Member Info for Jimzi

Good fun.
Is it NOx or NO2 or is the measurement flawed.?
Why do we get pollution from ICEs - valve overlap .

More importantly, did you know catalytic converters have a Chlorine rinse pre production. So HCL is the unknown. Walk up a county lane and smell when a petrol car goes by - acrid like bleach - chlorine

Now that will **** the boys off.

To reply.
Confuses me why he analyses trades and the book daily for someone so unshakeably confident in the long term.
SBs
1) gearing
2) lower risk via stops
3) tax free.

But (1) means you have to keep an eye on it during trading hours. Liquidity moves with your portfolio; some go up and some go down
Lower your gearing , go on holiday but lower opportunities. Up your gearing and it’s 8.5 hours on UK stocks.

ACA has to be with the ICAEW . Not FCA then ?
Why would you need me to have humility for quoting the RNS s stating what I said.? I said it’s been paid because the RNS s stated such in the BODs forecast comments . At the time, there was nothing to say otherwise. Your message is you can’t rely on RNS s. Ergo, how much scanning revenue have we actually earned/ accrued/ paid on account - you must have answers given your 50% genius guess . You must know the breakdown surely? as Tosh pointed out , the difference is significant.
You also don’t believe the contract is a formality. You also complain that I don’t explain and expect me to be a better teacher about implied contracts and legal enforceability? . An ACA has to be spoon fed basic graduate conversation course stuff about fundamental contract law ?

And if we can’t discuss/ quote items mentioned in RNSs - then humility you shall have !
Let me know btw of another official source of info Apart from Guessville.com .

I made it out as stated in the rns. Check. You even mis quote my post
HN guessed. If your impressed by guessing, bingo cones to mind
You’ve used a lawyer because you know your not competent to do the job. Well done.
Yet you still seem unwilling to learn / understand WSGs position legally. As your an accountant, I find that depressing. Are you an ICAEW/ ACA , FCA thereof or what.? You can understand letters of credit or implied contracts yet still comment with the caveat your not a lawyer. It’s up to you if your pride gets in the way of wanting to learn. But you won’t progress .
Yes, legally trained, practiced then left to set up own business. If you go back to 2015 posts , you’ll see it’s for recurring MCs in SE Asia.

Indeed. It’s the snide posts that infer your posts can’t be believed because you quoted what the company said via the official channel that annoys me.

Why peeps have an aversion to understand our legal position is frankly beyond me and to gloat that a guess that was partially right based upon no explicit knowledge to prove to be victorious reminds me of boys with lads,,,

Dunno why I bother.

Aiming, would you use a lawyer for a house conveyance ?

No , the Bod was wrong albeit it was subject to . I’m fooking reading the RNSs.

Brow beating and point scoring takes preference over the desire to understand your investments legal standing.
Quite sad

That’s nothing to do with legalities. I just posted what was in the RNSs. 75% Q3, balance Q4. It’s all there, no interpretation required bar ability to read

Having actually read you post in full, you say
"As things stand, and something unthinkable happened, they would probably be well within their rights to rip up the agreement that they have currently with WSG and get someone else in, "

Apart from WSG making a pigs ear / negligence etc, MPS are not within their rights and get someone else. That is my whole point.

Because someone sold around 500k into the close yesterday - that's almost been bought and its NT for over 10k.
Square book

As Tosh laid out well last night - we don't know what the revenue is and why it would not be linear both in amount of work done and timing of payments and indeed the % of payment versus full value rec'd.

Crofty - look back at my posts about our contractual relationship we have already.
We are not working and being paid based upon an agreement in principal [because that is not a contractual agreement]
I apologise if you think my tone is childish - it is borne out of frustration of having to repeatedly explain the contractual relationship WSG has at present and how it being disclosed as a formality yesterday ties into what I have previously posted.

It may seem technical but it is extremely significant

Just an example my friend to respond to this market has spoken nonsense.
Aim, you can’t unless you arrange the stock borrowing, and do assignment of borrowing rights etc.
Given some cant get their head around a contract , an assignment of this nature would be rocket science and if they were that smart, they would know we have a contract!

So you don’t believe the contract is a formality?
A) it’s not PF but a Bod announcement - collectively with our new Ghanaian director.
B) it’s been Nomad cleared.
So what’s your case ?

And you can’t have expectations of figures if there’s no contract can you? Shot yourself in the foot there. I really don’t know why so many posters can’t understand contract mechanics- they have been around for 100’s of years since the East India company ffs

Martin13 has 2.5m shares. If he decided to de risk some, is that the market?

Keeeeeeeep shorting

When volume exceeds 20m , you can then say the market has spoken.
Today the skittish non long term / traders have spoken and lost cash.

Still waiting for refuting the contract being a formality. Lots of talk, very little thought. All I ask is support your assertions. Not unreasonable is it?

Well Crofty, there is.

If you don't read the bb, I am not going to repeat it.If your interested , check my posts.

As an aside, what is our current relationship of doing work for payment called?

Yet no examples forthcoming beyond mine of how the rug will be pulled.
I have stated we have a legally binding agreement and the BOD seems to agree.
Refute it.

Your position would be more convincing if you posted, don't believe the RNS / the BOD, I'm out.
Yet no. You seem to have adopted this new rug phrase.

If you are refuting something in the RNS, back it up and tell us in what circumstances will it not be a formality. I'll start you off
1] Nuclear war
2] Coup d'etat
.........................................................

Reasoned debate is what its all about but you have to give some support to your view - still waiting for the smoke and mirrors

To be fair, they ain't going to say anything. What did they say before?

Agree there could be logistic problems, I merely pointed out what was in the 2 RNSs that covered it. I don't guess / assume there will be a problem as we aren't privy to the exact nature of the transaction.
As its all covered by L/Cs its irrelevant.
Being picky, there was only half a delay.

But all this pales into insignificance Re Formality. [again, from the RNS]

So there's no imo

Well noted Tosh - at least I refrained from posting till my purchase!

Bids - up 50%
"Under the terms of the agreement, the advertising group has agreed terms for gross media expenditure up to £10,000,000 per annum for the next two years."

Upto - zero guaranteed . No terms. Smoke

Here, contract a formality - clarity- down 8.5%

Still a bit of an overhang - good book upto 1.7m but thereafter, mms no play gamee which given today smells of a final woody dump.
Sooner the better and consol around here imo