Member Info for Sixthavenue

Lucky - go and finish your soup , your contributions are null and void , much like this farce will end up

San Diego - Take the hit or not take the hit - for what it's worth I an no where near as bad off as some but why do they not share the load - thats what sticks in the throat - spread whats available more evenly then there will be much more understanding and support .

They don' t even have the humility to state
" In respect of our Error " here is clarification of the proposed terms of the RTO .
They truly are a shower of Shyte

Even although they have cherry picked their wording the figures given are truly apalling from a current share / LTH point of view .
We have been subjected to horrific dillution and the supposive sweetner - aka the warrent entitlements is like your mouth being flushed out with concentrated sulphuric acid considering - "they" get 27,502,645 allocation v's our 1,488 ,616 and massively better terms .
This is just not on . Scumbags

Yes Numbers that was the figure a few of us arrived at last week .
Only way this is any good if it opens at that price and that would just break us even on last trade .
3. Things that I mentioned before that may be of influence - however at this point it is shots in the dark
1 . The mentioned - heavy over subscription - Why would that be ?
2 . The quality / track records of incoming board
3 . Has a deal already been done to take this to the next level ? - think 1 & 2 above .
FWIW - I worked in Offshore /Petrochem many years ago and there was many a time deals / contracts were on the table before they were publicly announced .
Teams would be recruited and formed before any formal contract was awarded .
Still think what the existing shareholders have been offered the shyty stick in comparrison to Goldilocks and the previous board and that is what really sticks in the throat .
Unless there is movement on their part in favour of LTH or the new company come up with a better proposal then all that can be done is to reject the whole thing and take the hit out of spite .
Cheers

Lord Sugar had a large stake in Tate and Lyle at one time if memory serves me correct

Forget about figures , - Goldilocks and the 3 bears can take less and divi the rest out among the LTH's - that way we are all in it together rather than the rest of us feeling like something out of the wrong side of a George Orwell Novel .
I am sure they will be able to make up the difference one way or another over a period of time .

Rosie - The only way that this could be of value to LTH's at face value is if there is some deal already arranged with a major to accelerate it forward otherwise it is a heap of pizz

Who threw you a buiscuit ? back to your kennel

Any one know the taxi fare from JFK to Lexington avenue ?

Lucky Luciano = crackpot

This really needs cleared up . Makes a massive difference , have Wallbrook got it wrong ? Surely not , but then again !

Google - Justin Waite vox podcast

https://www.**********.co.uk/series/daily-podcast

I suggest everyone listen to this - Thanks Eileen , may bring a bit more optimism .

Another possible angle . Having had a long think.
Perhaps this was an very easy sell - Why ?
It states - an "Oversubscribed additional placing "
The new groups represent a wide and vairied collection of financial and individual subscribers.
What is the attraction ? Could the main selling point be that they already have a partner agreement with a major to take their main product to the next stage .
It seems to be a very robust uptake for something which on the face of it just seems a new entity with possibilities - I would like to think that this may be a distinct possibility which may go someway to giving substance to the exiting and value creation for existing shareholder statements .
Thoughts please .

I do not think the majority of existing shareholders are against the RTO . I think it is because we have been dumped at the end of the que as an afterthought in respect of the overall terms of the deal tabled .
Had they made an effort to clarify what they had made thier decisions on and why and explained why they think it is the best deal they could achieve under the circumstances then maybe we could be a bit more understanding and enthusiastic - It is the pure arrogance and the like it or lump it attitude that is so galling .
At this moment I don't really care if I get no return on a fairly substantial outlay . Had they been a bit more humble I would have happily back them going forward .
Just think the whole thing smacks of self interest .
If they have a rethink and ajust a few terms and conditions at minimal cost and disruption to themselves then I am sure they would get full backing.

Negatives
RNS - Poorly composed and unclear
Selection of Candidate - No in depth structure apparent - ( one woman outfit ) - what will new directors be able to bring to the table ? No detail given or structure going forward
No outline of timelines or expectation given to progression and expected milestones of key product or pipeline items
Existing Directors seem to be well rewarded in comparrison to existing shareholders - particularly JG in respect of foregoing salary / fees / bonuses - ha ha .
Could JG not lessen his warrent allocation in favour of existing shareholders
Why are a vast sum of his warrents exercisable from day one ?
Dilution is excessive - should be reviewd with a consideration to lessen it .
Why is there a 180 day limit on existing share holders warrents when JG has up to 3 years on a batch of his
Why were shareholders not given a chance to vote on a short list of suitable RTO candidates .
Why were existing share holders excluded from opportunity to buy into new marketing .
The outstanding Iclarim questions.
Positives -
Possible good primary product ? and future pipeline products
Good and vairied funded backing for individials and financial groups .
Summary - A dreadfull package for existing shareholders which places them firmly at the back of the que in favour of Existing Directors and new shareholders ( got in for 20p at cost ) , existing shareholders got massively diluted .

Go to motif web site and check out what his warrent option allocation is - then do a comparrison to what ALL current sharholders are entitled to - could very well be 1 for every 2 of current holding . Otherwise he is creaming it

Mark that is where we need clarity - is it 1 warrent for every 2 shares you curently hold ? A simple question - because if it is that will make a huge difference to how this RTO is viewed and voted on .
Even if it is 1 for every 2 ( current ) at 30p cost and a time frame of 180 days exercise is still no guarantee of a good return if any but probably one worth taking .
Also note for if true 100000 shares would cost £30000 to exercise all warrents