We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Mer,
I agree with you but there is so much shouting on here from the baying mob that all normal reason has gone out of the window. Most will know that this is how AIM works which is why it is high risk! One only has to look at similar aim stock to see the same pattern of wages and money raising.
Refusing the consolidation was a mistake my opinion and I suspect that the share will be suspended, but at least this will give Val the time to sort out the next stage to raise money either by consolidation or other means. At least the next vote will be under different rules so common sense may still prevail.
Some interesting suggestions and comments throughout the day but my guess is that we will get another proposal for an amended vote with either consolidate or administration.
I have not seen the letters sent by the various groups or individuals but the comments on here referring to them don't seem to be anywhere near the win/ win situation needed so in my opinion not going to be met with much enthusiasm by the board. As earlier poster said, to fight that with a no confidence vote will take deep pockets, particularly regarding the legal and indemnity costs/risks etc. I really do not think that the directors of the company they formed and built will give it up very easily, but once again not long to wait for the next step.
Why would you prosecute them, simply because you don't like the way that handled the business or is it because they held a gun to your head to make you buy their terrible shares!!
Suggest you read the Val articles and in particular the indemnity section, perhaps you should have done that before you invested and then perhaps you would have known what risk you were taking.
Sad day for the development of cancer treatment but no arguing with the voice of the majority shareholders.
I guess the BoD will now sell the most valuable product, probably too cheaply, to fund the others.
Will be an interesting six weeks.
HeidHoncho,You are exactly right with your post and I do realise that not all undeclared voters are Yes voters and that it might be tight, we shall see.Valju, why do you think that anybody who does not share your view is an imposter- Tarquin??? and whats with the lol everywhere, you sound like my kids when they used to be school age facebook users before they grew out of it.
Freddie,
You really should stop misleading or making false statements such as 'majority of small shareholders' as you do not know this at all. You must remember that even if your group has a couple of hundred million pledged to say no, that is still only a small part of the 1,000+ million shares held, by others who may not agree with your group. We will know on Monday so not long to wait. Please don't be offended but this does appear to me to have taken over your life, so I hope the meeting will be worth your travel, and the board are there to answer your questions so you can get back to normal.
Hi Noise,
Thanks for the reply and I certainly agree that AIM is stressful and like you I am slowly getting out. I think we all have to go through the aim process, something to do with get rich quick perhaps? The reality is that we eventually realise that many fail. I still have some with prospects (WSG as example) but being patient is the key,and unfortunately being prepared to lose it all . I have not written Val of just yet and perhaps the 70p spike might return, I certainly won't miss it this time! I have been holding VAl for so many years it will seem strange to sell but looking at likes of lloyds potential and dividends perhaps I will build my holding there. Good luck with the strategy and see you on the other boards.
I had given up posting on this one as it appears to me that peoples wish to win, and destroy the board at any cost was becoming the main goal.
But, the following comment brought me back...
'Given that it is apparent from this BB that the predominant voting trend being intimated from the vast majority of the poster’s on here to be against the resolutions....',
I accept that it is talking about posters but this is a useless comparison, the same dozen or so posters who are shouting this do not in any form indicate the number likely to vote against the resolution! To me it indicates that the vast majority of BB viewers simply do not want to engage in this type of unpleasant conversation .
I am unaware of the actual numbers of investors holding the Val shares but I am prepared for the resolution to succeed and although not ideal at least we will survive for the next step. I had already voted for the resolution and hope others have also. I also suspect that the BOD are a bit more organised than this board and will be prepared for the meeting to ensure it goes through. We will see so soon enough.
Rightback,
You invest 68k and would rather lose the lot than consolidate! Your own personal business model is certainly interesting, although not one that I am aware of, but perhaps that explains your thinking about losing a 68k investment, or were you really joking?
Sorry, not seen the footy advert either but an interesting question you posed to SL, but right back at you, if you and Fred muck it up and val go bust due to lack of capital will you be offering to compensate or will you say it's nothing to do with the groups activity and all the fault of the BOD even though they are trying to raise said capital?
Like Fred, you and many others, I have been here a few years and all of us could have sold at any time if we thought the risk was too great. Fred states that he invested based on what he was told which is alarming to me, as most investors do their own research . I was happy to invest, as I did then and still do believe in the science. However, I have known all along that if it failed it would be my fault for investing in a potentially high gain but high risk AIM share.
Anyway, each of us is entitled to have our moans about own investments but roll on the vote so we can hopefully get it sorted and on with development of the products and the business .
Fredd1eboy, not sure about the Lord and Master angle but I just reminded myself which scientists put the company together, identified, procured, developed and appear to be trying to move forward the products under the val banner? Rather than remove those Scientists which I believe will destroy the company, I agree that quality business expertise is needed to compliment their scientific expertise. This all costs money of course and until a partner comes forward, which they won't until a product is established then the inevitable placing to pay for the status quo BOD (and any additional NED expertise) is always going to happen. Perhaps it would have been better for the discussions to be more about the BOD bonus payments, share allocation in lieu of salary and so on. IMO we need a more measured approach to try to strengthen the board, not lose much of the original expertise and knowledge of the products in development. All in IMO of course and I accept that there some pretty polarized views and therefore looks like it will be down to the vote to see if we survive or not.
AIMO
let's hope they don't go into insolvency as even after any dilution we are still in the game at least!
Lot's of anger on here , hope it is not clouding sound business judgement just when a cool head is most needed.