Member Info for lejjb

TBH it's quite dangerous to follow such claims too closely... after a while it sinks into the unconscious. Evidence: I still check the AST and URU boards way too often... ;-)

Hi all, and happy Friday!

Jarem - I personally found vale121's language inappropriate, but he has a point regarding the multiple broken timing promises and claims, in RNSs, last year's podcast and by e-mail (I counted at least 5 for the 1.5 years, MFDevCo and GH combined, and apparently it's been going for years longer � I've only been actively following this company since October 2016.) Granted, the projects are complex and take ages, but then why then give estimates / promises that are so wildly inaccurate, so repeatedly? That brings questions about the competence, if not honesty, of the makers of those claims. Additionally, you talk of "signing very good deal/ terms with billion dollar companies to be a part of the consortium" - did you actually see any specific terms, particularly figures? By comparison, what's been announced with PVF re: farm in, whether one likes or not, has clearer terms with amounts (heads of terms to be more accurate - it's not a finalised / fully binding contract in English law). There is conspicuously no info whatsoever about how much Aker is due to commit in man hours or money, even as a proportion to the scale of the fields targeted. The previous agreements with Konsberg, Arup, Aibel and COSL have shown for years now that they are not a guarantee of deals, let alone of exclusive support vs other competitors of MFDevCo (remember Barryroe!). That's why when a very small company makes a deal with a very big one, either the former will need to obtain a minimum commitment, quantified and clearly defined, from the large company to guarantee it will get some form of income or equivalent. Or the small company does it mostly to stick the big company's logo on its website in the hope that this will attract customers, while the big company's support actual is mostly symbolic. May I suggest you speak to people who have been involved in similar agreements between very large and very small businesses so you can get a second opinion about what I've just written. I am not saying that there is definitely no clear commitment from those consortium members, but there is no evidence of it either for now, just vague terms reported to us and no proof of delivery yet. So aggressively waving the name of the consortium members and talking of great deals to whomever doubts the company is also inappropriate IMO. MFDevCo's business model appears exciting (although increasingly less so if the OP rises again - I've explained why a couple of times on this board before) with great potential. But so far, it's just potential. There is little evidence showing it's more than that and on top of that the BoD's communications / behaviour raises questions about their competence or trustworthiness IMO.

Jarem - I personally found vale121's language inappropriate, but he has a point regarding the multiple broken timing promises and claims, in RNSs, last year's podcast and by e-mail (I counted at least 5 for the 1.5 years, MFDevCo and GH combined, and apparently it's been going for years longer � I've only been actively following this company since October 2016.) Granted, the projects are complex and take ages, but then why then give estimates / promises that are so wildly inaccurate, so repeatedly? That brings questions about the competence, if not honesty, of the makers of those claims. Additionally, you talk of "signing very good deal/ terms with billion dollar companies to be a part of the consortium" - did you actually see any specific terms, particularly figures? By comparison, what's been announced with PVF re: farm in, whether one likes or not, has clearer terms with amounts (heads of terms to be more accurate - it's not a finalised / fully binding contract in English law). There is conspicuously no info whatsoever about how much Aker is due to commit in man hours or money, even as a proportion to the scale of the fields targeted. The previous agreements with Konsberg, Arup, Aibel and COSL have shown for years now that they are not a guarantee of deals, let alone of exclusive support vs other competitors of MFDevCo (remember Barryroe!). That's why when a very small company makes a deal with a very big one, either the former will need to obtain a minimum commitment, quantified and clearly defined, from the large company to guarantee it will get some form of income or equivalent. Or the small company does it mostly to stick the big company's logo on its website in the hope that this will attract customers, while the big company's support actual is mostly symbolic. May I suggest you speak to people who have been involved in similar agreements between very large and very small businesses so you can get a second opinion about what I've just written. I am not saying that there is definitely no clear commitment from those consortium members, but there is no evidence of it either for now, just vague terms reported to us and no proof of delivery yet. So aggressively waving the name of the consortium members and talking of great deals to whomever doubts the company is also inappropriate IMO. MFDevCo's business model appears exciting (although increasingly less so if the OP rises again - I've explained why a couple of times on this board before) with great potential. But so far, it's just potential. There is little evidence showing it's more than that and on top of that the BoD's communications / behaviour raises questions about their competence or trustworthiness IMO.

All four vacancies have been around since at least July 2017. The Wayback Machine's screen grabs only go as far as the 19 December 2017 though. http://web.archive.org/web/20160215000000*/http://mfdevco.com/careers http://web.archive.org/web/20161219221339/http://mfdevco.com/careers

To his credit, he posted on something on ADVFN: however, it was a collection of generic and/or elusive statements. Certainly not something I'd call a research note.

A post from Joey86 with the oft-found ramp of "news can fall anytime" has just been deleted. Joey's account is still here so it's not as if he had been accused of being a shady character. Does somebody have the admin on direct dial?...

Carados - Count yourself lucky not to have been banned altogether!... LOL

Good morning to you young lady!

Because Alan said that "transformational news" would come soon back in October 2016...

Have I missed anything this morning? :-)

Or he's just finishing to offload his holding after his unsubstantiated claim to be a City man planning to make an investment case of NUOG failed to drive people in droves and may have got him banned from LSE.co.uk - people will note that his username has been removed altogether from the records of this site...

Both the derampers and rampers who use (allegedly) factual claims were conspicuously absent today. Either they are all part of the shillers' trade union and today was their convention's away day, or somebody (part of NUOG?) has taken active steps to keep them quiet on LSE.co.uk. Even ADVFN and Twitter were not as toxic as usual...

Belated GM all.

It's not such a conflict of interest, so long as the valuation of the thing being sold is not legally binding. Any buyer is invited to get its/his/her own valuation of the property before purchasing it. It's different from auditing: an auditor has to be impartial on the other hand, even though it is paid by the company it audits - a true source of conflict.

Have a good WE and stay away from screens you nerds!

I'll check it out for comparison, thank you.

Please could you tell us which providers you deem better? Thanks.

Happy pre-long-weekend Friday folks!

If Captor indeed follows its strategy to switch to Cannabis only, it seems likely that it will aim to sell quickly rather than at the best possible price. I does not mean a fire sale though obviously, but people's estimates for a sale bringing URU to 10p a share are becoming more unrealistic. I'm not back in as I do not have the funds, but based on my very very rough guesstimation, I'd see it as anything between 2 - 4p per share.