Member Info for NGR1616

Look at your recent posts .

I’m not doing your thinking for you Troublesome old chap!

Do you have insider information FH? No you don’t so please express your opinion for what it is.

The return of capital and the buyback are both positive indicators otherwise they’d preserve cash and BT wouldn’t be leaving the cash cow. The delay however could be an indication that the company got ahead of itself in projections. Or BT simply wants out and is happy to stay to pass on the batton.

Nanoco has money to spend just now so I’m not surprised that they are painting a rosey picture just now and I’d be surprised if the staff haven’t all enjoyed pay rises and bonuses following years of belt tightening. The fact remains no amount of CEO fluff will change the reality Nanoco needs repeating revenue from Gen1 or Gen2 or display. They are running out of excuses sadly although I don’t expect October to be the most important date yet and further delays are to be anticipated in my view.

There you go, another accusation that I am suffering from a mental health issue. That's going to be reported I'm afraid.

Sadly reporting us won't work. I genuinely wish there was a way to prove this just to shut this BS down once and for all. If only LSE could intervene and confirm in a post by an admin that our IP's are not even in the same country but they won't because they can't be bothered with such pettiness which is all it is - and that's before GDPR kicks in.

Kooba perhaps the company simply didn't expect people to add an extra zero to their expectations. We can't expect the company to publicly say what they were prepared to accept whilst still trying to negotiate the highest figure they could.

Sadly, for all the times you quote what you expect a company or CEO to do, you simultaneously ignore the reality of the situation Nanoco were in - a complex legal and commercial negotiation with one of the worlds largest corporations as if it weren't true. It's happened. There's no going back. I'm sure BT would have played it differently in hind sight, maybe not. Every else is sour grapes and frankly I don't have much sympathy for those who can't see what happened was somewhat inevitable but greed can cloud our judgement. 'm sure many here expected to be very wealthy off the back of the infringement but if it were that simple I think more than a couple of institutional investors would have joined in. In fact only one remained. That tells us all we need to know, the professionals got it right and arm chair punters didn't look at all the possible outcomes and didn't have the tools to do it anyway.

Troublesome again sorry i have absolutely no idea what you are getting at or why you keep aiming stuff at me.

I've no idea what you're trying to say so I'll just leave it at that.

Troublesome- I'm not going to pretend to be a legal expert but it's patently obvious that many people got over excited by the developments around the time of the settlement. This is what often happens when there's expectation of an outcome that in reality is not certain even though some convince themselves it is. In small cap oil co's the expectation of a successful drill stem test ("DST") based on the events leading up to it [e.g. "RNS #1 we have some oil shows on the BHA"] has led to many PI's jumping in only to find the well subsequently doesn't flow as hoped and the SP that had spiked then drops accordingly on that second RNS.

'We' (myself included) had built up expectations based on narratives only to find the outcome was a disappointment.

It happens.

But what has happened since is more about apportioning blame rather than accepting some responsibility for not appreciating that nothing in life is as straight forward as a win in court and a multi hundred million dollar settlement without strings attached.

Https://www.nanocotechnologies.com/media/nanoco-settles-patent-infringement-lawsuit-with-nanosys-inc-for-quantum-dot-technology/

TG2D I think if there was any substance to your unsubstantiated claims Nanoco would not have redistributed the return of £33m and would have held onto to keep the company going. It’s largely because they have or at least had sufficient confidence of achieving BE they did that. Since then there was a pause in the final stage or the return I.e. the buyback that resumed on or about the same time as the trading update and notification of a delay. Not a cancellation.

TG2D you are simply spouting conspiracy type rhetoric. You could go further with them if you really put your mind to it….or you could just be patient and wait for actual information to work with. Unless of course this is all just a part of your inventive strategy….elementary.

Different for sure but the fact remains we don’t actually know and likely will never know the background due to the usual conditions of it’s a mutual agreement scenario. If he’s leaving entirely of his own volition he’d have to offer up the reasons for it voluntarily once he’s left but even then he might be restricted in what he can and can’t say. Worth watching once he goes if only to satisfy one’s curiosity.

That's your opinion Troublesome but not everyone will share it as I'm sure you will appreciate.

The only fact here is we don't at this time know the reason for his departure. There are many examples of CEO's being pushed and the exit looks like this - but there will also be the exceptions when someone reaches a certain point in life when they decide I can afford to make a change or it's time to make a change or I don't want to do this anymore and want to try something new.

The new opportunity could be anything. He could be moving his family to another location, or moving for education purposes. Maybe he's going back to Ireland to become a farmer (its in vogue) or starting a business selling jam for all we know after becoming disenfranchised with all this bs over the years. We will possibly never know unless he does pop in in industry in a new position. Or his small jam company means he has to file returns. Endless speculation over crumbs is not really worth the effort and is like an obsession for some.

I think for companies dependent on financing it is part of the reality. Nanoco needs to become self funded beyond cash in the bank and if the sensor market opportunity falls and display also fails I doubt they will remain listed. However there are still other potential outcomes.

This is what I mean. Just stop or otherwise I can only conclude you have a problem.