Member Info for Lottohopes

Star: please keep up ;) The Uber cheap placing is done. Friends and family participated presumably. And they haven’t been able to flip yet. So there won’t be a word from board about delays. Because our latest “investors” wont be too keen to hold paper losses and I doubt they want to upset them. What would be interesting is Dr Caves team updating market, that talks have been somewhat unproductive. Misery loves company they say. I m just being facetious, apologies.

Jarv: correction. They needed only 2m, aimed for 3m. Eventually decided to raise £13m (5m in raise and £8m in the warrants). Makes perfect sense doesn’t it? Diluted everyone by 50% in one fell swoop. At 1.25p. Huge discount to the price they received for their own shares .

Zero detail on cost of the machine, set up costs, outlay for next year etc. Irrelevant. Because they sit on the board and can call the shots. This type of autocracy is what frustrates share holders.

A robust FCA investigation should ideally pursue the directors as individuals, examine the movements of money between their various companies (these companies though listed are merely vehicles through which they juggle their cash from one coat pocket to another)

So an overarching investigation that includes say BRH, RMS, IQAI and other companies, but with focus on timing of the news flow, the issuing of warrants, cashing these, should yield some interesting results. A forensic examination of these, is not too difficult if one has the correct access. As others have stated, we won’t hear any more on the progress or other wise by LSE REG or FCA. But that is irrelevant. Result is irrelevant. Use ones voice and knock relentlessly on doors.

To be clear, GC is not seeking power within the board or to usurp the board. He wants exactly what any share holder wishes for. Good value accretion, sensible communication with share holders, minimising dilution and sound governance. Events demonstrate the above is impossible with the current board.

Nolopus: this is exactly the point. Has the board explained WHY the masks failed the test? Have they clarified any remedy? A time line for when this might happen?

Have we been provided any detail on the “heads of terms” signed with Volz? Any idea however remote (pun unintended) on revenue or how big (or not) this might be?

Have we been given any further info on the “trial installation window” with Tarmac, that GyroMetric was going to have (months ago an RNS stated this, now buried). Gyrometric was supposed to have an installation for its laser device in “early 2021”. What is this ADSA for which we got a patent? All a big mystery.

Material information is not addressed. No operational progress is provided. Take a look at IQAI: same director. Look at the level of detail. We are treated like fools. The sp at which board bought in, pre consolidation in Dec 2017 was 0.035p. After a 20:1 consolidation that’s 0.7p. So there you have it. After all the progress, all the subsidiaries and “exciting” value adding acquisitions and “near term” opportunities between 2018-20, our share price stands at 1.25p. The opportunities are for the board and their contacts to pillage value again and again. They can ride the snake and ladder many times from 0.7p to 5p. Whilst those who bought into the “story” be it GyroMetric or P2F and behaved as loyal investors do, get very little. This culture needs to be challenged.

(Contd)...ruthlessly into smoky news.

So if there any long term holder types, or even traders looking for more than a mere 10/2-/30%, there is huge value in both GyroMetric and P2F. However, I don’t see this board delivering this value. The shambolic reporting of progress over last few weeks, the ramping of news flow into which these directors brazenly sold; and more importantly their clear intention to DILUTE every one who may disagree leaves only one conclusion in my mind. They need to be shown the door. Please support all long suffering share holders in our efforts to rid this company of these directors. Their behaviour so far has been that they “own” the company, and can do as they deem fit. Zero accountability and little by way of governance.

Where things might get interesting is if things deteriorate next week and the trader types feel a little of our pain too ;)

Every investor has a choice to make and this is not herding on my part. I merely want to provide clarity on WHY we seek change. Please let no one assume naively that this is a power struggle between GC and TB, or that we are involved in a personal spat between them. This is about consistent value destruction, perceived lack of accountability as a board and governance issues. As I have said before, every choice we make has possible consequences. Doing nothing, supporting current board or supporting the change of board. Good luck all

Evening folks :) I hope everyone’s had a reasonably quiet peaceful festive season. I realised from reading the chat that many here havent really seen the full extent of the dilution that this board is capable of, or how it can destroy value for those that hold by doing so.

My view point is that this board actively encourages a herd of traders to participate in placings, offers cheap warrants, the news flow then accommodates quick rises into which these warrants get sold. The NOMAD and Broker get their piece of the pie every time and accommodate the “flexibility” of the rules.

Please read through the last 3 years raisings/warrants and sequence of news flow if you doubt my statements. As an example some hard numbers:

December 2017: TB and NB rescue the erstwhile company AERO by participating in a raise (TB takes 27% of the new total of shares, does that sound familiar?)

Total share issue 3.649 billion shares at beginning of Board changes (December 2017)
1,685,714,286 new shares issued
1,011,428,571 warrants issued at same time

By June 2018, (mere six months later) the total share issue was a staggering 6,173,527,709. Yes SIX BILLION shares. They quickly proceeded to consolidate at 20:1, thereby reducing the share issue back to 308,676,386 New Ordinary Shares of 0.2p each. Looks tidy again phew!

Next 2.5 years, the merry go round continues. Rampy RNS after RNS, claiming Gyrometric is doing well, that Geocurve is on the verge of a significant contracts. Various big names get bandied around. We spent countless hours researching these firms and looking at possible connections. (Remember Optmist13 and many others who held patiently?) Incestuous deal, where GyroMetric gets bought into, by RMS from BRH. (Wait a minute, TB is on both boards here, both sides of the transaction, sound familiar to any other deal?)

RMS acquisition of GyroMetric:

1st transaction:
RMS paid £250k for 36.9%
£675,675 value of 100% gyrometric

2nd transaction:
£273k for 20.9%
£1,306,000 value for 100% gyrometric

What has GyroMetric produced so far? £57k in revenue as per 2019-20 statement.

P2F transaction in which RMS bought P2F from BRH (and GC) :
BRH: paid £200k for 18.67%. Valued it at 1.071m
BUT BRH—> RMS transaction valued it at 2.37m

So how do these directors make their money? By inflating book value, incestuous dealing between companies, issuing billions of warrants, endless dilution to avoid any real control by others (this is a key point).

So we had only 308 million shares of AERO in 2018, after consolidation. What went wrong? Nothing. Things went swimmingly for the broker, director and the NOMAD. It has taken 2.5 years to reach 2.4 billion shares yet again. (If one counts the warrants and latest placing shares).

This board has absolutely no interest in creating a sustainable share price, or a “floor” for value. They has amply demonstrated that by trading, buying at deep discounts again and again, and selling r

I think the sheer proportion of investors in a company calling for a change of board, needs to be duly considered. This is separate from the number/% of votes obviously. The strength of that sentiment cannot be ignored, it should initiate change. It’s a clear message that things cannot remain status quo and that we are not passive victims in this game being played. 2 dilutions within months of each other, 50% each time! VALUE DESTRUCTION at its finest for long term holders. And board sold out before systematically diluting. If any investors here or elsewhere have found themselves on the wrong side of a board that “trades”, please take note and ACT when the time comes. As I said yesterday, there are risks with every course of action (including doing nothing). So my outlook is disregard outcome and act on what feels correct. Have a good holiday period all.

Agreed Aba. We need to increase awareness of what exactly the rationale is for voting on board change, so investors can choose themselves. There are risks in all courses of action, doing nothing, supporting current board and supporting board change. This isn’t a mere spat between GC and TB. Even before P2F, there were governance concerns. Let’s wait for direction from Egremont. Meanwhile we keep buying ;)

Evening folks :) so had a bit of a chat with ChrisPye via twitter. He informs me he was invested before and bought chunk of the raise. He cautions me on the militant thinking, that there might be a huge holder lurking in support of TB. My own thinking: no TR1 yet. Unlikely. Nothing is impossible. Of course sub threshold 2-2.5% holders (includes say PR and NB) may well support TB. He might release some spin to cash that 77m warrant stake. (Him and PR generously rewarded themselves for err all the hard work of grabbing the remote from GC)

So I reckon there are hundreds more PIs who haven’t contacted Jonathan yet or simply can’t be bothered. It becomes our duty to do everything we can, to rally support for GC. To talk about who holds any RMS. And to act on getting the brokers to vote as we want them to, when the time comes. If it comes. I urged Chris (and others who participated recently) to support GC too. Or Atleast refrain. The warrants need to go first imho. GC is simply defending our own rights: to find value, communicate with share holders in a straight forward manner, aim to limit/reduce dilution and have decent governance. A straight forward number in favour may avoid unnecessary delays via EGM etc. Indeed if there are legal fees, I would hope we can raise money (via just giving etc) as it is our fight as much as his. All the very best to all holders. Spend time with family and friends. Switch off from investing. Being content and at peace is the greatest gift one can have.

For someone who claims to have patents to his name and from presumably a technical background, your disdain for Dr Cave, for the manner in which board has diluted us all at an utterly cheap price (1.25p!!) is despicable. Care to comment on how Paul Ryan is “independent” when he held a significant stake? How he managed to sell at 5p into an RNS? Composition of various committees including remuneration? WE got diluted by 50% to buy P2F. Then we get diluted 50% again!!! Oh it’s all in the past. Forget it and move on? Is it that simple? The board needs to be replaced and the juggernaut cannot be stopped.

Chrispye/ Stop spouting rubbish. If you want to be helpful why not share why the funds were raised, as per this secretive prospectus? Gareth Cave deserves to be treated with respect like all share holders.

Let’s be very clear here. Please stop patronising us. Trevor Brown does not equal RMS. Just as Gareth Cave does not equal P2F. It’s a share holders right to raise any concerns with appropriate authorities. As far as threats go, please read yesterday’s RNS from RMS. Fear will not work. Try common sense and decency. It’s Xmas.

Hammy: “Wind your neck in” is a funny comment. Please cease with the fear mongering. People here are smarting huge losses and keen for justice. If the FCA does get involved that dividend announced to BRH investors (where a director held 24% conveniently) would be questioned too. So an investigation risks not just RMS, but BRH (and potentially other directorships). Battles should be picked wisely all round.

I think there are serious regulatory issues with the sequence of events, and it won’t be too difficult in this day and age to examine these events forensically. Ironically the RNS yesterday threatened the lead scientist of the P2F team. An invested board wouldn’t have done this.

The board has been quick to remind everyone of their responsibilities (as regards contract, conduct, defamatory comments), this is true we all have responsibilities and so it is only correct we too remind them of their responsibilities. We all have rights as share holders. Please raise any concerns via appropriate channels. Here are the two emails:

Market.Abuse@fca.org.uk

aimregulation@lseg.com

The concerns are around rinse and repeat transactions, insider trading, non independence of Mr Paul Ryan given he was a significant share holder, conflict of interest of parties including NOMAD SPA, being a broker too and not providing sound advice to the directors as others have highlighted.

A reconciliation is needed and my plea would be that discussions stick to facts, that posters don’t turn abusive to anyone. It is a Fact That directors ploughed in nearly £1m into this co over last 3 years. However it is my belief they have more than recovered their investment and been very handsomely remunerated. (18m in total not counting NBs profits). So it is time to clear the decks and let someone else take the lead. All imho. This will settle eventually. We have a solid product line and a dedicated team in P2F. Have a good XMas all.

I do hope the board/BRH has bought back. Gives the FCA an excellent example of rinse and repeat :)

Portoly: this is the point isn’t it? No share holders consulted before diluting us all by nearly 50%. At a huge discount. No detail on who took the placing, or warrants. No firm plans on why we need 5m!! No tie in period for the equity, so they want to flip once more.

And the icing: they sold their entire stake, before hatching this plan. So they were not declared holders when they diluted. The optics is that they are power hungry and keen to dilute all share holders to avoid being challenged. They have been acting in an autocratic manner. Being a director on a board is not equal to owning the company. Even if TB and other directors held large stakes, they have a duty to consider other share holders. Let’s hope that process has started.

As a share holder, I expect clear communication, not the game like RNSs they have released. I expect detail on where those funds are going. If let’s say the funds go to buy paraytec from BRH? Would any share holder be happy? One more incestuous transaction with director on both sides, conflict of interest. If the funds are for P2F, then shouldn’t they have Atleast consulted with Gareth Cave and Alex? Surely for a growth story like this one, we could have attracted new cornerstone investors? But this doesn’t suit the directors plans to keep status quo. As others have pointed out, if there are any changes to board/style of treating share holders and approach to “value” building for ALL, then the purpose will be served. Good luck all

Parsley: it’s exactly this type of defeatist attitude that risks making you a loser (not saying you are ;). Stand up and be counted. AIM directors are just people, they aren’t Gods or untouchable. They have a code to follow, a set of guidelines. I feel pretty good about standing up to this rubbish, it aligns with my integrity. The games played here, special mention to SP Angel the NOMAD and Peterhouse the broker, all with conflicts of interest, given free warrants, making fees etc. I wrote to SPA few days ago, three directors didn’t have the courtesy to even acknowledge my email. Before you ask who I am or why I think I m owed a response, it’s just common decency.

Contrast this with an email to Nikhil Rathi, and his officer responded within 48 hours, with a detailed polite email. Integrity matters.

Andi: negotiation is inevitable. Hope you read my previous post carefully. TB May try to call the bluff and see how far GC is willing to go. But it will inflict a lot of pain on those who invested based on his planned games. GC is an academic with few needs, he works as a lecturer in a Uni, he supervises PhD students and has a fleet of research projects. In other words he has a fulfilling life outside scheming to cheat others of money, and trickery. If his intention had been a quick buck, he could easily have top sliced and made more than he ever will in his academics career. Trevor has an opportunity to do the right thing here, even if it’s for the wrong reasons ;)

There is an interesting game here. If TB or aligned parties have been buying up cheap RMS shares, or indeed new holders who bought into placing, are supporting TB because they think that will get them the warrants, then they wouldn’t want their share value to plummet, which is likely if GC and Alex withdraw from P2F. I think people need to THINK carefully about WHY they support TB if they do. Keeping the moral compass aside, the IP, the experience, the deep knowledge of products is within the P2F team. The information we have been given is shocking: a raise to dilute us all by over 40%. Biggest share holder and main scientist not consulted. Abject disregard and lack of respect. Not an inkling as to who participated in the raise. No TIE IN period ie the traders can flip their shares just like last time. Only this time a spanner in the plan: their plan was to release bits of positive news into next week and let the newest “investors” sell for a quick tidy profit. But alas GC and Egremont has disrupted this MO.

If there aren’t significant share holdings from TB faction, then he is heading to the door. If he does have significant support, then that support is going to find out they are at risk of losing money. For once let the traders feel our pain too. One thing these directors hate is losing money (unlike us PIs who are suckers for punishment). It will crystallise a compromise quickly provided ego is left at the door. Good luck all

Pebble: I don’t think that’s accurate. HL for ex will vote as you instruct. It’s your shares and your vote afterall. Things get bit trickier if there are a set of resolutions and you are voting yes for some and no for others.

I notice some of the smarmy comments about PIs getting screwed and how the “game” is played. I concede we get screwed more often than not. Making money isn’t everything and I certainly wouldn’t want to make money by stepping on others heads. PIs may be thinking of GC a somewhat naive academic pitted against seasoned players like TB. Worry not. There is a full team at Egremont capital behind GC, and he has support from Fortoaks CEO too. It’s a bit of shark vs shark ;)