders... and they're exercised that ability with eye-popping rapidity, not even letting 24 hours pass.

Two things seem pretty evident therefore.

1. The company is desperate for cash. Yet again.

2. The BoD clearly isn't expecting an injection of £12 million of raised finance funding any time soon.

As I said, no surprise there then.

Well... it certainly explains why he was so keen to peddle the "funding is oversubscribed" myth as he tried to get his marginal gain.

I have no objection to people short-term trading this or any other share. It's a perfectly valid way to make money - and let's face it, plenty of AIM stocks are the kiss of death for anyone ever being led to believe they should be a long-term shareholder (ANGS being a just perfect example of something that should have never been viewed as any sort of long-term investment).

What I do find more irksome is short-term traders popping onto bulletin boards to spout spin and just plain falsehoods as they try to exit with their few percentage points of profit. It's bad enough that boards of directors are so regularly wildly inaccurate and "economical with the truth" with any market-issued information, without having squads of entirely self-interested and deliberately misleading cheerleaders backing their non-facts up.

Stating the obvious here, but...

Of course it's up to each individual PI to invest wherever they like and on whatever basis they like and with whatever gain/loss criteria they set for themselves. That is a complete given.

Where things get murkier however is when a company continually issues information to the market that repeatedly turns out to be wildly inaccurate. Given that such just plain wrong info may have formed part of the basis of any investor choosing to invest, this is without a doubt worth comment.

Also equally worth comment is when bulletin board posters (who may be genuine long-term PIs or short-term traders pretending to be such, or company mouthpieces pretending to be invested - all three types clearly post on the ANGS BB) start misrepresenting information and/or attempting to mislead - regardless of whether deliberately or unknowingly. This also happens all too often on this and other share bulletin boards.

I'm by now very jaded with ANGS - but agree (as usual) with Crocqman. It is only about Poundland. Period. Nothing else is going to save the company so nothing else matters. However, the huge slippages in schedules combined with the massive unforeseen increases in start-up costs required to get to first gas and most of all, the board's recent desperate attempts to point to alternative and frankly irrelevant & distracting projects make me fear that by now they already know that Poundland is absolutely nothing like the low-hanging fruit that they thought they were buying.