Member Info for Ricardo2019

Bezzy, the question Tenners raises is probably* the most pertinent question for all retail shareholders in FRC. The answer to that question is the main reason why I am here. If the answer is positive, then I may get some money back. If the answer is negative then that would be the end (potential but unlikely further legal action aside).

Why are you so concerned what people talk about anyway? Worried about the effect on the share price?

*I reserve the right to find something better after my morning coffee takes effect.

Ha, I wasn't a million miles off with my (privately kept) theory of why FRR were messaging Looed. At least that's one mystery solved. This insight is a good thing.

It is, of course, still a poor show that the company won't issue a brief official message to shareholders directly but, as Looed alludes, that's a separate issue.

Mine are still sitting in my iWeb general dealing account, where they were transferred to from my ISA upon delisting.

Nice to read a wide variety of interesting views today.

My take on contacting liquidators is that unless you are a) willing to spend tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands on subsequent potential legal action, or b) willing to organise some sort of class action to do the same but spread the financial load, then I don't see the point.

On the one hand I agree, on the flip side, issuing an RNS that can't cover the interesting forward looking stuff and doesn't announce something strategic might be perceived badly by the market, and those more mundane RNSes tend to result in negative share price impacts on my experience with other companies. So maybe that's a factor in the board's thinking.

... is where I work. A word of advice to the worried. If you are expecting anything to move quickly in this industry, then don't.

Hi armoured_bear, I don't accept your attempt to gatekeep this discussion forum. If you don't wish to discuss a topic then simply move along.

And actually, I'm not ****ed off at all. I'm at peace with getting nothing back from FRR. BUT I'm quite enthused by recent events. Which is exactly the reason why I make the points I do. The more hopeful I get the more I'm trying to counterbalance that by re-appraising what we have. I don't care if you don't want to discuss that, but don't come along trying to be the big armchair internet warrior and tell me what to post. It's rude.

> So we will have to agree to disagree on the meaning of verification.

I'm not sure we disagree as such. I'm not saying there hasn't been verification - by someone. I'm saying that I (and I assume the vast majority of others here) haven't seen it. We've only been told about people I (and again I assume the majority of people here) don't know with unknown skills/experience doing verification via an unknown process to an unknown quality.

The difference between verification happening and being able to evidence that process is an important difference. We should clearly understand what we have (especially since we don't have a whole lot!). Whether people here then decide to rely on trust and hope is up to them.

Having been burnt by other AIM shennigans I've learnt the hard way not to do rely on anything but solid, verifiable facts. So please forgive me for pressing this issue, but I feel strongly that we here should have a clear and accurate understanding of what has been presented to us, and what hasn't. And on that note, if anything I've said above is inaccurate then I'm all ears. I am very much up for discussing any of this further.

Authors note.... :-) For the avoidance of any doubt by anyone else, I may be replying to Looed but that does mean that I expect, demand, or assume anything of Looed, or the FSHG come to that. They are volunteers doing their best to help us for which I will always be grateful.

Hi ODR, I'm in that majority and it's not the honesty of Looed or FSHG I'm concerned about. Their good intentions are not in question for me. And their efforts to track and report on court cases and snippets from Georgian news are superb - I will happily buy them all a pint when we have our beers to celebrate the rebirth of FRR. But there are powerful forces working against FRR. It's not the people here I'm worried about.

Looed, what FSHG emailed to us doesn't appear to be verification. Hopefully they've held these messages up to the most severe scrutiny - but I have no idea how. There must be light to be shed on that? Surely the good people here must be wondering how FSHG can be so sure? Knowing this could be immensely confidence boosting.

I'm not saying these messages are fraudulent at all, in fact, I have a theory that they are part of SN's legal strategy and therefore real. But I can't prove that they are real. Everything I've been provided is unverifiable from people I don't know who tell me about things only they have seen. That's not a good position to be. But then, neither is owning shares (if that's even the case now) in a delisted company so perhaps these messages are neither here nor there in the story of FRR.

Please don't think that the efforts of yourself and FSHG aren't appreciated. They very much are. But even you must think this situation where a chosen random shareholder receives company messages to distribute like a PR firm would to be totally nuts. You must surely do, because it is!

I think I've read all the posts and I don't think I read a single one blaming Looed for anything? If I missed it then call it out so we can all jump on that person and mock them for being an idiot.

To be honest, there were loads of posts about the whole carry on - spread over many months. But I think if you search Looed's post history I'm fairly sure that they've posted a potted summary in recent times. You may well have to search back quite a way.

While I don't believe anyone is attacking Looed, because we know he/she is a messenger and not the author, it might be useful to share (or re-share) how FSHG was able to verify the message source as being FRR. I vaguely remember some messages about some sort of verification happening but don't recall ever seeing anything about what the proof was in the end. Just a suggestion and it may put some minds at ease perhaps.

Trapoil (not "Tapoil") are now called Jersey Oil and Gas Plc (company # 07503957). Changed name in 2015.

Haha, tsbs1, well if I coudn't laugh at myself I would be crying. I suppose we all got sucked in by the thieving Zaza who charmed us. I still think I'm smarter than the average bear...

There's some confusion in this thread. No-one's shooting at the messenger, that much is clear.

Now onto the important thing. Why isn't FFR communicating to us formally? I'll tell you my humble layman's opinion - it's legal protection. You see, all these messages passed via a third party can't easily be verified or used by others. Let's say you want to sue someone for your losses - well how are you going to submit Company comms (note the large 'C') as evidence when they aren't Company comms? You cannot. You have had no Company comms since delisting.

I do not know for sure that we are actually being communicated to by the Company. The informal messages being relayed are interesting and raise some hope of a positive future, but that's the limit of their usefulness. I have seen no evidence of who wrote those words and if they actually reflect the official position of the Company. They could be written by some internet prankster or Tom Winnifrith for all I know. While I doubt that, if I went to a lawyer and said 'hey look FRR said this and I believe this because an internet stranger who I think may also be a shareholder told me' they'd laugh me out of their office.

What we need is something official from FRR. Until that time we have nothing of substance. Which is unfortunate, but all of you are smart enough to understand that unverified messages passed via third parties cannot be relied upon. It's also morally wrong to leave non-company employees in a compromising position if the messages they have been asked to relay turn out to be inaccurate.

I thank everyone for the continued efforts to share information - however unofficial. But I look forward to the day that we get a message that is has been publicly verifiably issued by an Officer of the Company, even if to say 'hey we're officially still here, please hold the line'. And that day is way overdue.

Agh, wrong link sorry. Try this one:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nZDhswinI8&t=1s

Http://www.arcminerals.com/investors/corporate-presentations/default.aspx

Or a dummy trade would work. Agreed, 'tis the season to be positive. The current price would be a good entry point for anyone.

Oh and Happy New Year! Sod dry January, may our future be 'well-oiled'.