Member Info for HeidHoncho

In the recent RNS from the company regarding the recent social media reports there was a statement made that I find extremely strange.

Either that, or their wording, or my interpretation, of the statement is incorrect.

The company stated, and I quote, "... nor that in the event that the Joint Venture is agreed, that the terms will be favourable to the Company.".

Surely, if the terms were not to "be favourable to the Company" why would the Joint Venture to be agreed ?

Perhaps what they are intimating in advance there is that they may be strapped for cash, and consequently they are considering accepting a Joint Venture that would normally be deemed unacceptable, as they require to raise funds to progress further.

The current cash availability being dire is not too much of a stretch to believe, given that the previous fund raise was only for a total of £200,000, and the need to raise that sum of money was for the following reasons "Working Capital and Use of Proceeds - As announced on 10 March 2020 and 30 March 2020, the Company's working capital position is extremely weak, with the Company dependent on the support of its creditors to continue trading. - The use of proceeds arising from the Conditional Placing will provide the Company with working capital and will be used to help cover certain outstanding creditors for services which are critical to the operation of the Company."

Given that they had existing creditors that required paying from that sum, they required to fund the completion of the collation and verification in addition to statistical and scientific analysis of the recently completed phase of the VAL201 trial, and the previous burn rate of cash witnessed over the proceeding years, it is credible to logically assume that the majority of that sum of £200,000 is already spent, or at the very least committed to.

Were the above to be the case, and given the history in the past by the previous BoD of very poor, arguably negligent IMHO, agreements being entered into, then surely it would be imprudent for the current BoD to being at the stage of considering entering into yet another agreement that may not be favourable to the Company merely so that the cash received from such an unfavourable agreement would keep the lights burning for a little longer.

I understand the need to keep the lights on, so as to allow the company to continue trading, but not if in doing so there are no/little of the assets left under our control to progress, and find that in the drive to put some food on the table we no longer have any cutlery left to eat it with, as we had given away all of the family silver in doing so.

They still have overhead to issue a further 6 million shares, which at today's SP equates to circa £735,000, which is getting on for 4 times the money that they raised in the last placing, and would likely keep the lights on for at least 6 months, if not more.

Perhaps better to consider a placing rather than another un

To be fair, and to put things into perspective, 3% of the company at that time only cost circa £20,000 to procure.

And there are many LTH’s that have invested far greater sums in this company in the past.

So, relatively speaking, the size of the purchases to become a TR1 notifier recently, is not significant.

Perspective is required when making evaluations, IMHO.

With the greatest respect rightback, to go after G&S wouldn’t take too clever a fella.

Given their previous ineptitude in governing our company, utilising a top level brief to go after those numbskulls would be akin to attempting to crack a walnut with a sledgehammer ..... lmao

IMHO only, you understand.

I had meant to add, that although I was aware that circa 6 million conditional placing shares were scheduled to be added on the 14th April, I had not seen a confirmation that this had indeed occurred.

However, looking at the recent TR1’s that substantiates that they have now been added.

rightback, has the circa 6 million conditional placing shares been issued now ?

If so, then your number is more accurate than my previous 360,000 for 3%.

No, I am not a solicitor.

With the greatest respect, you shouldn’t be investing based on the expectation of others.

It is your investment, not theirs, so best to own your own decision making.

IMHO

360,000 ...... I think.

By the way, and so as to ensure clarity, my question was rhetorical.

And if the resource was to eventually be identified as 20 million ounces, rather than merely the 10 million ounces that you have intimated.

What then.

You might well find that whoever has been burned on these May futures will tomorrow start shorting the June futures in an attempt to claw some money back.

Bloody hell, the price is tumbling quicker than I can type.

It is now NEGATIVE $36.

And that is on top of whatever you paid per barrel in the first place on the future !!

WTI May futures are currently standing at negative $13.98.

i.e. you will PAY someone $13.98 per barrel to take the shipment instead of you !!

You couldn’t make this sh*t up ........ lmao

It just touched $1.00 momentarily then.

Just touched $4.00 momentarily, this is a total train wreck for Donald.

Just fell through $5.00 , where is the bottom ?

WTI at $5.50 right now ........ WTF ?!?!

mr.james, in context to today's SP it was not at 11p, but at the pre-consolidation 0.11p

Yet less than 30 hours ago you were asking if it was too late to buy in !

What did you invent in that past 30 hours, a time machine ?

nhawan, “ since the US can't regulate private companies.” ?!

You are having a laugh aren’t you.

ANY country’s government CAN regulate a product’s ability to be exported from within that country’s own borders.

This has been proven a multitude of times during the Covid-19 incident, whereby countries have prevented PPE from being exported.

Government’s MAY not be able to prevent any given company’s ability to produce (however, I believe even that can be enforced, much in the same way that the OGA in the U.K. for instance can demand that production be shut in), they DO however have the right to prevent exportation.

So, in essence, yes, they CAN regulate a private company’s ability to sell their production.

And that is not an opinion, it’s a fact.

Looks like I will require to review the company’s Articles of Association again, as if there are no existing loopholes contained within them that permits them to prevent shareholders their legal right to vote on resolutions, then the actions that they have taken are illegal IMHO.

I appreciate that the virus is proving difficult to contend with, not only with regards to corporate actions but also with each and everyone of us in our private lives, but that doesn’t mean that existing legal doctrines can just be rode roughshod over, especially so when it has been done in a manner that best suits the BOD’s interests.

Were that to be permissible that would equate to each and every one of us being permitted to break the laws of the land, and steal and riot, to ensure that we could obtain toilet rolls for our families.

Okay, that was a little tongue in cheek, and an over magnification, but never the less the premise is comparative in relation to not being permitted to break the law just so as to meet a goal.

IMHO