Member Info for RealityChap

It's not something to 'moan about', CN. The simple fact is that we have absolutely no clue about the nature of the relationship with Nifty. Clearly there is significant potential but I think this thread has very clearly established that there is no order for 136 units.

Potential is great but just in the last few years we have had potentially lucrative arrangements with many that have dropped by the wayside (certainly in the foreseeable future) - Vard, Ricardo, Urban Airport to name a few and the apparent waning of interest from the likes of Balfour Beatty, Mace, Keir, Vinci et al.

Every shareholder (I don't care if you have come to some weird paranoid conclusion that I'm not one, because I very much am) hopes that this isn't yet another one that is going to go the same way but until firm orders are made, delivered and paid for then that remains very much a possibility. Rubbish with that as much as you want but its based on logic, evidence and knowledge, not dreams and fantasies.

If that is the case, Sharesport, how can a much younger company have got themselves in a position to scale up when we can't. And that is after we appointed Zollner as outsource manufacturer

Let's face it - it's bl**dy awful news. BB has trialled our products (well before the Speedy deal) and has sent staff to Dunsfold for training. But if they have taken any of our units to actually work on live sites then we don't know about it and the number involved must be very small. This seems like a much more significant commitment to a competitor.

Speedy has singularly failed to make a successful growth business - just look at their share price over the last decade and a half - and while they are an obvious partner they are clearly not shipping our units out to so called tier one contractors in any volume at all. And we have no idea why not.

CN. It was worth including our relationship with NL within the presentation as it showed that they are a company committed to developing relevant technology and therefore well worth engaging with. But you must now understand, surely, that there is no way the specific numbers in there can possibly relate to us. The dates simply do not work.

Stas. Our agreement with Speedy is exclusive - i.e, we can't lease out units other than via the joint venture

Speedy have an exclusive agreement with Nifty - but nowhere does it say that Speedy can only supply our product to Nifty.

There are only two sides of the exclusivity triangle in place here

We know that there are hydrogen powered lifts out there - CN has highlighted them many times despite being told many times that they are not powered by us - and we absolutely know that's the case.

These products highlighted said available from July 2023 so we are absolutely 100% certain that's nothing to do with us

Actually, the fact hat the presentation then goes on to specifically reference AFC but re generators suggests that the 136 has nothing to do with us.

Actually, and my apologies Tennents- you are absolutely correct! The 136 clearly isn't exclusive to AFC as they were available from July 23 and that obviously didn't include anything we had provided.

You'll note what I did there, CN. I was wrong and I apologised. You should give it a go, helps the soul.

Ask polite question - gets abusive answer. Standard

Regardless of that I will say thank you, CN, because I was taught manners.

This is clear and helpful - if I missed to before , well, that does happen.

I'd still love to have some clarity on the value of the contract and why it is such a specific number but I guess we'll just have to wait for that.

Sorry, Tennents - but I have to agree with Stas here.

It seems to be one of those numbers that someone has put up and then it becomes accepted fact. Not saying that, maybe it was mentioned on an IM Call? It is so specific that unless someone here has just made it up, always possible!, its source should be readily identifiable.

In the continuing total uncertainty over what constitutes the £27m order book and the total absence of any material orders that have got anywhere near delivery the order thi8s seems to be the closest thing we have to anything that looks at all like serious commercial adoption of AFC tech. Can any one clarify:

1. Where does this number of 136 come from? There is only one RNS that specifically focuses on Nifty (date 20/5/24) and that makes no mention of any specific number. The relationship with Nifty was also referred to in the RNS re the fund raining is June but, again, no details at all

2. Assuming there's an answer to that do we have any idea how much money is involved?

3. Are we looking at early 2025 or some random date? On what basis?

I am assuming I've missed something re this specific number. When was it mentioned?

Before even thinking about 2025 I would really like to know how many companies are actually using the units via Speedy now.

Indeed it should not be far away - but let's not kid ourselves it's anywhere near on time. This is from an RNS issued in June 2023:

Following completion of the upcoming 200kW S+ Series deployment, which will now be fuelled exclusively on hydrogen, and receipt by AFC Energy of relevant product certifications, ownership of the system (including battery) will transfer to ABB E-mobility.

The certification of the module by no means guarantees bulk sales of it to ABB or anyone else; that's a painful lesson that we should all have learned by now. It's not as if we have detailed knowledge about what AB plan to do with it is it?

Who can guess the date that his paragraph appeared in an RNS?

Following completion of the upcoming 200kW S+ Series deployment, which will now be fuelled exclusively on hydrogen, and receipt by AFC Energy of relevant product certifications, ownership of the system (including battery) will transfer to ABB E-mobility.

I'm not GItfinger, it's just facile to assume that two people making similar points must be the same person.

Here's a deal for you. Highlight any single point that I've made and let's have a debate about it.

And the answer was? I didn't flog it through the summer as it only became a question worth asking once they confirmed that £4m was the year's revenue, post end October. Not unreasonable to want to know if that's a real number, or just Peter robbing Paul.

Yep, good effort Meggies. Pointless and inaccurate speculation while completely failing to engage in any meaningful debate

I'm Garonne?!?! I am most certainly not. Tell you what though, why don't you have ago at actually answering what i think are perfectly reasonable questions? Would that not contribute to debate and knowledge?

I didn't think it was complex. What I'd like to know is twofold:

Whether we paid £2m via the JV, meaning that net income for the AFC Group was only £2m.

Whether those units have been rented out.

Yes Daz, but where did the £4m come from? It's a 50/50 JV so unless I'm shown something different I'll assume that £2m cam for us. That's almost irrelevant though; what I really want to know is whether that £4m wort of units is currently out on sites generating(!) rental income.

CN's thought process is very simple. £6m of revenue was forecast; it was discreetly reduced to £4m.

The ABB outstanding amount was c. £2m and we hadn't delivered.

Therefore the shortfall must be directly associated with the ABB position.

It's utterly simplistic with no basis in fact and no particular thought process.

Personally I'm far more interested in the source of the £4m of revenue - because all logic says that we provided half of it.