Member Info for HeadInTheSand

..except when it comes to ****ging off people who've had the audacity to choose a different horse to the one you prefer. Then you're not shy about judging at all, it seems. Personally, I think both nags are almost certainly glue factory fodder - but hey, what do I know?

WM, if by "trolling" this BB, you're referring to my frequently expressing an opinion based on experience in B2C and B2B IT-related markets that all did/does not stack up with CTAG, then yes, that's exactly true. Was/is that a bad thing? As to accusations against your good self? None, apart from double standards, which I've laid out with crystal clarity. Vociferously accusing someone of "being played" by an individual, while simultaneously treating as gospel every pronouncement from a source multiply proven to be utterly unreliable? What would you call that? Would you prefer "blinkered"? Of course, what's truly ironic - as I've said before - is that I wouldn't bother with an EGM either... it's just that I have a very different basis for coming to that decision.

WM, the double standards are amusing. According to you, K27M is a dunce for "being played" by Alon Moss - and who knows, maybe that is occurring? However, is it not just as possible that anyone continuing to believe ABH's still unsubstantiated statements and worse, both presenting these as gospel to a wider audience and thumping the ABH tub as hard as possible, is equally "being played" - but I'm sure not "being paid". Presuming what's been revealed here about AM is accurate, I wouldn't trust him one bit. But I also wouldn't trust ABH one bit - in fact less so, because I can easily establish beyond doubt and without relying on any 3rd party sources that he's been at best wildly and repeatedly inaccurate with many of his claims in the past about CTAG. If you can't grasp that, then please do carry on with the petty insults. That's always the only resort of those without a sustainable argument, as is becoming obvious...

Hex, WM "having never represented any shareholders", yet attending the meeting remains a question that's been avoided. I think ABH has pulled the classic "appeal to vanity" hustle - so invite someone to a meeting, tell them to take accurate notes of whatever unsubstantiated claims he and Bligh make there, then insist on making sure that said notes accurately convey all unsubstantiated claims... classic stuff. Making someone feel very important and a member of the inner sanctum... almost the perfect definition of someone "being played", in my view. What's actually funny is that because said notes (which I personally absolutely believe to be a completely accurate rendition of all the unsubstantiated claims made) were checked by ABH and Bligh, then turned into a PDF (OMG... a pdf!), some bizarrely believe that these notes have some form of legal weight or consequence. Err, no. They really aren't board meeting minutes. Now of course, because that vanity's being challenged, we're seeing all the furious ad hominem attacks... playing the man, not the ball. Elsewhere, comparing Tim to AbMan is IMO like comparing Mother Theresa to Stalin.

What I find curious in this is the presumption that one simply must back one of two horses... and if someone else backs the one you didn't choose, then they're obviously howlingly naive and are "being played", because they're clearly not as smart as you. My view? Absolutely nobody still or previously connected with CTAG has earned the slightest shred of credibility or trustworthiness - quite the reverse in fact. So by backing either of those two horses, surely you should at least acknowledge the possibility that you too are "being played". I'm not surprised that ABH and Moss have fallen out. Completely separately, isn't there an old proverb that says there's no honour among thieves? AIMO.

IamnotS... Yes I hold a completely insignificant number of CTAG shares. As to why I still post here, for me (and I don't expect anybody else necessarily to adopt the same stance), I think it's kind of a grudging and largely helpless fascination - a bit like having sat through most of a really badly plotted and very long movie full of ridiculous twists and turns, so deciding that come what may, you'll stay to the end, just to see what finally happens. As to superiority complex, a few people who know me might indeed maintain that I'm egotistical... but hey, enough about them. ATB

At last a reply that hangs together. Yes, we both know that we differ diametrically on CTAG's condition and prospects, which will doubtless affect the course of action we're most liable to support (obviously). (Actually I wouldn't call an EGM either, but solely because I think it's pointless ,- so, same conclusion, different reasons). As for other PIs? Up to them of course, but I reckon it's just a question of when their totally justifiable frustration outweighs their (IMO totally groundless) fear of screwing something up. Not even the biggest Amit fanboys (and fangirls) can have blind patience that'll last forever.

So to paraphrase, you haven't necessarily got a problem with PI appetite for an EGM being canvassed, but you've got issues with who's doing the canvassing. (I think that's what you're saying). I agree in principle that lobbying to put a p*ssed off ex employee onto the BoD doesn't sound too bright for all the obvious possible axe grinding reasons. However I also still think that the current incumbent(s) on the BoD cannot be allowed to continue with the same absence of unsubstantiated information. But if PIs believe they're best off exactly as things stand, so be it.

Doug you may ask and no. I know what a Twitter group is - but know nothing of what this Twitter group is, who's in it and what its objectives are. Because you've shown some smarts before now, may I in return simply ask:- What downsides do you yourself potentially see - if any - in canvassing support for the calling of an EGM? And can we please avoid any reference to Moss in your reply. Separately, I'd be interested in opinions on who Bligh represents and why his attendance was justified at the Feb meeting, Just throwin' it out there...

Starting error. You presume I knew K27M was part of whatever the Twitter group is.

PS I also don't get this partially applied critical thinking. Now sure, if Alon Moss is a disgruntled ex employee, I too wouldn't trust a word he said. That's just common sense. However IMV it's the same common sense not to trust a word that ABH says either - because he's probably been at best and repeatedly wildly inaccurate in the past. It's utterly bizarre to (quite rightly) view the statements of one with deep scepticism and yet view the pronouncements of the other as totally bankable gospel truth. Me? Given the massive murkiness surrounding CTAG, I'll only pay attention to facts, not claims.

DougB, you've got this one wrong. I'd not heard of Moss prior to this thread - though granted others clearly had. No faux pas there. Regardless of whether K27M's agenda went further than revealed on here - and remember this BB is most PIs' sole source of information, mine included - the question he publicly asked was merely for any PIs potentially interested in calling an EGM to email in to some address. He further asked for any sensible reasons as to why an EGM - and let me stress, NOT an EGM to appoint Moss to the BoD - would be a bad thing. That's all. No more. Cue the million off topic responses... Now I won't be emailing in expressing an interest in any EGM being called, because I think it's pointless as I've already said. But I also can't see why it'd do any harm.

Dougal, re the obvious massively splintered factionalism amongst Lord knows how many different "covert" shareholder groups, I couldn't agree more with you - in theory at least. A unity of approach - or at worst, full disclosure of what people in the various groups know, or think they know - would be ideal. Sadly I doubt it has a cat's chance in Hell of ever happening. There's too many who are as you rightly say ego-driven, running around gossiping and so obsessed with their own sense of self-importance at what they think they know... Me? I'm delighted I'm not part of any "covert group" and thus avoid the playground politics. WM, you say that Moss "has now been advised not to get in contact"... advised by whom? And I am of course oh so certain that K27M is so grateful for your revelation that he's been played. However, the whole Moss/NED thing remains a complete irrelevance and distraction. That didn't form the slightest partnof the very simple question posed by K27M... a question that remains entirely unanswered, despite all the amateur MI5 puff and bluster. "Where's the harm?" I'm still not holding my breath...

WM, as I've already said, nobody IN THIS THREAD apart from yourself has raised the possibility of Moss being a candidate for NED. Now obviously, I am not party to any meetings or communications you may have had or been made aware of outside of this BB - nor frankly do I care. As Gaffy has said, so many people are running around in the background with so many little whispers and agendas that it really is ike a bad spy B movie. As to my opinion? Clearly expressed already if you'd bother to read, instead of getting so strangely het up. Given my own view of CTAG, I don't believe an EGM would achieve anything of use. However, I cannot see the harm in PIs being canvassed to see if they are in favour of one, nor can I see the harm in one being called, if that's what enough PIs want (no matter how valueless an EGM if called might be). Again, what's the downside? What are you so scared of? If ABH truly is the honest and gifted wonderboy that you so vigorously and continuously promote like some latterday John the Baptist on amphetamines, where for the love of God is the problem? It is after all an incredibly simple question, one that K27M posed right back at the beginning when he wrote:- "I have yet to see a single sensible opinion as to why this is something we shouldn't do." There's not been a single sensible opinion given in answer to that yet, just reams and reams of smoke and mirrors, misdirection, irrelevances and fearmongering being frantically spread about. I won't hold my breath.

WM, you carry on busily misrepresenting and fervently manipulating to your own agenda. First off, a simple re-read of this thread shows immediately that I've never suggested Alon Moss - or indeed anyone else - as a candidate for an NED role. Why would I? I'd not heard of this bloke until a day or so ago and yes, it's crushingly obvious that an apparently disgruntled ex-employee wouldn't be a wise choice. If you're going to play the man, not the ball, you'll have to be a little sharper than that to undermine the credibility of those whose opinions don't fit your agenda. In fact, nobody's suggested the possibility of Mr Moss having an NED role in this thread... except your good self, because you seem to believe that this is an inherent (though unmentioned) possibility within K27M's proposal. This is the second time, WM, that you've been "economical with the truth"... and that's putting it kindly. I still note your fervent declaration that "I HAVE NEVER REPRESENTED ANY SHAREHOLDERS, NOPE- NEVER EVER". Which begs the question - already asked and already avoided - as to the capacity in which you attended the Feb "informal chat" and took notes. On that point of notes from an "informal chat" - to use your chosen term - whyever would you refer me to legislation dealing with the legal status of minutes of directors' meetings? I thought this was an "informal chat" that you attended, and not a CTAG board meeting. Was the other director present? Yet another red herring to mislead -and as I said, I think people's true colours are now showing through. Again, the sole question asked (at least openly) has been... "Do PIs have an appetite to consider calling an EGM?" The very posing of such a simple question seems to have thrown some into a misdirecting tizzy... quelle surprise.

Dougb, my sole reaction here is one of irritation at those - either unwittingly or deliberately - trying to cloud what was a very simply posed question. Do shareholders have an appetite to call an EGM? If so, please email whatever the given address was. Suddenly we're snowed under with reports of separate meetings, people desperately putting up utterly irrelevant straw man arguments, beatifying ABH while demonizing Alon Moss, solely on ABH's claims, playing the man and not the ball when it comes to reacting to those with different opinions on courses of actions. I personally give zero credence to anything ABH, Bligh or Moss state, regardless of how faithfully and accurately reported. But all of that's irrelevance and misdirection and I wonder at the motivation behind such frantically misplaced efforts As to what an EGM might achieve? Well, if I'm right about CTAG - and my view has never wavered - absolutely nothing.positive, apart from potentially and finally delivering clarity to PIs. However, I acknowledge that I might be wrong about CTAG and if I am, then an EGM would potentially and positively deliver clarity to PIs. You've asked me, where's the good in calling an EGM. Let me ask you the reverse question... where's the harm in calling an EGM that solely looks to obtain clarity and nothing more? If ABH is on the point of success and about to make himself and PIs bazillions, he's hardly going to jack it in in a fit of pique, is he?

Fine. Presuming that's an accurate report, I'm perfectly prepared to accept that Alon Moss is equally as untrustworthy as ABH, also trying to run an agenda for his personal gain. That doesn't matter. There's no resolution on the table proposing that Alon Moss be appointed NED, CEO, tealady or anything. All that's on the table - leaving aside wild speculation - is a possible EGM. Anything else is white noise... at best irrelevant and at worst misdirecting.

FFS There's no harm in gutfeel, instinct or opinion - however don't present it as uncontestable fact. I am not for one second suggesting that the meeting notes distributed were in any way inaccurate - quite the reverse, in fact. I'm already on record as praising the dispassionate and unspun nature of those notes. However, where is any relationship between Alon Moss and calling an EGM? How are the two in any way connected? Alon Moss may be a saint or a saboteur - who knows? However, I certainly wouldn't base my whole opinion set on the unsubstantiated claims of someone as provably untrustworthy as ABH... who in their right mind would, given all the history? Seems to me that ABH is playing the blame game for CTAG's myriad failures and attempting to lay the guilt for such at the feet of someone he's apparently fallen out with? Very convenient... ...though actually entirely irrelevant. Calling an EGM needs have precisely nothing to do with Alon Moss. Why are people a) taking ABH's claims as gospel (!!!) and b) focussing in on some bloke who's irrelevant? If you want to muse on dubious individuals, perhaps better to ask why Bligh was at the meeting, what rights did he have to be there, under what capacity was he there and why he didn't/wasn't made to declare whatever interest he - or those he represents - have, in order to justify his presence. And so the smokescreening and misdirection will no doubt continue....

Well, that couldn't be any more clear - though in my view it was just as clear when K27M posted it first time around. Anyhow, no reason for this proposal to be subject(ed) to any further misinterpretation, whether unintentional or deliberate. The question that's being posed is simply this: "Given all that has gone on, do PIs now have an appetite to call an EGM, which if called, may well include a resolution to appoint an independent BUT AS YET UNSPECIFIED NED?" There may be valid reasons not to call an EGM... though I can't think of any. If so, people should post them. Let me try to help others avoid time-wasting or misdirection for a second here. Calling an EGM is a bad idea because... 1. "...I've met Amit and he's a smart/convincing/lovely man" is not a valid answer. 2. "...some bloke called Bligh turned up for no discernible reason and said it'd be a bad idea" is not a valid answer. 3. "...if we appoint an NED and that NED is Alon Moss/Adolf Hitler/Robert Maxwell and those people are very very bad men" is not a valid answer. So perhaps a good idea to focus on the question actually and very clearly being posed, rather than go spiralling off into flights of fancy and misinterpretation, methinks. Separately and just to address a couple of recent "misinterpretations". a) Being invited to an "informal chat" with a view to reporting back to a wider body does actually mean that one was acting as a representative/on behalf of said body. b) Unlike board or council meeting minutes, notes taken regarding an "informal chat" do not constitute a legal document. c) Since the mechanism for calling an EGM is already long enshrined in law, to call such an EGM would involve no legal costs. Seems to me that people's colours are maybe showing through here. Anyhow, how about stopping with the misdirection, accidental or otherwise? If there's an issue directly related to the subject, then state it and back it up. Fear-mongering is no valid substitute for reasoned argument.. AIMO.

An informal chat, together with taking notes for eventual distribution to other PIs... Not that it matters much but WM. I'd say you therefore attended as a representative or agent of at least some PIs. To maintain otherwise is to dissemble. Anyhow, although I fully understand how p*ssed off many PIs are (as I would be if I had a stake in CTAG of any significance at all), I didn't have an issue with the notes as circulated at all and didn't see any likelihood of anything else resulting. I read those notes as a factual account of what was said at the meeting - and that's exactly what they should have been. That of course in no way adds to or detracts from any credibility in what was said, I remain deeply wary of Bligh. There was a legitimate and known reason for all three other attendees to be present - but Bligh's presence was apparently given no justification - having been involved with the original shareholders and BoD who gleefully sold out eons ago of course delivers precisely zero right to sit at that table. He should have declared his interest or failing that, not have joined the meeting - especially as he seemingly started pontificating and attempting to throw his weight around. I also noted ABH's slating of Alon Moss in those notes and his claim that the latter had "caused considerable damage to the company". Hmmm... First off, by this stage I don't believe one single word that ABH says. He has time and again categorically proven himself to be a completely untrustworthy source. Secondly, I don't see anywhere that K27M's pasted document or BB posts refer to specifically proposing Alon Moss as an NED anyway? So at this stage at least, to get aerated about that is a straw man fallacy or red herring. Yet again I ask... What could be worse than where PIs find themselves at the moment? What's at risk? What "won't come cheap"? Or to flip this on its head, does anyone think that the respectful and conciliatory approach has achieved anything at all? If so, on what grounds? "I have yet to see a single sensible opinion as to why this is something we shouldn't do." Surely, if you hold a sensible opinion as to why the proposed course of action is a bad idea, why not spell it out? It'd be a lot more helpful and informative than vague doom and gloom mutterings or irrelevantly banging on about Mr Moss, IMV?