Member Info for RichTheNewbie

Jacksdad - pretty much the exact opposite. The desperate ones are those who attack other posters continually because they're not comfortable with their position.

Of course it LOOKS real. That's the idea.

Looking like rather like a spoof large buy at the moment, trying to get people to pile in after, which has failed, and is dropping back.

Be interesting to see what happens now. Whether good news suddenly appears and then that buy looks very fishy..... Or they cancel the trade later (no idea how they're allowed to do this but seen it happen before) and it's another one of those AIM games trying to get people to pile in. Or nothing at all ;)

Well that's a big buy. Very interesting. Cue endless speculation :)

Not sure what you mean "get the pressure on". What are you saying CH should have done exactly? (and with what money)

You missed off a letter larry. The URL is: http://www.delo.si/gospodarstvo/novice/vlagatelji-zaskrbljeni-zaradi-pridobivanja-dovoljenj-in-nedelovanja-vrtine-56399.html

"So to sum it up, you say we can't get debt finance because you say so but no idea when Colin said that and you don't think we can grow the company organically." No, to sum it up, the CEO of the company you've invested in, has said, numerous times, that he doesn't think he can get debt for field development, but you've not done your research, or even asked him, and so you're stupidly trying to blame me for that. You top it off with the desperately stupid "but you're not invested are you" comment because you know you're talking rubbish.

I've said about 1000 times recently. No I'm no longer invested. Usually this precedes someone saying it means my opinion doesn't count, or I shouldn't say it, or some silly suggestion to post elsewhere. Normally because they know every point I'm making is correct and can't counter them. I don't want to take the risk being invested here now, as it has lots of warning signs I've seen before, but I have no problems with others taking the risk. They're only signs and it may turn out OK.

parkeg1 - again, I think if there was a simple organically financed route then I think they'd do it, unless the BoD are after quick wins at shareholders expense. Otherwise they're doing you a disservice. Sadly I don't think there's a practical route to doing what you say. If there is....then this strategic review (giving some or all of the company away) is just frittering away your investment.

parkeg1 - I think he's done it numerous times. I emailed him once and he said something along the lines of it being very difficult. I'm pretty sure he's said similar more than once in video interviews in recent times. (he's mentioned debt, referring to vendor finance I believe, in relation to the plant, only, as you say)

Nothing is wrong with that apart from the fact nobody will lend them the money clearly. You can draw your own conclusions as to why. As I said to johnnyc.....if it was that simple then of course they should do it and you/he would be right. It can't be done. That's the problem. If you're lucky then it's just that the banks and VC funds are too risk averse, the project is good, and they'll find money elsewhere. If you're not lucky then CH has already tried to get money from everywhere he could think of, and failed, as the project isn't quite that good, and therefore resorted to this strategic review. I think it's the latter.....but you never know....maybe he'll pull a great deal out from nowhere.

Johhnyc - you're right.........lots of debt funding on good terms would be best........problem is CH has told you nobody will give it to them.........hence the "strategic review" also commonly known as "we're stuck and need lots of money that we can't generate or get via debt".

Rosewall: I most certainly wouldn't expect them to be any different and therefore would place zero reliance on it (or have any added confidence because of it). It is what it is.

Q: Who expressed interest? A: I can not say names. It is a wide range of companies, with companies from all over the world talking to us. Some companies are private, listed on the London Stock Exchange, some at other stock exchanges, and private equity funds are also interested in investing in Ascent. We've got loads of people interested. Honest guv. Who are they? I'm not telling you....... It might be true.....but it's the same waffle every CEO says in the same situation. They never said "nobodys interested and nobody has come to talk to us". They ALWAYS say "we've had lots of interest and can't disclose any detail yet because it's too early".

Q: Are Slovenian companies also among the stakeholders? A: No, Slovenian companies are not among potential potential investors.

That's a rather stark answer he gives to one question (unless Google is translating it wrongly)! "Q: All this is open if you get permission in Slovenia. What if you do not get them? A: The project will stop and the company in Slovenia will be closed."

Rosewall: Ah. Fair enough. I think scotts description is fairer ;) The problem with being economical with the truth (talking about PG-11a) is that it can be done for the benefit of existing holders, trying to minimise damage to the SP whilst a problem is resolved, but also means more people buy under the assumption the situation is more positive than it is, whether that's for the first time or topping up. Doesn't make it acceptable though.

No idea. I thought it was just mine for a second but it's everyones. I'm going to guess an IT issue (or human error) which has wiped out a section of their database.

Rosewall who are you talking to? You're replying to a thread where nobody called or implied CH was corrupt.....