Member Info for HeadInTheSand

I must admit that seeing the board take up a pathetic sub �10.5k holding between them out of the open offer was a real surprise. I mean okay, the OO price was hardly a bargain, but the BoD chips in for under a quarter of a percent (by my quick reckoning) of the shares on offer? Doesn't really fill anyone with confidence, I'd guess. Or was that the maximum allowance that they could have taken up? I don't think so, but can't be 100% sure.

So... there's seemingly either going to be a rights issue or the issuance of more bonds over the next 2 months to raise the missing $45m (or $85m)? Both would potentially seem a tad "odd", in the light of recent events - and especially a new bond issue, given that they've just managed to convert over half the existing bonds into equity... but for sure AVN is going to have to do something. Guess we'll know soon enough...

I cannot understand that one teeny little bit either, Cassius. Why go ahead with a right issue in the open offer, which a) was inevitably fated to be massively undersubscribed and b) could only raise maximum 10% of the funding needed by end June to keep the lights on? Is the plan really to rush through another rights issue, once the SP following the D4E swap has found its new level? If so, Avanti's still up to its usual brinkmanship...

In a more normal situation, Oldpa, I'd agree with you every time. However, in terms of looking after its underlying clients' interests, there's an argument that says that Solus propping up AVN for a few extra million (say by committing to the �4.15m of shares that didn't get taken up by PIs under the Open Offer) is better for its clients than letting AVN fail and recovering what it can on their behalf from an asset fire-sale. It's kind of like the old "if you owe the bank �100k, then you've got a problem, but if you owe the bank �100m, then the bank's got a problem." I can't see AVN raising the missing $45m (or $85m) by more normal funding routes any time soon - so, given that they've stated they need this cash by June 30th or the lights get switched off, I can't help but think that they simply must have funding already lined up somehow... I mean can you imagine the hideous barrel that any lender would have them over, given their publicly stated need, if they still haven't got the necessary secured already - and that's even if they could find one? No, I think there must be an as yet unannounced but already agreed arrangement in place. That missing $45m / $85m is just too huge - and too imminent - not to have been sorted out along with the D4E swap. We just need a clear and concise RNS telling us what's been done to defuse the ticking bomb highlighted in the last RNS. (Well... I bloody well hope the above is the case. The alternative is just a tad too scary to consider). JMO

IMD, one of the troubles with BB text posts is that tone is nigh on impossible to convey. "Everyone's favourite McGuru..." As I've posted before, the word "irony" doesn't usually mean "a bit like iron". Good weekend to you and all

I'm sure that Solus will have taken up the �4.16m "spare" shares in the Open Offer - and I'm frankly staggered that PIs dipped into their pockets to the tune of �170k to buy (currently way overpriced) shares. But hey ho... However, far FAR more important is getting a clear answer to this question:- Where's the other c. $45m needed to keep the lights on by end June coming from? Or make that c. $85m if that "infrequently occurring revenue" deal doesn't drop in time? Now I know that some think that Solus is going to stuff its hand in its pocket for those extra megabucks too - but we could do with absolute clarity, not assumption on what is a literally life or death issue.

Great minds think alike Dan.... and I beat you to it by a minute :P Yes that really was a crashingly thick title for an RNS, especially given the iffy state of AVN...

Geez.... they could title their RNSes better, couldn't they??? Enough to give anyone a heart attack!

That's my understanding too. But the point is, it'll be worth more (and potentially 19% of the accumulated losses more) to any company that has or forecasts enough PTP to make use of the offset. Looks like OVO thinks the whole FLOW kit and kaboodle is worth �10m more than Co Op - and apparently if the deal goes through, it pays off Shell in entirety and lessens the hit to those with first dibs (Palm and Lombard). Pis as usual will still get b*gger all.

...to anyone with more braincells than fingers and toes combined what's going on. Palm - who are set to lose millions - have apparently worked out that they'll lose less millions if a sale to OVO can be arranged. OVO of course could utilise the offset of accumulated losses against tax on future profits, should it acquire the Flow POS - so it'd be worth more to them than others. However, if the OVO deal goes through, there's still going to be precisely nothing left to pay out to PIs. Any extra will be swallowed up by Palm and Lombard, who'll by my reckoning still take a bath, albeit not quite such a scalding one as they first feared. Nobody's really getting bamboozled by LSE's completely feckwitted inclusion of an unrelated Dutch company's General Announcements in the RNS list, are they? I mean fer Gawd's sakes, Flow TRADERS is DUTCH and trades on a completely different exchange... how could anyone think the two companies are in any way connected? (...apart from the morons running LSE, obviously).

IMD I make absolutely no judgement or comment of any kind on said individual's recent posted opinion on CTAG, no matter how altered it may now be... As is hardly surprising, I keep an eye on more than just CTAG stocks - so when such a previously voiciferous and prolific CTAG poster happened to pop up elsewhere into my eyeline, I thought I'd share his post as a matter of potential mild historic interest. Hopefully the above brings clarity to your confusion.

Everyone's favourite McGuru has popped back up, frenetically and incessantly posting in support of RLH - guess the only reason can be that he must really love his suspended companies, huh? Anyhow, here are his recent thoughts on CTAG, for whatever they're worth... and I have to add that some of the Mclanguage he uses about RLH in his final paragraphs leads me to a little ironic CTAG nostalgia. Aberdeenman Mon 09:59 Premium Chat Member Pretty much written off my 80k loss on CTAG. As I previously posted what can you do when a CEO lies and deceives? Unbelievable how one man can ruin what could, and should, have been a success story. Still a possibility for some kind of small return there, but not holding my breath given the ineptitude displayed so far. But on RLH it is a different story, very big deal, very large revenue and profit will be generated, and expecting many multiples of the SP in due course. Not long now.

Problem is... easy to buy, but bloody hard to sell at the right time. By the time you can get your sell order fulfilled, as if by magic, the price is right down again, and possibly even south of where you bought in. Bloody MMs. A game for the brave.

Forget day traders.... this POS is an hour trader's dream. Mind you, you need fairly robust cojones, because this could go seriously the wrong way at any time - and once and for all.

Shadow, in my firm belief, no. To utilise the on-book losses to offset corporation tax, it would have to be a business in the same or a very closely related field - which makes sense, or else HMRC would be crying into their pints of shandy as companies repeatedly bought loss-makers anywhere and ended up never paying paid a penny of corp tax.

Reading that post of GCCRa's, is anyone else getting the strangest feeling of deja vu... all over again? JMO.

I think you'll find that the substance contained in the Apr 10th RNS is a whole heap more current and more accurate than anything on Flowgroup's website. "A general meeting of the Company is to be held to approve the Sale (requiring an ordinary resolution); the General Meeting is expected to take place in the second half of April 2018. The Sale is also conditional on the execution of a revised supply agreement between Co-op Energy and Shell in respect of the future terms of energy supply by Shell to Flow Energy The Board has concluded that the Sale represents the best realistic course of action available to the Company under its current constraints; proceeds of the Sale are expected to return a value to ordinary shareholders of �nil." The last word of that copy n pasted quote directly lifted from the Apr 10th RNS is the telling one, sadly...

My thoughts exactly. What the f**k Flow Traders (who are a Dutch company trading on Euronext, not AIM) have to do with Flowgroup beats the hell out of me. Let alone how an announcement from a completely unrelated Dutch Company gets included amongst Flowgroup's actual (and shameful) RNSes and announcements. Hopefully nobody got fooled by this c*ck-up...

IMD, thanks for the clarification that it was the mysterious Mr Bligh, rather than ABH, who announced this. Presumably Amit was too modest to declare this, or something... As to ABH's remuneration over the last 18 months or so since everything disappeared into the peas-souper, neither I nor anyone else external to the CTAG BoD would have the slightest idea - how could we? No recent accounts-based information has been released (nor is it any longer obligatory to do so). So Amit could be on a packet of winegums per decade, or paying himself �1 million per annum or anywhere else in between. Who knows?

I've heard this "fact" being thrown about before... that ABH has "personally" funded CTAG to the tune of "�1 million" since de-list... and that's come from "his own" money... Two questions:- Wasn't the sole source for the above "fact" ABH himself? I believe that's what he stated - and what was duly reported - at the Feb meeting, but I'm not aware of any other verification? However, if this is actually true and he has actually provided funding out "his own" money, what has ABH's remuneration package been from CTAG since de-list (or since the last set of annual accounts were released)?