Member Info for Scully12345

Linton - correct. I think some people on this bb are either intentionally trying to mislead people or pick snd choose points from the RNS to suit their agenda. It clearly states in the RNS last paragraph BPC is funded for the forseeable. Some really insidious posters here.

Fiveoats - very good post from you, my thoughts exactly IMHO "That RNS was very cleverly and purposely written. It leaves as many questions as it answers. There has to be a more detailed RNS next week. IMHO they are playing the game, wouldn’t be surprised to see this Major come back in"

How many times lol, read the RNS - "the Company remains adequately funded to continue developing well financing options through to completion." It's there in black and white. Anyone who says the company doesn't have enough money is misleading people or too stupid to read the RNS. Maybe you've just picked the bits out of the RNS that suits your agenda to short the share?

Yakee is the purpose of the post to mislead people? Because it seems that way. You have a short position right?

Davie46 nothing vague about the RNS lol? All we know is the major didn't renew the exclusivity. The major may still be in talks with BPC about a deal

Michaelflemming - why not waive the remainder though. Your response that it isn't that far in the future is quite poor. Spike contracts can be broken. Exclusivity could have abd shpuld have been waived if the major walked away. It's quite probable the major made a low ball offer that BPC didn't think was enough. Very possible the final steps of negotiations are underway and may see a good deal on the table before the exclusivity expires. IMHO

Spike - you make a lot of assumptions and claim a lot is fact which is not. The only fact is that the exclusivity has not been renewed. Everything is is speculation because the RNS is very vague.

Michael and Jester - what's your views on why the major didn't end the exclusivity deal with immediate effect, why leave it until the 31st?

The only response I've had so far from anyone on this board is a rather incoherent - because they're paid for it why should they

Jester16 - exactly

Inner-Harmony - the Devil's in the detail with that last line "Macquarie Bank are about to earn their fee…"

Longside go back and reread my post in context a few times instead of just picking bits out and placing them out of context. Deal table - duh - they were and still may be making a deal.

Bongabob - read last part of RNS, it contradicts your post pal. Do your research before posting carp: "Company remains adequately funded to continue developing well financing options through to completion."

Latino good post

Longside your post "Of course, receiving the notice from the other company was a major event that required notification to shareholders." So you do understand how the stock market works but pick and choose which bits to leave out for your own ends. So you think the ceasation of the exclusivity agreement is market sensitive information but you don't think the major walking away from the deal is market information lol? I put it to you that if the major had in fact walked away from the deal table then this would have been explicitly stated in the RNS.

Maltloaf yes it's market sensitive information that the major wasn't to extend the exclusivity which is why the RNS had to be released. If the deal was off then this would have been added. This is why the RNS seems vague - because it leaves it to the imagination if the major is still interested or not. It could also be interpreted that the deal is still on and is nearing a deal before 31st August hence why the major hasn't waived the exclusivity. I accept that the major may have walked away or BPC may have sent them packing or a number of other permutations. I just don't appreciate the blinkered views of the likes of Longside who says he definitely right and others with a differing view are talking rubbish. Must be great to have a crystal ball. The RNS is vague. Open to interpretation. It's nice to have balanced views not blinkered ones from those with obvious agendas (short positions).

Shedful - thanks for your question - if you check my posting history you'll see that when I take a position in shares I tend to be in for a while until they hit my targets. None of the shares I'm in right now have hit said targets and I don't like chopping and changing.

Longside seriously is that your answer to the question about why the major didn't "wave" the exclusivity agreement. You think why should they because they paid for it? That's it?

Longside I really don't have much time for posters like you who take a stance and just disagree with anyone whos view opposed their own. We're looking for more balanced views on here really. Not the deramping type. Have you even read the RNS?

Electrified very good balanced arguments in your post

Emil great post very balanced view thanks