Member Info for RealityChap

So why are you moaning about it then? It's irrelevant.

Find me one post, just one ever - where I have said something that unjustifiably discredits AFC. You won't because there isn't one.

You on the other hand have posted many, many times 'information' which is irrelevant or, much worse, actively misleading and when you are pulled up about it you never respond. You are a liar.

Nevertheless, I hope your investments make you wealthy. Because I will also be popping the champagne

You do know that this site is in no way official and is not subject to financial regulation?

All the site is showing is a best guess based on whether the price is closer to the bid or offer at the time - and if you are referring to the 75k that went through at 13.34 that price was closer to the bid.

Anyone basing investment decisions on that sort of reporting is just misleading themselves.

Well, I'd suggest that if you don't want to discuss it then it's probably best to shut up about it!

The simple answer to that, truth, is that markets are only markets if there are two opinions. Can equally argue that technical trading isn't a valid position to take as that has nothing at all to do with assessing the value and prospects of a listed company. Should that be banned as well? Is the only legitimate position to take that of being a long-term holder?

Shorting can play a valuable role in exposing bad practice - Quindell is the best example -and it also plays an important function in providing liquidity; ask any serious market participant. The best way to defend against it is to operate a well controlled business that delivers on its promises. That is something that AFC has clearly failed to do over the years, that's beyond dispute, and it is that which has made it vulnerable to shorters. Solve that and the issue goes away.

10% a day for, say, the next 20 trading days - so roughly a month - would see the price just short of 50p. I'm going to take a flyer and say that's unlikely without news!

The though that such a clause may be related to the likes of Ade posting utter gibberish is a step too far for me.

How would one go about contacting someone who is willing to pay people to post thoughtless dross every ten minutes? That seems like very easy money!

Lord alone knows. You need help.

Go on then. Why would you come on here to ask a question to which the answer van be found via Google in about five seconds? At least it kept you off your stupid monotheme of market makers' practices.

Have you come across a new thing called 'Google' before?. I'd recommend it, quite useful for all sorts of things.

It's not just old ground - it's current ground. The old ground you mention is in a presentation by the company from less than a week ago. How can you possibly come to a conclusion that it doesn't matter? And please try not to use word of more than two syllables unless you actually know what they mean.

That presentation is not really a plan - it's a list of ambitions,. That's fine -that is how plans begin.

To retain faith we, as investors, need a plan which has milestones and dates so we can assess the prospects of meeting targets which are years away and dependent on a huge number of variables.. The only date mentioned in there (in the future) relates to a government target that is five years away, or a lifetime in AFC terms. The revenues mentioned are the definition of the moon on a stick - unless if we have a pathway of how to get there.

Just trying to have a rational debate, jgbb. Isn't that what these boards are for? All of those points are clearly pertinent to that presentation.

And as for you Ade, you just get worse. - which I didn't think was possible Both Speedy and Bret feature prominently on that presentation so reasonable to assume they do matter, wouldn't you say? And government targets are quoted as early as slide 3 - so I'd say AFC see them as quite relevant! Seriously, you give halfwits a bad name.

This is one of those occasions when posting this link on another thread actually makes very good sense to get away from the noise created by certain individuals who just like, well, making noise.

Things I would like to see before feeling able to put any real confidence in the plan would include:

1. Specific AFC timescales. The government targets for 2030 are all well and good but we need to make significant progress well before then or we won't be around to take that suggested 5% market share.

2. Whether the cited 40% profit margin is realistic in the longer term. Clearly new tech can operate at higher margins than long established commodity items, but only for so long.

3. What, specifically, is being done and how quickly it can be done, to reduce capital cost. I think the revelation of just how much over the odds our current offering is came as quite a shock to most?

4. How much longer Acciona need to test before potentially making a commitment

5. How long the Brett deployment will run for, and what might happen next.

6. Who our potential partners are and when one of them might be brought over the line. The case example re asphalt production seems very specific, which appears to suggest it's a live possibility rather than just a random suggestion.

7. What is the state of play re Speedy deployments. It is a priority and I think we were told it was imminent - but nothing thus far.

The bare numbers are exciting but we have, of course, been here before multiple times. To have faith in them we need regular information re progress. I'm aware that JW said they wouldn't announce every little development but we know that actual orders are not imminent and the last thing we need in that situation is a news vacuum because that just fosters doubt.

No problem with the ambition on those numbers - but I just want to see one deal over the line before they can be taken with anything other than a large shovelful of salt.

FFS, just report it if you want to

There must be a specialist forum somewhere for people to moan about market makers, spreads, trading patterns etc... oh hang on a minute, I'm on it!

Can't see it having any material effect on AFC but it's probably another nail in the coffin of the junior market

I put little faith in learning anything material at any AGM of any company but there simply has to be an update on what we were told five weeks ago were advanced talks re the cracker/FAAS.

It's pretty obvious that unless we can get something over the line the company's prospects are very limited and I think any rational person, so excluding CN obviously, would interpret 'advanced' as being close to potential fruition.