Member Info for isas

Johnny, I think you're referring to me ( that's a pretty bad typo) simple answer is I don't really know I am a simple (or a sucker) PI who tried to do the right but instead finds that I have jumped out of the frying pan into the fire. The main problem is there is no information coming out which we can evaluate and assess. Ideally you want some one capable to examine in minutiae how the company finds itself in this position. 1st thing to do would be the dd done on BS before putting it to shareholders at the egm and any or potential risk factors and what steps were undertaken to mitigate those risk factors, what and whom provided the advice, was it good advice? AR is way too clever to leave himself open to not declaring his potential conflict of interest, he did declare it that his father had shareholding in BS (not Bu.. sh..) sorry couldn't resist the temptation. I think there are rumours going around that AIM regulators just want to put NEW to sleep, if true then we should be challenging that because it would be second time around where the precedent is not followed. It is perhaps too late but on reflection i feel supporting GB on the BOD would have at least provided some resistance to do as they please and also some investigation. I don't know enough about the bloke to judge him for his suitability, but if you consider all the directors we had for their experience and past cv's look where we are?

Gooba, I am not Gary nor do I have any relation with him. If you look at some of my previous posts I was critical of his stance when he stood to join the BoD. I am or have been member of NWOG, and seriously considering not rejoining or coming out. I have over the past few days begun to analyse the whole picture and it feels sickening that we have been played. I can sense there were so many tell tales signs all along that I and many others didn't pick up or deliberately turned blind eye to. NWOG quite rightly became too pre-occupied with the former bod, but we forgot hold the bod to account, they quite conveniently blamed everything on the old bod and we too easily accepted that and did not challenge enough. When the old bod resigned there was an expectation that what had occured in the previous 12 months would be reported as part of the cleaning process by the new bod, that never happened they brushed that aside as not worth while and it is precisely that decision that has led BS to withdraw their rto at this late stage. there were so many risk factors that could have been handled in a timely manner, that weren't. I find it incredible and extremely unfair that people are already providing narrative to scapegoat GB. To me it is plain that this failure to rto and the delisting is the fault of those two at the helm and no one else, either deliberately or through mismanagement.

On the contrary I disagree, if one takes a holistic view one can argue that the outcome was designed from the outset to lead to this or a similar situation. AR and NL were brought on to the BoD round about this time last year, there was a view that because the old BoD had a majority 3vs2 they could not function and therefore a removal of 1 additional old bod or an additional new appointment would resolve the issue. We were told AR opposed this and said he could control the old bod, we were told to be patient. A few months down the line we were told he was struggling to make headway because of the old bod, but he didn't want their removal (quite a contradictory stance). Then we had BS announcement and we were told a lot of work had been done already and it would only take a few more days to complete the DD. In order to remove the risk from old bod NWOG rallied round to remove the old bod, AR was strongly against this we are told. It has been mentioned that the risk factors pertaining to issues that has led BS withdrawing from the rto were informed to AR and NL well beforehand. The notice by the Nomad was given back in July. If one looks at FRI another of AR's rto's, that process started in Dec/Jan and concluded in June /July . To my mind the only people to blame for this cock up are AR and NL. There is now a conflict of interest arising with AR- who's interest is he looking after BS's or NEW's. Is he going to enforce the indemnity clause to get back the £600k BS have taken?- I am gradually coming to the realisation that we have been used and abused in a massive con-trick. I don't really know who to trust and believe any more?

Gooba, I'm not advocating for or against GB. Frankly I don't know, its very confusing how the situation is unravelling and the 2 paid guardians of our investment not clarifying the situation. I think it is unfair to blame GB for the deal falling through. The utter incompetence and mismanagement is the responsibility of the two at the helm, and the every day that passes without any communication the less confidence one has in them. All I can say at the moment is that to date all of GB's hunches and judgements are veering towards right than wrong.

I don't think AIM is the problem, it is the inconsistent way the rules are applied. There is no questioning or accountability of the Nomads etc. the company law is stacked against small investors, the BoD's have too much power and are not accountable enough to shareholders.

"protect the wider investing community" Really! whilst the perpetrators of the mess go on to profit.

Gooba, your right in a sense but if you look at NL's riposte to GB's candidature for a seat on the BoD, it is for reasons of extra wages, whilst he was unwilling to do anything about his previous colleagues for 9 months drawing wages. Whilst I don't really know any answers, a small gesture that the BoD's interests are aligned with us shareholders would go some way in restoring some confidence. With the various theories flying about, with circumstantial evidence to back up those theories (performance and behaviour of NL and AR) it is hardly surprising to be felt played by different characters for their own agendas. I don't know it may be useful/or not for all former NWOG members to have a direct discussion where all have access to each other? we've done all and beyond that has been asked of us and it feels like ending up in an abyss.

Well, Gooba, in that case we should be thinking of sacking the BoD, the company should not be run for their benefit- to date since their appointment they have not carried out anything that has been to the benefit of shareholders, who have in turn bent over backwards to help them.

Would there be any mileage in tabling a resolution at the AGM, to the effect that 75% of BoD fees are paid in shares fixed @ the price of shares pre-suspension until some RTO/or other investment is made by the company. This would preserve the cash and also align more closely the interests of the bod with us shareholders?

For once it would be nice for the BoD to set out what is going on, what are the issues that led BS to withdraw their rto offer, If the previous BoD and Nomad were responsible for naughtiness, then inform the City's Fraud Squad and other relevant authorities-for god's be straight with the shareholders, stop dithering, you've had 12 months on the BoD, surely you'd have worked whats been happening in that time!

Agree with you Grumpy, Gary has done some sterling work with NWOG, However now that the situation has changed, I would request him to withdraw his candidacy and work to resolve the issues in the best interests of all us shareholders. We have achieved a lot by removing the old bod and we should be able to resolve this issue.

Johnny Thanks for the reply and best of luck with your efforts, There lies the problem if we don't know all the information, we are all making calculated guesses. The management need to explain what has been going on and set out a process that needs to be followed. The company Secretary needs to explain for what he/she has been drawing fees for etc. etc.

Johnny how do you know this, or is it just a guess? a request also to Gary, whether he would consider withdrawing his requisition at this stage because of the changed circumstances, and channel all energies to sort this mess out, get all the blame and liabilties to individuals and institutions who were complicit in this mess.

Isn't there a case for the FCA and shareholders taking Brokers and the Nomad to task for not disclosing this suspected Neil petroleum issue a risk factor in last placing/fundraising?

I don't think anybody is stopping him, he's been on the bod for close to 11 months, and both of them had a unhindered 5months. The least the shareholders would have expected a warts and all report as to what has gone on in the company from these two but that has not been forthcoming. It's all very confusing who to believe or trust really, extremely a messy situation, Mr. Lee has definetly not taken any courages decisions to align himself with the interests of shareholders, i definitely will not trust him to look after PI interests. I don't know what has been paid to do the due diligence for BS or how we are going to get back the money we lent out, wether there is a clause in the deal allowing BS a get out in these kind of circumstances, or it was deliberately structered in this way. So many questions the BoD need to clarify the situation pretty quickly to let us owners know.

The suspension was because of the RTO, why can't we lift the suspension now that the rto is no longer proceeding?

I think he gave his last life rafts to FRI to get on to Concepta, BS was a scrappy old dingy lying on the scrap heap he picked up and shoved half a million of our money to see if it could float over on the other side of the canal, unfortunately didn't do enough due diligence, the old captain of dingy used the money to do the repair job and doesn't need us any more. Captain AR will blame the old crew and jump off into the sunset, unless he's he sees another scrappy dingy to dislodge the passengers. Sorry for the depressing story but not so much of a fiction.

Whilst I'll admit I don't know the full story, All I will say as being Part of NWOG, I made a hell of a sacrifice in removing the old BoD, where as NL and AR could have taken decisive action much earlier, whilst both complaining about yhe old bod as being difficult to work with but also not challenging them nor alerting the shareholders as to what was happening in the background. Whilst I was happy to support AR and NL onto the BoD, from their performance in this debacle so far they have not proved to be only slightly better than the previous incumbents.

Just to remind everyone, that the only people who have actioned anything positive are the Action Group, who have taken action to remove the old BoD, I am afraid neither NL nor AR have done what they should have done towards the beginning of this year, that is investigated the old BODs dealings in the company and if necessary raised alarm bells, they just towed along with old BoD and kept on providing false assurances to shareholders.

Nothing apparently 1 step forward 5 steps backwards it seems.