Member Info for roses

Uncanny - why do you continue to leave out sentences in paragraphs to make it sound different.

The full paragraph reads, and I quote :

"The Company's working capital position is dependent on new funds being made available to it. The Company anticipates that the Investor will provide it with additional funds under the New Facility as soon as the definitive legal documentation is entered into. In the event that discussions with the Investor terminate the Company will need to seek other sources of finance to meet its short term working capital requirements."

Thanks Valju, i'll take it that you cant back it up, and the fact is, you did decide to comment on it.

And your point on me not being positive is spot on. I can't at this current point in time see any positives in holding stock at the moment, as has been shown by the share price for a few years now.

it may change in the future, and I hope it does, but I can't see how in the short to medium term.

Valju - you are not making any sense.

I was refuting what you accused me of, not what I did !

Now come on, back up your accusation.

And where did I say that ?

That’s not what I said or implied valju and you know it.

Sometimes market makers will end up with unbalanced books on volatile days and they will adjust the price accordingly in an attempt to rebalance.

Why do you think on certain down days you can’t get a live price to sell.

And on some up days you can’t get a live price to buy ?

It’s usually because the market makers have either too Many or to little shares on their books.

Marmited, I think you mean market makers.

And no I don’t work for them.

Uncanny - it’s a good theory but when you have more sellers than buyers it simply cannot work.

That’s why they have just increased the shareprice on hardly any trades, to try and entice buyers in to soak up their excess stock.

Just wait, the price will decrease with each buy until excess is bought and they will drop the price again.

Marmited - I suggest you read up on how shares are traded on aim.

You are incorrect. They are not ‘matched’ buys and sells on aim.
You sell them to the market maker not the buyer.
And you buy them off the market maker not the seller.

And the market maker will make his money by keeping whatever spread they arbitrarily decide to impose.

They have said a lot of things, and how did that play out ?

Uncanny , they were sells. The buy before them was .279 and the buy after them was .269. And they went through at 0.24

Valju - they are not my words. They are the words that all the professionals use.

Valju , it says they are trying for convertible bonds, aka death spiral mk2

Unacanny - Can you NOT read, the RNS says they are trying to arrange a new death spiral with EHGO (IF they agree)

IF they cannot agree then VAL will attempt to find funding elsewhere,( but i'm not sure who would touch VAL now)

Lol, post of the day.

Jonbell - Satu is a woman !

Taverham - both rns clearly state that it is val that is seeking to alter the arrangement, and that the outcome is dependant on the lender agreeing to alter the terms.

Unfortunately, the damage has been done, and if they manage to get the new convertible deal away then it will inflict even more damage, but starting from an even lower base.

The advisors and some of the bod need to be sacked over this.

Oh dear, the full implications of the deal have now been understood by the company and rightly so, they are attempting to cancel it.

As they have said, if they can’t renegotiate, then it looks like the company may fold.

I'd say the chances are pretty high for an after hours rns at no one is watching o'clock today. Just before a bank holiday !

Uncanny - I'm curious as to your thoughts on our new 'investor' selling down their holdings as you were so adamant that they would not be selling ?