Member Info for Longtermview24

I asked this question a while back but not sure if I got a reply with the volume of posts at the time:

Are there any companies that have gone to the wall requiring a cash injection to stay afloat and done so not tapping shareholders for required money?

------

It's a very good question 15LIVES. And neatly illustrates why there is a significant level of anger towards Fraser and the yes men/women on the Board

You picked the wrong piece of the project to make your point. The tunnel is progressing significantly ahead of schedule and the contract is on a fixed price basis. The tunnel is a red herring, it's the least of the issues. In fact it's a non-issue. But you domt really care, you're just here to wind people up. Saddo

The Presentation by Simon Carter -

We're about innovation - really? where was the innovation when it came to financing?
Leaving a legacy - agreed, a legacy of devastated investors and lives in financial ruin.

Presentation dated Feb 2020 - this month. Somewhat insensitive in the current circumstances. Extolling the wonderful things the project is doing and can deliver, meanwhile the shareholders, who paid for all this, are about to be flushed down the toilet. Shows the BOD doesn't give a toss about us shareholders. They're a disgrace.

Thanks Yellow. Not sure why they needed to respond to the Times in that case.

The Board (really Fraser who ran this as if he were the 100% owner) have shown shocking judgement for months. Their opinion - and it's just an opinion - is that a no vote will result in administration. But nobody has a crystal ball. In the absence of anyone stepping in, of course administration is inevitable. But a contrary opinion is that a no vote changes the outcome for bondholders who go from full protection under AAL to wipe out. That may force them to act - to step in to save themselves and, by association us.

To my mind this is just as likely an outcome - a rescue - as administration. All just opinions at the end of the day, but let me make one thong clear I'm advocating a no vote to save my investment, not to profit from a short position and I have , on many occasions acknowledged this strategy comes with a downside risk of zero pence. It's a risk many are prepared to take to save their investment and, for different reasons, its a risk Odey are also taking and they're not shorting the share either.

You've come on here late in the day and seem very supportive of the offer and, generally Fraser. If anyone has an agenda here, it appears to be you.

Stick your 5.5p where the sun don't shine and let's get counting on the 3rd.

Agreed MaxDoom.

Truly inept , shocking, naïve behaviour from the Board. And JPM affiliates are still continuing to buy and sell and short shares. truly despicable.

I don't have a problem with Sharesoc quoting Fraser who suggests that it is likely a no vote will result in administration, but when they give that opinion themselves, quoted in the Times suggesting that a no vote will "very likely result in administration", I have a problem with that. They have no way of knowing that. They are not qualified to make that scaremongering statement.

Fraser is conflicted and, IMO, will do anything at this point to save his 7 million payout and new job with AAL. He does not have shareholders best interests as his priority. Anything he says, given his track record of broken promises and mis-statements over the past several month should be taken with a pinch of salt. For Sharesoc to regurgitate this and pass it off as their own opinion is not helpful for shareholders, particularly those still trying tp find a plan B.

Why haven't sharesoc been more actively promoting and supporting www.fundsirius.com ?

The advice in your post yesterday covering quotes from Sharesoc in the Times, coupled with the fact that I don't see much effort on the part of Sharesoc to promote the www.fundsirius.com campaign.

I think people that forked over 45 quid expected more assistance and support. Just my opinion.

Is Sharesoc licensed the give investment advice? Should they not be remaining neutral on the vote and simply giving out information, rather than opinions? Should they not be more concerned with representing shareholders rights, particularly the right to vote, but leaving the voting preference up to the individual?

There seems to be a lot wrong with the voting system and one shareholder one vote is significantly compromised by the one nominee account one vote reality.

I'm sure many of the hundreds, if not thousands, of shareholders that forked over 45 quid to sharesoc feel a bit let down by the representation they're providing to shareholders.

Is sharesoc a wolf in sheeps clothing?

pwh - I quote - "administration isn’t a certainty if this deal fails."

only bit of your post worth reading and that makes sense

Cranleigh - I strongly disagree with this statement - "I believe the result of rejection of the bid is most likely to be immediate administration and subsequent loss of all value for shareholders"

They have funds until at least 31 March. Why would administration be immediate? That rat Fraser would not kiss goodbye to his 7 million as soon as the judges gavel goes down on a no vote. He'd be straight on the blower to QIA. Odey also wouldn't be voting no if administration was immediate and, indeed, have speculated that an interloper is most likely to appear between the 3rd and the 20th., which strongly suggests administration, if it happens, will not happen immediately.

tasteforlife - this wasn't a gamble. It was an investment. It isn't a gamble for AAL it's an investment at a knock down price. The issue that many that invested that are wiser than me didn't see, was that the ex-banker would stuff up the fundraise so badly.

You - and others seem to think investing in AAL is a reasonable solution. But it's not. Sirius has a single asset - Poly4 - an organic fertilser. AAL is a conglomerate where Poly4 will be a very small fraction of the overall portfolio, a portfolio that includes all sorts of dirty businesses such as coal mines, a long way from an organic fertilser.

I have no wish to invest in polluting industries and, furthermore, there are many other businesses that will influence the future share price of AAL unrelated to poly4. Even if Woodsmith is successful that may or may not be reflected in AAL share price. AAL is not a good investment proposition for me, with or without Woodsmith in the portfolio. Not to mention I don't much care for their ethics.

pledges stand at almost 42 million from just 1724 respondents. Image what could've been achieved with the official backing and marketing by Sirius.

The Board will never be able to justify not giving this a go - and that's why there are lingering doubts about the sincerity of the parties involved in this deal and why there is a great deal of anger and resentment towards Fraser and his crew.

Here's a thought. Instead of upping their bid, what if AAL agreed to leave a few scraps for us PI's. if they paid 5.5p for 78% of the company that would value the company at Odey's 7p, but would leave us with 22% of our investment. That would be a smarter counter to Odey's 7p demand and would go a long way to repairing AAL's reputation in the local community.

Can stick their patronizing advice. My NO vote is not based on emotional grounds, it's based on the fact that I think there is a very good chance one or more of the institutions will step in to save their investment, be that their bond or equity investment (or, in some cases, both), in the event of a no vote prevailing.

Bring it on.

and interesting to note they have bought some shares to go with their CFD, meaning they'll be in attendance at the meeting next week.

And Odey bought another 6.6 million...……

Zero chance of this going into administration immediately after a no vote. They have funds until end of April (since slowing down activity per SR) and, while the BOD are not incentivized to get off their backside now (because they're in bed with AAL), if AAL are kicked into touch Frasers 7 million handout is on the line and that might be enough to get him off his backside and look for a plan B

Scotman, my agenda is to salvage my investment as best I see fit and that’s betting on a no vote followed by a rescue. I appreciate there is a downside risk of wipeout. The upside is dividends at 10/13/20 mta production.

Insinuate what you like but I’m transparent and my belief is genuine. In the fullness of time we’ll find out whether Ive been wasting my time and money advocating no but please don’t ever question my sincerity or motive.

But ffc there is no AAL deal, just an AAL offer. And I hope the offer ends up where he sun don’t shine

No spin Scotman. That’s why I predicated it with “if”. Which side of the bed did you get out of today the sack Fraser side or kiss his ‘arris side. Dr Jekyl and Mr Hide got nothing on you.

Not sure why employees should be heading for the lifeboats. We’re we not told AAL would keep the same plan for at least the next two years.

Or was that a lie too.

Spin that.

To be fair, the construction seems to be on track, maybe even ahead of schedule, given they’ve slowed it down recently. So Mr Clarke seems to be pulling his weight. If it’s true he’s been shown the door, it would be just another indication of the ruthless heartless nature of that barsteward Fraser.

We know he doesn’t give a stuff about shareholders but he was quoted about being “devastated” for employees. But yet he’s cleaning house already.

What a legend Fraser. To quote a John Lennon lyric “how do you sleep at night”.