Member Info for meldrew44

Please do let us know if you find one. In the meantime, I think I'll hang onto GSCU.

"It reached below a penny in the past and rerated"

"Did he just say that?"

Yup! He certainly did.

It will be interesting to see who posts tomorrow, what they say and if they get it right

You are mistaken when you say, "Met1 does not have a functioning business that produces anything and is loss making on top. It consists mainly of cash."

Met1 actually owns vast amounts of unmined uranium and other valuable metals that it is currently developing to mine.and sell. That means that it is far from being a non functioning business.

Laura,

I was never 4PetesSake. Whoever that was?

I got burned by AVO. Learned my lesson and vowed never to be burned again.

It reminds me of AVO. That was going to conquer the world as well

It doesn't look like the market has confidence in MET1

It's nudging up now

I hope you get the starters and puds and a lot more

SurreyNot123

When are you going on holiday?

I'm interested in knowing to get idea of the timeframe you are working within.

It seems to be on the way back up today

I don't understand why the sp keeps on dropping. Serabi has droppped as well.

The market seems unhappy with this news on Thursday:

Britain has issued tougher new environmental rules for fossil fuel projects with implications for the development of two vast North Sea oil and gas fields by Shell SHEL.L and Equinor EQNR.OL.

And the spat in the middle east seems to have eased off a bit.

PM44

I believe that everything that happened while the shares were in our ISAs will have no impact on profits outside our ISAs. It's only what happens to the AVO shares now they're outside outside our ISAs that will have an impact on our investments outside our ISAs.

It's only my opinion, so I could be wrong.

Cancellation from AIM doesn't affect shareholders ownership of their shares or their stake in the company because AIM is merely a platform for trading shares. Ownership of the shares wouldn't change even if AIM, or the stock market, for that matter, ceased to exist.

I have little confidence in AVO's BoD but every confidence in LIGHT.

If AVO goes under, someone else will get their hands on LIGHT and bring it to market. They and their shareholders will reap the benefits of AVO's work. If I can, I will become a shareholder of that company.

I had two friends who have died of 'inoperable' brain cancers. One of them died last month, the other two years ago. I believe that LIGHT might have saved at least one of them, if AVO had been in the hands of a more capable BoD.

Bertie8

I've been following AVO for some years. I have virtually zero trust in the ability of the BoD to run a business. I am not a scientist and I don't have any specialist knowledge but I do have confidence in the LIGHT story and, by inference, the technology, because:

1. Proton therapy isn't new. It has been in use for many decades to treat cancers , using the hugely expensive cyclotron technology that requires purpose built housing with substantial shielding for them .

2. The LIGHT machine was initially developed by CERN and CERN scientists have been involved in its ongoing development as a vastly improved and very different machine for treating cancers using proton therapy.

3. Some of the BoD are reputable figures in the medical field of cancer treatment.

4. Many of the BoD are heavily invested in AVO and have not sold their shares. They stand to lose enormous sums if AVO goes under

5. AVO managed to persuade the owners of Harley Street to redevelop two of their properties, at their own expense, to house LIGHT.

I'm left with the options that LIGHT works or that the whole thing is a scam. I believe that LIGHT is not a scam but the BoD are unbelievably inept.

I've no idea but I'll make a sort of guess. Given the potential value of LIGHT and the massive amounts the leading shareholders and some of the Bod have invested in AVO, my guess is that they'll probably try to get the highest price/best deal they can get. That might include getting some of the bidders shares . We should get the same sp as them and It might even mean we get some of the bidders' shares .

If the bid attracts other bidders then we might even see a bidding war. That could be good news for us.

We should know something before long .

I believe that an RNS is only required if a formal bid is made or accepted. Negotiations about a bid may not require an RNS. I believe that the disclosure rules rules exempt the names of bidders from being disclosed when negotiations are taking place. The disclosure rules can be looked up by anyone who feels the need to find out.