Member Info for Pettycash

Cheers for the comments, chaps.

"Goes with the territory on Aim"... yes, Aim is risky, yes there are Machiavellian shenanigans, yes there are rapid and volatile moveents in share price, yes there is insider dealings... But , to accept that as being normal and acceptable almost gives credeance and a green light to criminality or negligence. This particular share: If there is not a good outcome to this, this is the first time I would have ever considered legal action against a company.. The premise for this would be , in a very unusual way, the BOD knew what their tarding policy was, thry knew the Aim rules, they knew and have accepted in writing that they knew the suspension was coming for floutiing those rules. It was all there in Black and White this time, months ago. Yet they ignored it with seemingly flagrant disregard. I think Mssrs Burnell and co could get their asses sued big time for this one (OR, they have a cunning plan)

I think he means that, Anthony...that they would be sold - not that they would literally disappear! :o)

Effort appreciated, thanks StrictlySlick/RiskyBear

Yes, we need an update this coming week.. anything else would be bad practice, bad treatment for shareholders' and not give a very positive outlook. Statement of intent at the very least.

"some pretty sick chemical technology..." ?? I think Anthony is using new(ish) kidz on da block speak for being wicked , man.. However it did present a rather 'sick' oxymoron in this context ;o)

Keeps it going.. Playing Devil's Advocate sometimes - but that keeps the debate going..and alive :o)

apologies for spelling errors all over the shop..typing fast

Cash2 - I doubt you';ll keep to your "No post" pledge! But , the answer to your question is "Yes, I do expect him to call back"...and it isn't just one call, or e-mail. I expect that of a listed compnay and their representatives, and I'd do that myself if I woned a small business. I used to take dozens of callsa day in a my ex profession..that's the deal. After trading 100s and 100s of AIM companies, mainly from 2009..I've seen an ever increaing tendancy to have a flagrant disregrad fro sharehlders and thinly held up rules. I actually think tat, ar from leaving Burnell alone..I think shareholders should be demanding answers. Me and my Investment say that. What you do and what you feel is entirely up to you.. These things tend to slip by...the longer time goes on, the more diluted feelings become. I'd like an update NOW. Even a minimal statement of intent. By the way...The £3million was in reference to shell companies, which we technically aren't , but the minutiae of detail in how we trade may have breached some AIM rule regarding this...who knows?

My concern - It has been alluded to earier (and in the Podcast) that these new inestment Companies need £3mill to operate.. If Burnell and co have been pulled up on that score, we're probably fooked.. If it's a case of needing a new invetment in resources to get to 75%, we're maybe fooked, If it's a RTO< we may well be ok.

Blogs ad new media has allowed everyone to become an "expert".. seems you only have to alk around a street corner to vecome an expert of road systems or go to Currys and become a sn electirical expert.. Loads of these guys around - what's his track record like? He sounds like he's a football manager giving a chronological recording of events without much insight.. Anywayone tried Burnell today?? seems his initial excitement at shareholder concerns ahs dissipated somewhat.. I know two people who've left messages and one who sent an e-mail: No rsponse.

Just had a listen to Podcast.. I know you think I've got a negative slant - and I have !...but Doc Holiday sounds like he's just stumbled out of the O.K Corral.. Never heard the bloke before - but not very re-assuring to me.. Think maybe Wyatt Earp knows more

Yes, agree it's unsepttling - and it may (or not ) be sorted to the positive side .. But I thinm that communication is paaramount (something lacking in many AIM BODS)... So I am hoping that G Burnell will make some sort of announcement to indicate intentions soonber rather than later. The longer it goes on, the bigger the vacuum, and more worry.. So, yes, it is very early days, but I would expect some from of announcement/release to assure shareholders that everything is being sorted out... The reason for a negative slant (as someone alluded to earlier , in a bit of "dig" sort of way, is that if you've been trading AIM long enough you will see that the nehgative far outweighs the positive. Some BODs set up businesses for their own purposes for sure. I'm hoping that this is different and that Gavin and NT are a good team, which bring some great things. But not a great position to be in at the moment - not knowing anything. I would be more re-assured by some form of official statement from the co.

Interesting...let's hope we don't go down that route.. However, there is NO doubt that Onz knew this Suspension was coming - and probably for several months ..why did they allow it to happen? I think now we're looking for certain at a RTO or a Delist (for the benefit of Onz directors) Anthony, interesting about selling private shareholdings..I would like to hear more about that to be honest...I wonder how difficult in practice that is?! How many brokers would deal with it..? etc but first I would like to hear something public from ONZ! C'mon BOD!!

This has been touched on by some other poasters and, with G Burnell's checkered past it has , unfortunately , csossed my mind.. I'm trying not to think too much about this option - because , if that was the case, then like Truthinator alluded to - I would then LITERALLY blow a gasket! ;o) and be intoroducing myself to Mr Burnell in person. Now, looking at De-listing, anyone's views with merger, acquisitions, etcwould be welcome.. IMO, yes it would (at first) tarnish) the names of the operatives to a certain extent - but with NT , this would quickly blow over, as ther product potential and the greed potential would not stop further tie-ups to proceed the company.. Yes, it would prevent N4/Onz using the capital markets for fundraising, but at this stage, maybe N4 do not need capital markets to fundraise (if they team up with private equity and / or partner in Big Pharma. If I was being very mischievous and machiavellion about it all, a delist would allow N4 to buy out Onz's stake - and wouldn't all the cash then be going to Onz directors and not us lowly PI creatures? This now depend, to me , on the veracity, and honour, of the participants. I am of the opinion that NT is honourable, and ceratinly has high aspirations for N4, but in this murky world of AIM, I wouldn't put money on it,.,. (Oops, I already have put money on it!!..maybe more fool me)

Yes, I have a few grand in here at 1.4p

I prefer to take the negatie outlook - and I have made a couple of phone calls. I'm also looking at Burnell's past record. But I'm hoping for a positive outcome - however, blind faith gets you no-where. NT seems to have faith in how G/Burnell operates, so let's hope he can untangle this. Like I've said, the possibilities are only, basically twofold a) Thre's a RTO planned (I didn't get that feeling - but it is intimated in the suspension RNS) b) They're incompetent fools , or even worse. Statement needed from the BOD to qualify and explain all this ASAP.

Right...I stand corrected.. Oh Lod,Truthinator, dont get all paranoid...this is the type of post I get when Shares are actually trading...H's a "Deramper!!" and I never have been - You think I'm spreading fear - haha?! Look at what's happened? These shares arent even trading.. What motive could I have...give me break ALL discusion welcome - good, bad and ugly

Agree.. my perception of this is that Nigel T is doing his own thing with N4... The Onz thing was a separate issue. It worries me a little that from what I've gleaned, this did NOT appear to have a reverse TO planned with N4.. I'm feeling this has Onz mess-up all over it... N4's statement is about N4...they're keeping up what they're doing, and , whatever happnes to Onz, will continue regardless.

Cash...I read well enough.. Andy's question: "I asked about 4 weeks ago if ONZ had met thier inestment policy and was told yes dont worry about it ffs" so.....er......