Member Info for HeadInTheSand

From memory, the D4E swap just addressed the 2023 (biggest) bond issue. The bonds from the two earlier bond issues remain, I believe. If so, holders of those earlier bonds are at the front of any queue forming, should assets get firesold off. I have heard this morning coincidentally that Echostar in particular are watching the potential unfolding of things at AVN with keen interest. They'd see the major value-bearing assets as the frequency bands AVN currently occupies, rather than the in-orbit hardware or the existing AVN customer base/contracts, such as they are.

WM your post makes a number of assumptions about my level of personal experience of "big business" as you term it. Fact-free assumptions are always ipso facto risky, but hey, let's leave that to one side. I'm fine with your own extrapolation from extremely limited data being whatever you want to form it as - that's the thing about extremely limited data... it leaves a multitude of possibilities able to be constructed. Me? I I find it best to work as much as possible with the concrete and the factual... the "knowable", if you like. In my assessment on the usefulness of any source of information, I certainly include that source's track record and history (solely because they're knowable and measurable things). No need to take your metaphorical step back to see some alleged big picture there. As I said before, it's all about each weighing up probabilities - what's the most likely? I'm a fan of Occam's razor - I've said that before too - so, to me in the VAST majority of cases, the simplest and most obvious interpretation turns out to be the correct one. Absolutely my choice of language such as "woolly crumbs" reflects my opinion on both CTAG and the value I ascribe to the information source - what else is it likely to do? You use different - and obviously more positive - language precisely because your own judgement differs so markedly. So yes, I'm no fan of "soon" - it could be taken as a positive statement, for all that it is completely unquantifiable (when does "soon" happen, then? Thee's a movable feast...). And I might also potentially take it in a more positive light, were it not for evidenced issues of track record and demonstrable prior (in)accuracy of the source. As to which of us is showing more "common sense"? Well again obviously we'll both think that we ourselves are - and on that basis, neither of us will give a flying wossname about whatever the other moron thinks. Others can decide for themselves on this (if they can be bothered).

WM, no it was during your fraught discussions with K27M that you kept repeating your deadline, actually. So, apologies but nope I'm not taking anything in the slightest out of context here, I'm afraid. Look, it's entirely your prerogative to change your mind on what you consider to be an acceptable timescale, you know? So, you've moved your very clearly and repeatedly stated line in the sand from the end of H1 to some time later. That's completely fair enough - you really don't need to pretend now that your much-repeated deadline was some sort of joke, because to perform such an obvious u-turn and then claim i t was all tongue in cheek just smakes you look a tad silly, IMO. And hey anyway, it seemed to quell some of the discussion back then about an EGM, so that'll have suited you too. Again, feel entirely free to make your own judgement on whatever ABH means by "soon" and whatever is acceptable to you by that. However, please allow others the exact same luxury - and as stated previously, please don't try to insist that "soon" means anything measurable or concrete. It just really doesn't. As to any other speculation, go to it.... 14th generation blockchain this, proof of work that, nonce this, cryptocurrency that, buzzword this, buzzword that.... whatever floats your boat. Maybe as you're keen to imply ABH has some massively exciting and strategically huge deal being lined up and under NDA and that's the only reason he's not saying anything. Or maybe he has in fact got absolutely nothing tangible at all to say. That's the trouble with silence - you can make the entire absence of firm evidence the basis of whatever story you want. As can I or anyone else. People just need to decide what they think is most likely by looking at history (which is at least visible and substantive) and assigning whatever weight they like to the woolly crumbs currently being dropped from the CTAG table - and presumably you wouldn't begrudge them their right to that decision.

Erm WM.... Not quite sure what I'm meant to have started? However, it seems to have struck a chord. At what point does one become the only person still in step? Anyhow... "How freaking hard is it to interpret SOON" Presuming that's a serious question (and I'll give you the respect of supposing it is), the answer is "absolutely impossible", because it's an entirely comparative and subjective term with absolutely no concrete meaning whatsoever. If one could ask a mayfly "how long is soon?", you'd probably get an answer of 5 minutes. Ask a geologist, and you might hear an answer of just 50 million years or so. In fact, WM your own definition of "soon" seems to have already shifted from "end H1" to "some time after that". Which is why I think it'd be nice for PIs to hear something just a teensy bit more concrete, rather than dressed up in deliberately woolly and thus unaccountable language. But hey, carry on with the speculation party...why not?

To be fair, I'm no Warren Buffet, so my suggested wording for an immediate RNS is hardly rocket science... getting something out that stated what I was suggesting or wording to that effect MUST already have occurred to the bigwigs on the AVN board and their advisers. The fact that they haven't (yet, at least) issued such an obvious RNS is my biggest current concern. about AVN. Why wouldn't they do so? Unless they STILL haven't sorted any resolution for their $50m/$90m short-term funding needs... 40 days to go till end of H1. AVN sure has a tiresomely ongoing habit of brinkmanship, which hardly makes for a stress-free ride as far as the PI is concerned.

I suppose it's mildly noteworthy that there's still speculation on CTAG - though said speculation is spinning off into equally notably distant realms. Here's a jaw-droppingly novel proposal. Rather than the illuminati hypothesizing to the nth degree, how about the company telling those who've funded it clearly and concisely what its strategy designed to deliver a PI return now is and how far it's got? That'd save reams and reams and reams of theorizing. Oh and please... answers of "The clues are all there!" or "Just read between the lines!" really aren't valid responses. This isn't some second-rate murder mystery novel and shouldn't be treated as such. A simple cut to the chase... "Dear CTAG. You've had our money on the basis that you promised a return. How about you let investors know how you're doing with making good on that promise?" Separately, presumably the faithful have moved their personal deadlines back to end Q3 now? or maybe end 2018? Or H1 2019? Frankly, I've not been paying much attention and have lost track with recent frenetic goalpost-moving...

Buko, yes it's a given that there are possibilities of negotiation and extension of payment terms. However, as we all know, AVN's April 9th RNS states:- "Furthermore, if the Restructuring completes but the Company is unable to raise Additional Funds of at least US$50 million and secure US$40 million infrequently recurring revenue in pipeline by 30 June 2018 then based on the projected cash flows of the Group, the Company will, within the 3 months following 30 June 2018, be highly likely to be unable to pay its creditors, as and when they fall due for payment. In the event that the Company is unable to meet such obligations as a result of the failure of the Restructuring to complete or the failure to raise sufficient Additional Funds, the Directors would likely seek to place the Company into some form of insolvency proceeding, or a creditor may take action to enforce or initiate an insolvency proceeding. Any such proceeding would be likely to result in little or no value for Shareholders." The oddity is that it is the company itself that has stated the firm deadline of June 30th. It needs the $50m of extra funding and the $40m "infrequently recurring revenue" to drop, both by June 30th, or it'll be unable SOMETIME DURING Q3 to meet its already incurred debts. To me that suggests it must have a substantially large payment to make in early July, which it doesn't have the funds (currently) to cover. Maybe that's the final payment following successful in-orbit testing for Hylas-4. Either way, my view remains that:- 1. AVN has been obliged to alert the market itself via RNS to its current funding issues. 2. AVN has itself specified the deadline (Jun 30th) by which these funding issues must be coverfed or otherwise resolved. 3. AVN therefore has a clear and equal obligation to inform the market - again via RNS - on how it is resolving or has resolved these issues. In fact IMV, it would be very sensible - if true - for AVN to issue an RNS right now stating something like:- "With reference to the company's short term funding needs detailed in the RNS dated 9th April, the AVN BoD would like to inform all investors that it has made significant progress towards the complete resolving of these and has every confidence that such resolution will be finalised in an apt and timely fashion. Further detail will be announced when arrangements are finalised."

39MA... hold on just one cotton-pickin' second here! "HITS, despite his antisocial ego...." ANTISOCIAL EGO??? MOI??? Honestly! I mean okay there have been one or two occasions in the past where people have accused me of being egocentric... ...but hey, enough about them.

JTIS... That is the $50m - or possibly the $90m - problem-ette which AVN was obliged to make the market aware of as part of its Apr 9th RNS. It is completely separate from and additional to the D4E swap that has been approved. To date, no further news of any sort regarding this ever more urgent (at least from a timescale in which required POV) funding need has been communicated by the company - apart from the news that the Open Offer raised about $200k (the AVN Apr 27th RNS) I'm certain that like you, any genuine AVN PI who isn't certifiably insane would be at least somewhat keen to get some official clarity from on how its self-announced funding gap is going to be met (or has now been met), in order for it to be able keep the lights on. Of course, one or two allegedly genuine PIs refuse to even give this any thought at all, despite it being an AVN-announced issue. 44 days till the end of June and counting...

Although probably fairly modest in value, absolutely the type of opportunity that AVN should be aiming at - at least from a geographical point of view. Satellite broadband is invariably the connectivity option of last resort (from every point of view, whether cost- or performance-based etc etc) BUT... where there is literally no other option - and in territories like Africa, that's a very sizeable "where" - it absolutely has a role to play and requirements to fill, because it will do the job adequately where no other delivery technology can even be considered for a deployment with any chance of a commercial return.

Still frantically avoiding the question, I see, GCCRa... Any PI genuinely invested in AVN would be most keen for clarity on the issue raised... unless brain-dead or faith blind. So which are you? Brain-dead? Blindly faithful? Or perhaps not a genuine PI at all?

GCCRa, you've posed no question. Kinda hard to answer it then. What you have done - as usual - is gone straight for your "multiple ID troll" myth, which is needless to say farcical. How unsurprising that unjustified insult is the only resort of those without any argument. You mention questions being avoided. You're accidentally right there... I asked you what your opinion was on what is being done - or what has been done - to remedy the AVN self-announced minimum $49m shortfall (46 days and counting). I'd remind you that this is a question solely based on information released by AVN via RNS on 26th April and unadded to since. Again unsurprisingly, you've chosen to shut your eyes, block your ears and shout la la la, rather than venture an answer to something unpalatable but nonetheless real.

Matt, you may be right. I had presumed that anybody permanently insisting that everything was unbelievably and eternally wonderful in the world of Avanti and that there were no possible doubts of such or questions needing raising and answering could not in all sanity actually believe this - especially after the company's Apr 26th RNS. I'ms surprised that arrant stupidity and/or confirmation bias could run so deep, but hey it takes all sorts, I guess. I'd still like news on: a) what's being/been done to secure the funding shortfall (47 days to go) b) some appropriate fat new vertical market contracts in geographies that make sense. Governments/telcos/major corps operating in Africa would be extremely encouraging, for example. Knowing what footprints Hylas-4 was intended to have well in advance must have meant that such things were at least provisionally being discussed and/or negotiated in advance - so hopefully some positive news will be due out before any self-announced axe is liable to fall?

Dan, that's good of you. No offence taken and no apology necessary, but thanks for the clarification. My reaction was not directed your way either, really... instead I was referring to GCCRa's tritely insulting post with the tired old "Evil shorter! Paid troll!" schtick he comes out with whenever anyone dares raise questions - no matter how well-founded - on AVN. His tactic of "when incapable of any sensible reply, instantly play the man, not the ball" does get a tad tiresome when repeated for the billionth time.. ATB.

What's truly laughable is that any slightly concerned opinion from a shareholder (yes I am an AVN shareholder) with some experience of the VSat industry (yes I have some) is instantly leapt upon and savaged by the blindly faithful in a classic ad hominem attempt to discredit.. I would suggest that such frantic attempts to stifle reasonable and evidence-backed questions is a far more likely sign of those with malign agendas... except much more along the ramptastic line. I've tended to find that most adults don't believe that blind and unquestioning faith forms a good basis for any investment strategy... but hey, that's just my opinion. GCCRa - if you have a worthwhile opinion on what AVN is doing - or has done - to find the millions of dollars of funding that it itself announced that it needed to secure by end June, please feel free to share. As a final note, posting the above question can hardly be called "negative trash" by anyone with more than half a braincell, being as it is based solely upon the contents of an AVN-issued RNS... ..but I of course do acknowledge your right to block your ears, shut your eyes and shout la la la at the top of your voice, if you think that's a more effective and reasoned approach.

Precisely my point earlier. AVN's involvement with BW is both teeny from a revenue point of view, consumer-based and old news... so why bother waving it about like it's new and significant? AVN must know - and I'm sure they do - that their success or failure absolutely does not depend on delivering multiple individual/primarily consumer connections through resellers in the UK - or IMO in Western Europe as a whole. So let's hope we hear about major vertical contract wins in far more appropriate geographies. Time is after all ticking by.

Tyche, you miss my point. Yes of course it's good news that a major outfit like Bentley Walker ranges Avanti (although this is not new news). However, to post a link showing that an arm of Bentley Walker is amongst 130 other approved suppliers to the UK Government's Better Broadband Subsidy Scheme is neither in the least new news nor in the least significant IMO. I'm all for new, interesting and significant info being posted on AVN - and hopefully of a positive nature. GCCR's post IMV failed to make the grade on all three fronts. However - and please note - That's not to say that new, interesting and significant info does not or will not exist. No axe to grind from me, but balance/relevance would be nice from others. Gettit?

GCCRa, this is hardly news. Of any sort. Bentley Walker (which is behind the Freedomsat Europe brand) has been supplying Avanti Sat broadband services for years alongside its Tooway offerings and has been one of a number of approved satellite/wireless/4G broadband providers to BDUK's Better Broadband Subsidy Scheme since that scheme's inception at the back end of 2015. There are by now roughly 130 approved suppliers to said scheme, although most only operate on a local/regional basis. You can find that full and often updated list here:- https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/community-led-broadband-schemes/suppliers I have no clue why people still look to the UK as an important and broad-based market for satellite broadband - it isn't. It might be worth looking at SSW (the biggest sat broadband UK player by far), its recent moves into other technologies and seeing if there's any way you can find out its current UK sat customer churn rate (it ain't at all pretty). As a reseller, Bentley Walker already knows this - with the vast majority of its sat broadband revenues coming out of the Middle East and Africa . AVN also seems to have worked this out - cf its attendance at the imminent East Africa show. As before, if people are looking for viable markets for AVN bandwidth, you're best off looking a LOT further afield than Western Europe. So, with respect, brandishing old hat news about a speedily declining and frankly now inappropriate geographic market for Avanti actually just makes you look desperate... straw-clutching, anyone? AIMO of course.

Although in any agreed take-over situation, the acquirer normally assumes the financial and contractual liabilities of the acquiree, this is not in my understanding true of any liabilities that may result from legal action. Normally the seller's BoD have jointly and individually to warrant that they know of no possibility of impending tortious action and as such, should a legal/fraud case then occur, it's the old BoD that bears responsibility.. . ...oh and potentially the FLOW Nomad as well, if it has failed in its obligatory due diligence to check to a degree of reasonableness that the content of any RNSes issued by the previous BoD were accurate and true... ...rather than just piles of deliberately crafted steaming horse droppings, designed to knowingly mislead investors and thus make financial gain by deception.

Laguerre... I'd respectfully suggest that you learn to appreciate the difference between theory and fact. Let's take a second to look at the evidence. And let's solely stick to that evidence which should be reliable - namely that communicated by the company via RNS. (I say "should", because after all, this is AIM. However...) It is a trivial matter to find the statement (repeated more than once) within the April 9th RNS issued by the company that categorically and baldly stated that, even if the D4E swap got approved (which it did), the company needs a further $50m of funding by end June 2018 in order to survive - or possibly a further $90m if a chunk of "infrequently occurring revenue" doesn't arrive in time. It's irrelevant why the company included that statement, beyond the fact that is can be presumed to be true and accurate. I won't bore everyone by copy & pasting from that RNS - it's there to read, Since that point, only one set of fund-raising has been announced, together with the results of such... the Open Offer, which looked to raise up to �4.33m (= $5.85m) but which actually raised raised �170k (= $230k). That was revealed by the company in its Apr 27th RNS, which again I won't bother copy & pasting from. Yes there's been PI speculation on the above company-stated funding shortfall... a thing that's just a tad important... but that hardly means that this issue is "covered" and has been put to bed. I'm afraid that your continual yelling of "THAT'S ALREADY BEEN COVERED" simply seems to translate as "I DON'T WANT TO THINK ABOUT THAT". However, in case I'm wrong, do please feel free to point out where the company has provided information as to how it is going to secure - or how it has secured - the $47.8 million minimum of extra funding (or possibly $87.8 million) which it itself has stated that it requires within the next 50 days. Thanks in advance.