Member Info for LONGWAIT

' don't understand why we couldn't have an update once the marketing period is ended or even know what the timeline were/are.'

If the marketing is still in progress, then there couldn't be an update on its having ended!

The return of 179,900 percent, DU.

I can't understand why ddboy's statement contains two negatives when none would have been fine.

I can't remember on which LSE share BB I read about this before, but someone calculated the return, based on share splits, and claimed it was nothing like that much.

I think that's far-fetched, TP3.
I think if the directors had thought they had a better option, they wouldn't have marketed Tendrara.
I don't think the decision was taken in order to restore JP's credibility.
For all we know, JP may have wanted to go ahead with TE-11, but with the share prices collapsing, was outvoted by the other directors.
I don't think Rothschild were called in just in order to play for time.

I khan't believe that, Genghis ...

I was thinking along the same lines, Manyana, which is why I called the Chinese naval intervention a 'vision.'
But I don't think Exola's share register is legally unchallengeable in theory.
I still wonder how long the bank can take to clear the payment.
It is surely unreasonable to expect the intended recipient to wait, say, six months.
The fact that they haven't rejected the payment suggests they think it should ultimately clear, but the fact it hasn't suggests there is something wrong with it.

Maybe you're right; maybe Rothschild are BSing too.

But are you serious when you say that I only answer with innuendo, TP3?

It's amazing how often I get mentioned here.

You know, it's more than five years since I chose that name and I've been waiting more than five years for HUR's share price to go up.

'I then have two days to pay for them. What happens if I cannot pay?'
(Manyana on PVR)

'I wonder whether there is any limit to how long a bank will attempt to clear a transfer?'
(LONGWAIT on LOGP)

Interesting post, Manyana.

I have a vision of APEC, backed by the Chinese Navy, turning up at Barryroe and insisting on their right to develop it as it was PVR's refusal to wait a year for the transfer to clear that caused their collaboration to end, and APEC accept no responsibility for it.

I wonder whether there is any limit to how long a bank will attempt to clear a transfer?

If it says after a year that it's still processing it, would it not look ridiculous?

Everyone has to work within the banking system, Mamms.
I've read of deals between Chinese and Israeli companies, whose countries didn't even have diplomatic relations until 1992, but I haven't heard of a problem like this before.
PVR have been patient and I doubt whether any court would accept an argument that they hadn't been patient enough if the payment is rejected and PVR say they're through with APEC.
I think if PVR have received legal advice, it is that they need to wait until the payment is rejected before taking any action.
I agree with you that APEC could still create problems after that, but they might just agree to cancel the contract.
The important thing in the meantime is that PVR must manage to survive until it knows one way or the other whether the payment has cleared.

I agree that if the money can be raised, both share prices will fly, but it took PVR seven years to secure this deal.
What are the chances of getting another?
And if PVR goes it alone in an attempt to attract a partner, why didn't it do that instead of spending seven years looking for one?

I HAVE been to court, Mamms, and I think we are talking at cross -purposes.
I was talking about the status of the contract 'in the event that the payment were rejected.'
You are talking about PVR attempting to revoke the contract WHILE it is still being processed!

I would be surprised if PVR didn't start looking at alternatives at least weeks ago, when they realised there was a problem.
Obviously, if the deal with APEC were to fail then a new partner would need to be found and, in the meantime, TOR might have to stop drawing his salary.
Presumably, he would be prepared to do that for the sake of the Barryroe project.

No problem, Maldini.

I have good news: the spat between me and Gary appears to be over: I reported his last post, in which he made personal remarks about me and it has been removed.

I repeat the substance of my comments to which he objected: the ten plus interested parties mentioned by BM contradicts N4aPound's claim ' nobody is interested.'

And no-one so far has accused BM of talking BS.

I hadn't forgotten, Maldini - I was thinking about that only hours ago, because I remember your previous posts.

My question is: how much value could that threefold increase at TE-7 add to the estimate of 19-27p per share?

'to your other point that somehow Rothchilds are implicit in some delaying tactics well just beggars belief really.'

I implied that it beggars belief that Rothschild are involved in delaying tactics!

It wasn't MY point - it was implied by posters who claim that the marketing process, which Rothschild is running, is a delaying tactic.

Yet another post aimed at my comments but which doesn't actually address the substance of what I wrote.

'Personally don’t see any chance of money arriving.'

If HSBC agreed with you, wouldn't they reject the transfer?