Member Info for HeadInTheSand

You know what? I'm not buying this "shocked outrage" on the part of Bligh (the BoD spokesman) at the fact that previous information given by ABH/CTAG has been circulated among investors. First off, Tim has always been a representative of around 950 PIs. ABH and Bligh have always known this. Ergo of course any information voluntarily passed over to someone holding that role is going to be circulated. Secondly, why should such a meeting report need ABH and Bligh approval/edit/redact pre-release? It doesn't. Tim was there to report back accurately and dispassionately the information freely given - and re-reading his report, no spin or opinion on what was said has been added by him.Quite rightly, he's entirely left it up to PIs to make what they will of ABH's various claims and Bligh's various pronouncements. Thirdly and on the same point, given CTAG's lengthy and consistent track record of obfuscation and wild deviation from actual fact, the VERY LAST thing that should have been allowed was an Amit/Bligh/BoD rewrite on the report. Fourthly, although ABH/Bligh may be long-used to dropping a quiet word into the shell-like of their mates and buddies and expecting it to go no further, they knew in advance that this was not the situation here. ******** about the dissemination of information volunteered to a wider audience is thus ridiculous. Plus, do they not know - as I've previously pointed out - that all PIs have the same rights to information freely given? Did it not occur to them that there's bound to be PIs that are members of both the SAG and the Twitter group? Why shouldn't both "sides" be party to the same information? Looks to me like Bligh at the very least is looking to split PIs and factionalise the two camps in existence. Brewing disunity is a clasic tactic for those in the minority.. the age-old divide and conquer routine. Fifth, I have to point out the bitter irony here. At the end of 2016, ABH was more than happy to "drop a quiet word" into the ear of one legendary ramper, seemingly knowing exactly in advance that it would be widely publicised and most likely increase the feeding frenzy (which it duly did). For the BoD now to complain bitterly about communications being leaked is a level of hypocrisy that makes me howl with laughter. Finally the big take-out from that meeting report for me (apart from Bligh's shocking arrogance) was that the spokesperson for the CTAG BoD wants to head off any chance of the BoD being added to or changed by means of an EGM, Wow... what a surprise there. I'll close by saying that Tim deserves a medal here. He may not be the most assertive person (not that I know), but he's stood up and worn the hat. Representing a load of honest PIs (and doubtless some far more dubious individuals in hiding as well) with a whole range of opinions must be like herding cats. I'll say for the record that I would not have been able to issue such a dispassionate and utterly uns

Now that Tim's update is distributed, thought I'd make an initial comment or two. This Bligh character fills me with deep misgivings. He's certainly doing NOTHING for company credibility. I note that he's listed as "investor relations officer"... really??? Who appointed him as such? Is that an official and salaried company position? If so, he should be fired on the spot, since all he's done is arrogantly belittle and aggravate PIs, from what has been reported. Making this seemingly egotistical and double-dealing mouthpiece "investor relations officer" seems about as appropriate as deciding to appoint Dr Harold Shipman to the chair of Help The Aged. I further note Bligh's clearly duplicitous comment (designed IMO to mislead) that "he represents the INITIAL largest private & institutional shareholders (caps mine)... Initial, hmm? Interesting word... so that's no longer the case, then. I also note the comment that "Bligh relayed the views of the latest stakeholders including the board of directors at the time". Again confusion and murkiness... is this guy an officer of the company? What proof is there that he's speaking for the largest shareholders? (Even if he is, they're still minority holders). How come he seems to be able to claim to speak for the BoD? Under what authority? So although hats off to Tim for his perseverance on behalf of PIs, this Bligh bloke continues to encapsulate the very essence of all that has been and remains still wrong with CTAG... which is unsurprising, if he's got any connection with Corvus. I''m sorely unimpressed... and as suspicious as ever, if not moreso. "Investor relations officer?"... you're having a laugh. AIMO.

Cappuccini, surely? (Linguist here, remember? How could I resist?)

DougB, as you're clearly already aware, our views on the admittedly limited feedback so far match pretty much exactly, both on what has been said openly and more importantly in our reading between the lines. As I said in my original post, I find Bligh's attempted self-appointment as some sort of information gatekeeper to be disgraceful and arrogant. Nobody needs his bloody endorsement, FFS. I also totally agree with your comments on attempted (yet utterly unjustifiable) gagging orders. And as hex has pointed out, Corvus flogged off the majority of their shareholding a long while back, falling below disclosable levels in August 2016. So even if Corvus is now just below the 3% disclosable threshold (and I'll bet they are miles below that), as you point out, Tim/the SAG represents 17 times their quantity of shares held. A pathetic and tawdry attempt to seize the balance of power in these discussions, without having the slightest foundation for so doing. Don't you just love AIM? I await the issuance of Tim's report with interest.

Dougal... You say "I would counsel these two groups not to divulge any information unless approved by Mr Ben Haim and Jamie Bligh." A few points... 1. ABH clearly acquiesced to the meeting. He knew he would be speaking with shareholder representatives and thus effectively not just with single individuals. He presumably chose to give some sort of update and/or information to those representatives who are external to the company. Having freely and actively chosen to impart such information, he has no subsequent right of approval over such. 2. Mr Bligh is no more than the representative of another batch of shareholders and as such has precisely no right of approval, sanction or edit over any of the information given. 3. The other two attendees were presumably present solely due to their roles as representatives of other shareholders and as such are duty-bound to deliver a frank, honest and uncensored report as they best see fit to those whom they represent. Not to do so would be tantamount to their tacitly agreeing to be beneficiaries of potential insider information and worse, withholding such from the very people they are meant to be representing. I am also majorly irked at the report that "it does not sit well with Mr Bligh that Tim Ashdown as a shareholder has taken an authoritative position to relay company information to a minority." EXCUSE ME? Now I have no idea what Corvus's agenda is here - but one would hope that it's aligned with that of the entire shareholder base. Regardless, Mr Bligh should get off his high horse and acknowledge that a PI with the tiniest holding has the exact same rights to voluntarily disclosed information - uncensored, unedited and unspun - as the biggest institutional investor. To summarise, at the very least, Tim represents numerous PIs and attended the meeting on their behalf. This was fully understood by ABH beforehand (he has long known who Tim is and who he represents). Thus of COURSE Tim should circulate a post-meeting report exactly as he and he alone saw things to those people within the shareholder group he represents - in fact he has an obligation to, as ABH will have been fully aware.

Well presumably Tim attended the meeting because of his role as titular head of the SAG. On that basis, I can't see why this Bligh bloke has any issue with Tim circulating an honest report of said meeting as he saw it, with any content/information that he sees fit... after all, he does hold a position as the representative of the wider PI base. I'd expect a circulated update soon. If one isn't forthcoming, then this whole mess will just have gone to a whole new level of disturbing murkiness...

Hang on a second here, Dougal. Providing a verbatim transcript of an interview which you yourself referred to should hardly be described as "dross"? Why take a pop at someone laying out the source material which you yourself are apparently relying on? Personally, I'm quite grateful to Hex. He's saved me having to bother listening again to what I view as being the biggest and most blatant load of vacuous, desperate and frankly irrelevant claptrap that I've heard in years. It's hard to decide whether it's more shameless or embarrassing. Both, actually...

Interesting piece of fence sitting there, Dougb... My personal view on an EGM is simple. What's to be gained? Either the company's a charade and always has been. If so, all an EGM would achieve is clarity on this (but no return of any value for PIs). Or ABH is a trustworthy genius playing his cards very close to his chest and acting in the best interests of PIs. If so, all an EGM would achieve is equal clarity with much more information becoming mandatorily disclosable (but no extra chance of any return of value for PIs). Okay, I know which one my money's on, but even so, either way, where's the actual concrete value in calling an EGM and attempting to force some resolutions/NEDs through? IMO an EGM would only make sense if CTAG has some significant assets or IP of real value that ABH is cackhandedly mismanaging. That's the most vanishingly unlikely circumstance IMV...

...and on the subject of that VERY unlikely pipe dream, after his surprise massively pessimistic revelatory tweet the other day, maybe Yuval could be the star prosecution witness in exchange for immunity. Who knows? Although vague (as all things CTAG invariably are), it's the first thing YL has ever tweeted that has the ring of truth...

Project, solely on behalf of LTHs, I too would love to be wrong. My ideal outcome for CTAG would be for there to be some magical way for long-term holders to get their stakes back, but with ABH getting nothing, apart from a visit from the authorities with a LONG list of very pointed questions and a court date. If only... ATB.

Martathm. Yes very prescient and I absolutely agree... I made the selfsame point when ABH started squawking about "the Internet of Things" with precisely zero reason to do so. We've recently had "artificial intelligence" brandished about by everyone's least favourite snake oil salesman and now "blockchain" and "cryptocurrency" too. We should have a game of ABH bingo. What buzzterm hobbyhorse is he going to jump on next? Gene splicing? Pluripotent stem cell therapy? How about cold fusion? What a steaming pile of horse excrement. It'd be funny if it wasn't so hard for locked in PI's with large holdings...

Stockpicfree Indeed. That particular "professional broker" with the entirely self-alleged but oh so unfortunately timed automated buy order that gave him so much credibility in the eyes of the faithful was a particular favourite of mine too. What a curiosity that all his profiles and posts seem now to have been mysteriously deleted? Whoda thunk? I agree , the CTAG BB has been fascinating - primarily in a sociopsychological sense. As I've said a while back, someone should use it as the source material for an academic thesis on concepts such as herd mentality, sectarianism, confirmation bias, the manipulative power of propaganda and suspension of disbelief. A few take-outs from this debacle which I've invariably found useful... Occams' razor... the simplest and most obvious answer is always and by far the most likely. The duck... if it looks like one, walks like one and quacks like one, guess what it is? Devil's advocate... always take the time to argue (with yourself) in favour of the exact counter-opinion to the one you actually hold. It's frequently educational and 99% of the time significantly helpful. And finally one drummed into me during my 8 years working for a very high profile IT tycoon of the day. His advice - and this quote is as near on word-for-word as I can remember was: "Never EVER stop looking over your shoulder. Because no matter how careful you've been and how sure you are, you're still always going to have a hole in your ****, So there'll always be some other ****ers looking to ****-**** you." Colourfully put maybe - hence the ****s - but advice that's always stood me in good stead. ATB all.

Dougal... "Otherwise, the continuted funding of this business is a mystery." I'm a fan of Occam's razor, which states that the simplest and most obvious solution is always the most likely. On that basis (sad to say), I don't believe that the business needs any appreciable amount of funding at all. Why? Because IMO it's actually got next to no costs. Again why? Because IMO it's actually not doing anything or employing anyone (apart from ABH and some mysterious lawyerly NED, both of whom have no doubt already trousered serious amount of remuneration.) For your sake, if nothing else, I hope I'm wrong - but doubt I am. ATB

To be fair, the whole discussion on CTAG is now utterly futile and pointless. There is no proof of any activity, just wild surmise. Having said that, a negative (like "the company is no longer operating in any meaningful manner") cannot be proved either. It's therefore all a colossal waste of time until and unless some concrete and bankable information is released that is independently verifiable without doubt (which, as history has proven repeatedly, entirely excludes CTAG or any of its directors from being a source of such). However, feel free to keep the blind faith - but bear in mind that's all it can be, unless and until the above happens. Blind. And faith. Nothing more.

Those sorts of comments from a senior company employee should be actionable, in my view. It's a ******* disgrace - but then again, so has everything been re CTAG and its most senior management.

A less sophisticated but more appropriate epitaph might be... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218

Unfortunately when it comes to the USO (that's the government policy regarding the 10Mbps minimum), my sources tell me that all satellite technology is extremely likely to be excluded, because maximum latency and jitter criteria are going to be enshrined. AVN needs to focus elsewhere...

Oh and PS what the hell is it with his share ans all these Dougs, Duggys and Dougals? It's like some secret society of Dougs and worse than the bloody Freemasons...

Duggy2016, I above all others love a stickler for accuracy. You are of course entirely correct and I of course completely concur. IMO it is long LONG past the point where PI sentiment makes the slightest blind bit of difference to ABH, his board (of one other) and the company as a (w)hole.. In fact, if I were begged to go scraping the deepest reaches of the mouldy barrel for one teensy tiny scrap of evidence that might, just might, be suggestive of the faintest positive, it'd be ABH's continuing to spout vacuous nonsense by way of "updates"... I mean, what for the love of God is the damn point? Anyhow, in my defence, I was just taking a leaf out of ABH's book and distorting the truth... though in my case solely for the purpose of spreading a little gallows humour. Happy Xmas!

First off, Merry Xmas to all CTAGers. Hope 2018 is full of better investments. Not wishing to put a dampener on things, but after months and months of enduring ABH substance-free puff and double-speak, I reckon I am now fluent (it helps that I am also a linguist by training). So, allow me to present my brief translation of the latest smoke and mirrors... ORIGINAL:- "During this quarter, we have been invited to present our solution to a UK life, pensions and investment company on its internal strategy workshop to explore the potential opportunity of being its technology partner on their digital well-being platform." TRANSLATION:- "Crap! The PIs are even more angry than usual! OK... let's make up another strategy change! I know... insurance! I'll go with that - and let's hope the PIs don't notice that I'm no longer talking about having our own digital health platform, but someone else's." ORIGINAL:- "More recently, we have been approached by a multinational broadband and telecommunications provider to join their new global consumer IoT platform. The newly designed ecosystem connects apps and devices world-wide. We will start the negotiation from early January 2018." TRANSLATION:- "So we've received a mass email from one of the big comms providers who wants to flog anyone and everyone bandwidth for connectivity purposes. Geez, if only we actually had a product needing to communicate... Never mind! I can make this sound good with a bit of spin! I'll bang on about the Internet of Things! That's a current buzzword and as such might keep the PIs at bay a little longer! Oops... I mentioned a "global consumer platform", and PIs found out that there never actualy was a consumer product some months ago... never mind, they're too thick to notice! Now let me just count all this money..." Bah humbug :)