Member Info for NGR1616

Why should I be questioning it? If orders come in and the company becomes profitable and further orders continue to come in I’ll be pretty excited…..

I guess you just want to hear something else because that’s the side of the fence you’ve chosen.

Troublesome I struggle to understand why you of all people can’t understand what an inflection point is. It’s years in the making in this case not a reaction to a single piece of news as you seem to have been fixated upon since the announcement of the settlement. You’ve grasped onto it without grasping it…..I don’t believe you are a fool like another i could mention….so why is it?

Where was the company 12-24 months ago versus where the company will be in 12-24 months time.....

Troublesome if you cant see it in the detail in the circular I'm not going to manage to point it out to you on here dude sorry.

Has anyone actually bothered to read the circular....?

You want no ambiguity yet claim their use of CAPITAL letters is pathetic….

Shearclass Nanoco is not an AIM company

Could it be they are genuinely scared they’ll lose their positions before their confidence in the future of the company is crystallised?

TS the term 'disgruntled was being used by the press back in May. I just looked. Interestingly one outlet is describing TH motives as an attempted coup.

If the Samsung offer was put to a vote it's most likely it would have passed in my opinion.

the amount was not materially less as the board had always said their preference was a settlement on fair value. Of course you can argue until the cows come home what 'fair value' is but please be mindful of the value of time and money particularly now when inflation and interest rates are running so high. Nanoco can make upwards of £3m in interest pa

at 5% on the second tranche versus having to borrow money to survive. That's a massive difference.

There were several new poster accounts created around the same date and around the raising of the requisition all supporting TH and posting frequently at length on the narrative.

It’s clear to me that this is an organised concerted attempt to manipulate shareholder opinions and based on some of the further rhetoric I’ve seen lately, it’s swayed some.

The company sees the risk that future value will be lost to a third party. For the avoidance of doubt, YOU wont be that third party. If you vote for this you are shooting yourselves in the foot, assuming you have any feet left.

Bear in mind this is just me being hypothetical. Perhaps another option is to asset strip. Or gain sufficient control of rights to pass the sale of the company to a private entity in a way that benefits the 'group' not the PI's. Frankly I'm deeply concerned that a company that started as a Manchester University success story now faces the prospect of being taken over by a brash disgruntled group praying on other disgruntled PI's for support. I don't think it will work but it concerns be deeply that some cannot see what's happening here. It's a classic smash and grab.

Maxi there are some possible avenues. The 'new' board could simply mismanage the company. Where they end up starved of investment, cash is eroded, new shares issued, revenue delayed until ultimately they become a risky investment. The institutional investors that are currently supportive can become so concerned about the direction the company is headed that they, as responsible fund managers are left with no alternative but to sell their stake in a distressed fashion at a further discount. Those shares are now effectively transferred to the hostile company (if that group is financially backed to do so). Before long they will control sufficient voting rights to transfer the remaining shares into private ownership. Goodbye Nanoco. Goodbye YOUR MONEY.

Institutional investors are supporting the board and yet you an individual PI still wants to remove the board.

The board are warning you that “YOUR MONEY” is at risk yet you still want to remove the board.

Says it all really.

I said it was a “risk” not fact.

I’m quoting the company released RNS re TH for starters and I’m ‘my opinion’ their motives don’t meet mine. Soon it into whatever you want bud. Investors can arrive at their own conclusions, as it would appear have you.

21 days is tomorrow

I’m only quoting the official view regarding TH’s ‘story’ .

As for my suggestion of a total wipeout being slander [sic] I don’t think that showing concern about my investment being devalued is in any way a legal matter when the company itself has expressed concern about the potential effects of this action.

TH has a selective interpretation of the past events and his claims include some significant factual errors. His speculative concerns take a number of events out of context to create a misleading narrative.

Many have fallen into the same crafted story and are being manipulated by a targeted mob to destabilise the company for short term gain and I can assure everyone one not in the proposed takeover group….you won’t be one of the ones that gains anything except liquidation of your investment. That’s the real risk here, total wipeout.