Member Info for NGR1616

You misunderstood.

You muppets in the < than 10% minority have the gall to suggest I’M deluded? 🤣

Your boy TH read it wrong. He pumped this hard and gave info to the press - the language is the same as the fictional figures- you were all quiet until he publicly provided evidence of his teddies being thrown out of the cot without caring for their well-being…..and the collective jumped on his coattails! Hilarious.

TH was ramping the outcome on twitter under his alias- it’s quite possible he was also in communication with the media to push his agenda.

Were you on the cooking brandy last night Nanogeddon? 🤦🏻

Probably less than 10% if you took out TH’s rogue 5.02% vote.

Re the suspension of trading-my post was deleted. What do you think would happen when the suspension was lifted?

You can interpret that article many ways to suit your narratives.

Try doing so and not conflating :

-the risk of not actually getting a successful trial outcome

-a settlement figure likely provided by TH to the Times (to ramp the price)

-the suggestion “multiples of mcap” [for a successful award!] meant the share price would multiply

….with what was actually delivered which was a full and final negotiated settlement.

- No risk.

-No delay with appeal.

-No further legal or borrowing costs.

-Validated IP

Focus back on organic business.

Correct. That’s why the whole settlement was $150m

If they didn’t sell the IP do you think they’d have settled? It’s all smoke and mirrors I grant you that, all under the auspices of NDA’s , legal terminology etc and I wish it was more transparent but it rarely is and I don’t expect it to be any different with Nanoco past, present or frankly in the future.

HH we will have to agree to disagree. I think a settlement for $150m is reasonable for many reasons. I don’t care what figures others fed to the press-I suspect the $500m came from someone invested and not the company nor ‘paid’ researchers. Perhaps the company should have issued a response to that but where do you draw the line on speculation? You could issue an RNS when the share price starts to disconnect I suppose………

That’s not true though is it. He said he’d accept fair value which he did.

It’s not an AIM stock importantly….

I wonder what people will say if / when the commercial orders are announced and the SP reacts positively and we might surpass the previous spike pre-settlement confirmation. That might not happen of course and I could have this all wrong but if it does I suspect the same people will still bemoan the outcomes so entrenched they are.

For the avoidance of doubt if this does go tits up I’ll admit to getting it wrong and only time will tell. I’m pretty sure the 10%-ers won’t do the same though.

SEE does look interesting. I might put something in.

*know

I know no one who holds Nanoco shares other than myself. How on earth do you 5?

HH I for one have never suggested he’s irreplaceable nor do I think there’s no one who couldn’t do a better job of running Nanoco. Where we differ is you see fault and seek to blame where I see none.

But rest assured i agree, if shareholders smell a rat he will be gone. At the moment 90% don’t.

nanogeddon…..i’m the idiot? ok 👌🏻

i’m actually flying today…..i know enough about flying that the chances of my be ****ed off at the pilot are about 0%. i also know my chances of playing a role in his “sacking” is also 0% especially mid-air and when i’m not his employer. but yeah….

if you were ****ed off at your pilot it’s probably your fault

Apparently I’m biased in favour of the board and my votes; although aligned with the other 90% of others, skewed the result when in reality Nanogeddon simply couldn’t be hooped voting and reckons everyone who did is by extension biased. He’s implying if everyone voted BT would be gone. It’s another daft theory. Obviously.

For clarity I’m not biased, I just support the board because I understand the phrases issued around the trial, the preference for a negotiated outcome, the risks in losing (and in winning) and the discount for time and money saved in a quick resolution. Some critics here are unable to understand this in context, but thankfully they represent only 10% of holders.

I will continue to support the board until I feel otherwise and that includes delays in announcing confirmation of material validation and subsequent delays in receiving commercial orders because I understand supply chains and the challenges around adoption of new technology.

If the materials fail to be validated I’ll reassess then.

This telegraphing of the AGM in 4 months as some sort of decision point is being made by the exact same muppets that failed to oust BT the first time around. They’re trying again…..it’s just an annoying distraction we have to suffer. Don’t fall into their rabbit hole. Delays happen but the SWIR tech in particular looks promising and could be far more ubiquitous than display and have a role in many facets of our lives.