Member Info for KAMEL17

1. Can we now safely assume that the proposed Open Offer was not a predetermined and engineered wheeze? 2. How does the company satisfy its lender Radix with repayment dates of only one month from now? Bear in mind that they have a secured debenture over all of the company's assets and the rerms are already "credit card rates" at 1% a month (even before a default). Additionally, without a defined income stream in the near term, what stance do Ethos take? 3. Do the Administrators have interest in the holding that would have been dimished by the Open Offer or is it simply that they see a finite value being realisable from Rurelec and a dilution would just reduce their share of the proceeds? I would comment that there is a very real danger that the holders ought to have been a little wary of getting what they wished for except that the prospect of getting holders to agree was remote at best. i would have said that it was a cack handed attempt other than the fact that it genuinely smacked of desperation. A further drop in the SP indicates that this situation is becoming more precarious by the day now. Mr Keegan and Mr Morris now have a job to do and very little time. The holders cannot now say that the necessity to secure emergency funding at 'crazy' rates was unavoidable. Those contributors here who seem to assume that a turbine could be sold or monies could be drawn from Argentina is the short term are perhaps guilty of wishful thinking. The option to sell the third turbine, if at all straightforward, would surely have already occurred. This position is just a handful of risks being juggled and if anything has become slighltly higher risk as one of the options, albeit a very unpalatable one, has now been taken off the table. We must now genuinely hope that Mr Keegan does have a secondary plan that is actually possible to deliver.

Howdy swooped, This does indeed stink and we have been left with a share of very little and at the mercy of the Company's lenders whilst apparently IPC had been working away (at our expense and with our overheads) towards bigger and better things. Ask yourself this - are these people trustworthy at all? Are they ultimately the same as is currently holding the reigns at Rurelec. I know that my "negativity" rankled with some folks and especially with those I affectionately refer to as the fluffy bunny brigade but this just indicates that my gut instincts that manifested themselves here at the turn of the year were entirely justified. If the quality of individual who perpetrated this situation is still at all involved with Rurelec then we should all just bend over and kiss our backsides goodbye. I cannot express my annoyance towards these people as i do not think i could find profanity strong enough at the moment

My views on PE are well known to all on here. The spinning off of IPC to this utter scumbag for next to nothing was an absolute disgrace. That this waste of space should benefit from what was an asset of ours 'gifted' to him for his "wonderful service" to us is beyond contempt. Both Peter Earl and Colin Emson have acted immorally and most probably criminally. All that being said; it may be $5bn in Pinnochio speak from the world's greatest purveyor of hyperbole and would in reality only result in income of £27.36.

jerddicat The reason that they may have been shown recently may be that they were disclosed in a published document i.e. an up to date fund valuation. This may be the reason that the valuation seems 'current' and indicated to you that a recent transaction had taken place. The providers of this type of information gather it from various sources and it may just be that this particular source had not referred to this particular holding for some time. Given the size of the funds under management this may well have fallen into the immaterial category and only become known when, for whatever reason, a more detailed funds list was provided to the investors in that fund. I do not know this for certain as i'm not particularly minded to investigate it further, however, it may just help you to be aware of how the newsfeeds sometimes work.

This is a question that i'd imagine a few of the larger holders will be asking themselves and regrettably there are no easy answers. I can only answer this from my own perspective and if that information is of any use to you - then so be it. I have a holding that, given its quantum, would be considerably difficult to dispose of all that readily. For quite a while in this stock there has been an ability to buy largish quantities but the ability to dispose of anything other than small blocks easily has been problematic. My worst case scenario here is an insolvency event resulting in a very small return. I'm sure there are a few "calculator clickers" on here who'd argue to the contrary but in my view an insolvency event would not end happily for us. Whilst it may not be the armageddon of a total loss it may not be that far north of it. So you see my options are limited and as such I'm welded to this stock until the conclusion whether it is positive or negative. Would I want to invest further? If you'd asked me a year or so ago I may well have said yes but the business was not in the perilous position that it is in today. I'm hopeful of a positive outcome and in truth even a negative outcome would not result in any material difference to me now. I hope this answers your question. If you have not done so - read carefully and objectively the narrative provided by Mr Keegan - as this probably provides all the answers to current questions EXCEPT of course, the solution. Whether we as shareholders, the company's creditors and/or new providers of funds believe in the management team (and by this, I mean Mark Keegan) shall be pivotal in the outcome here unless of course someone just buys this out in double quick time. I am not disbelieving of his efforts nor indeed his sincerity in managing a quasi insolvent business - I just do not want to invest further. By the way my last post should have said likely and not unliklely

lack of confidence exhibited here should be worrying, Lastly.,and most fundamentally, I am just confounded by the "family tree" of parties involved either directly or indirectly and it seems unlikely that some form of sharp practice (carried out perfectly openly with no recourse to legal challenge) shall be visited upon the minority holders here all of course carried out within the confines of either Company or Insolvency law. I suspect that I understand what oldie was alluding to in his last contribution, yet like him I'm unwlling to declare this on an open forum.

Spac3y If the fund raising of £3.5m is used to satisy the Radix loan and Ethos and will to all intents and purposes be exhaused by Q2 2016 then it may be that the cash burn remains at a significantly higher level than you have calculated.If the monies from Peru are factored in as well you may well be miles out at £0.5m a quarter. I'd have to say as well that Mr Keegan's commentary alongside the RNS coupled with his somewhat candid reply to GFD indicates that his attempt at passing around the begging bowl to existing holders may be both genuinely in their best interest. I have been an extremely sceptical holder over the last 6-9 months and feared corporate skullduggery and have been all too quick to say so,yet now I'm unsure. The answers to questions posed of him are to a very large extent already answered. To expect him to cancel the fund raising on the expectation of the payment from Peru (how much and when?) or the very fluid position in Argentina is entirely unrealistic . He may well be circumventing a position where either Radix or Ethos could cause untold damage in the near term should they remain unpaid. This may be the only responsible thing to do (whether or not we as shareholders blow him a raspberry) If Radix become hostile and enforce their security and the BoD are forced to consider insolvency proceedings then all of the various calculations of NAV mused over here will be reduced to a small fraction of those figures. There is a very real and present danger in getting what you wish for if you oppose the Open Offer. Mr Keegan's commentary reads like an IBR for a business at the last chance saloon and in reality that, maybe just maybe, is exactly what it might be. That being said; it is just wholly unlikely tjhat the Open Offer will reach the minimum subscription level and this does not augur well. If ever there was a need to go to a meeting, it's this one. Not matter what the position is here I'd not even consider investing further here for three reasons: 1. The £3.5 will be swallowed up in operational overheads in around six months. There is nothing tangible to suggest that the underlying position is guaranteed to be any better after that six months and additionally £3.5m will have evaporated. 2. Even the changes in Argentina are uncertain and any knock on effect is totally outwith the control of the BoD. Despite all of the positive expectations in the press - please pay regard to Mr Keegan's comments and my own reservations about the changes. The warnings expessed by us both should not be ignored (even if you choose not to heed those warnings). If you do ignore them - you're disregarding the "man on the ground" and an Argentinian national. 3. If the underlying asset value is so undevalued why has no-one coughed up a couple of million for a huge chunk of the shareholding. Do they perhaps see a better option dealing with an Administrator? This just makes no sense and the lack o

Great article and a very well thought out position. IMHO, It's a little unfair on GVC but it does highlight the obvious difficulties. 888 clealy dodged a bullet here and will prosper (probably as a result of a takeover from William Hill over the next couple of years) and GVC and bwin may do so as well. The thing is that for shareholders the likely returns will be more easily earned at 888 who are travelling a much less risk laden path. Good to see you are still around. The likes of crookman and the old guard must have just got tired of this crock and sold up.

The update is fairly positive and the fact that progress is being made with CD4 is indeed welcome news.

http://www.financialexpress.com/article/pharma/latest-updates/omega-diagnostics-inaugurates-green-field-manufacturing-facility-in-pune/150045/

this is perhaps the further kick in the crotch that was almost surely inevitable with this lot

Howdy wingnutter and Queen Elvis IMHO 888 has dodged a bullet for sure. There must surely be a good return, although maybe not an exceptional one, to be made on this stock over the next 12-18 months. I trust that a few shillings were made out of bwin by both of you. Onwards an upwards eh! Kamel

crookman The quote you posted attributed to Brian Mattingey of 888 was as concise a summary as one ought to need about the future. Of course, there was perhaps an element of sour grapes involved at being rejected and this would colour his comments. Leaving this to one side though; it was a damning indictment of the path he perceives they may take. The poker business is perhaps irretrievably lost (as far as big profits are concerned) and with GVC it may simply be farmed out to Amaya and possibly even migrated to their other platforms and allowed to die gradually or simply be jettisoned. This is perhaps the reason that GVC could justify a larger price - who knows! The remainder of the business will have to be trimmed and reorganized and I'm sure GVC will be well placed to do this. Brian Mattingley's comments should be heeded though - if the stategy is as he suggests it is; the path is laced with huge hurdles that the existing team have already fallen over once already. One can only respect the Management Team at GVC on recent past performance but as it stands i think there are more non-believers than believers. The Bwin board were and are feckless, however, this does not mean that a good Board would have had shining results after the merger, merely that they would have been better that was actually achieved. The task is possibly more difficult as the good people at bwin are either disillusioned and fed up or they had already exited. For me, if it's a toss up between GVC and 888, i'd choose 888 over GVC on every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Mind you, I've still gor the dreaded Ladbrokes in my portfolio and as right as i've been with calling this one the converse is true with Ladbrokes (it's getting to the stage where the shares could not be given away in a lucky bag just now) Good luck

possibly true and perhaps even longer, however, the rejected offer at approx £2 can surely only go up (if they do offer again) and the risk was that they took on bwin and failed to deliver and devalued their business. The 888 stockholders may well feel that they have dodged a bullet Both 888 and GVC are well run companies and have proven track records of delivery but the scale of the task for GVC is much greater than past achievements. Surely the market reaction 888 up GVC down tells a story too

By the way - 125m Euros of cost savings. They must be reliant on Teflon delivering them - because he's done so in the past NOT?. I feel that 888 has dodged an almighy bullet and surely but surely Hills will be back again soon.

Hi crookman I had looked in earlier and seen the upward spike this morning on the GVC news and am now musing at the 110p. There can surely be little upside here now and there remains the possibility of one further kick in the crotch if you were to stick around. I was rooting for you to get more and this morning it looked likely, however this is almost played out now. As for Teflon - How only knows could this person still be employed? Personally, I'd not trust him to butter ther rolls in Greggs without supervision. Have a nice weekend

It's a little disconcerting to see such a closely batched flurry of sells, albeit for small amounts, over the last few days. There is probably no change in the long term view, however, if i recall correctly there was a new Director put in place and an August date was mentioned somewhere or other (I'd have to dig for it) but it could be that there is a piece of short term news arising that insiders see as negative.

The current SP makes my 106p exit look like a blunder. Given the recent upward trend - there may be a bit more in this too.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/business/13476803.Analyst_warns_on_Omega_revenues/

QueenElvis, My view is and always has been a basket case and I have never really had cause to alter that opinion. This has been a prolonged and sad demise of a company that was at one time a market leader. Some long term holders will have seen a huge reduction in value iniitally after the UIGEA and then again after the ill-fated merger and may be tempted to hold post takeover to recover some value lost previously. I was a fan of 888 and held it for quite some time and I believe that they are a good company with the necessary talents to extract value from Bwin. GVC too possess a great track record. Even with resource of excellent teams - this will be difficult to turn around and even more so against the backdrop of paying a price in excess of £900m. If i were still an 888 shareholder I'd be nervous of this and the transition period would no doubt be difficult. The achievements of both 888 and GVC in improving their respective businesses in recent years would be only half as difficult as engulfing Bwin sucessfully. Bear in mind that Bwin have presided over falling revenues and rising costs so the sought for synergies may not be gained as easily as one may think. The news, if correct, will probably allow the price to spike upwards tommorow and allow me a nice exit point without the complication of whether to hold paper in an enlarged venture. I shall thereafter bid farewell to this stock and probably as well to a few posters on here who have been around to endure the ride. I hope that my views here have stimulated some discussion, allowed some views to be questioned and most importantly helped others, even if they only read my posts and thought "what's that moron posting now". I'm aware that I post in an often robust nature that is not to everyone's taste and I treat success and failure as part of the game in equal measure. To those i may have offended here, whether intenionally or not, you all have my best wishes regardless and to all holders still holding tommorow evening I wish you the very best of luck. In particular I'd mention crookman who has ceaselessly provided information for years on this stock. i think it's fair to say we 'sword fenced' a bit at the outset and did not always agree. Irrespective of the outome of our respective crystal ball gazing efforts back in 2012 & 2013, I must comment that your contributions often caused me to reassess matters and that why we come here after all. Kamel