Member Info for Spikeyj

hmm. what better setting in which to corral
some punters for another round of ramping
and grooming, in order to raise more money
for amit (and/or to allow the scottish fellah,
greasy dave & friends to offload some of the
shares they weren't able to dump before the
nomad quit and the suspension kicked in)?

makes sense. lots of recent posting activity and
hype without any evident substance from some
handles who helped raise fresh money a year ago;
discourage punters from paying attention to any
sceptics or asking any awkward questions of their
own, then herd them into twitter groups to soften
up before inviting them to hand over yet more cash.

gl all honest folks.

so much for the weekend.

added

it would be preferable imv if peeps could post about attis (/mayan/nct)
and related matters, rather than use this board to pursue some kind of
personal issues that don't relate to this share. i do think it's legitimate
to think about how others have posted on the attis board in relation to
their consistency, credibility, arguments deployed about the share, etc,
but that's different from using the board to try to smear people about
entirely unrelated ( - or entirely unspecified - ) matters not about attis.

if a poster here has been investigated for something that relates to
attis, and findings from that are in the public domain, by all means
bring it on. but if there are no such public records, or if the alleged
investigation is not to do with attis, then why on earth bring it in.

jmo.

"One thing is certain, it most definitely won't be running into 2020."

i have the feeling i've heard things
like that before with this company.

e.g.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5ab102d3e5274a5e1d62d8b5/Mr_M_Uzorka_v_Mr_A_Ben-Haim_and_Cloudtag_Inc_-_2207514-2017_-_Preliminary.pdf

"“your payment has been processed and will be with you shortly”. This turned out not to be true"

"“we will try and do our best”. Again, this came to nothing."

still, we shouldn't have to wait that
long to see, as a slightly longer
extract from results makes clear:

"In addition, the Group received an advance of £650,000 in connection with performing appraisal activities of certain oil and gas licences in Grenada. No appraisal activities have been performed to date and the amount is repayable on demand.

** In the short term ** the Group will require additional funding in order to meet its liabilities as they fall due.

The Directors have a reasonable expectation that the Group has the ability to raise the additional funds required in order to continue in operational existence for the foreseeable future..."

*** *** emphasis added by me.

(plus, additional joker in the pack, when will
the request to pay back the grenada money
arrive, from whom, how will adme pay that?)

i think what they sensibly voted down previously was
an attempt by stefan and co to award themselves lots
more freebie shares for nowt on the way out. but that
won't stop adme raising more equity later, conditional on
it being voted through at a specially convened meeting.

(if such funds were needed to keep the firm operational as
a going concern, the shareholders won't vote against that.)

hi thrash.

i guess time will tell, so we can wait & see.
i appreciate you are more focused on the
word 'ability', me more so on the "required".

but still, if it is only about their plentiful choices,
why not just state, "additional finance required"
rather than "additional equity finance required"?
i'd be interested to hear your interpretation of that.

if they don't need additional equity finance, why do the
annual results say, "additional equity finance required"?

if it is coming through debt, they could just
have said, "additional finance required".

thrashunreal1"
"As to the question of a placing, it won’t happen. They don’t need to issue more to get equity. "

perhaps advisable to keep in mind
what they stated clearly in their
annual results, not that long ago:

"... as disclosed in the annual report and accounts which will be published shortly, the Directors have a reasonable expectation that the Group has the ability to raise the additional equity finance required in order to continue in operational existence for the foreseeable future."

... they could hardly spell it out clearer than
"the additional equity finance required"?

"... you now say that you expect TB to deliver..."

eh?

i said no such thing ...

"... this “epic finish” is looking more and more like some sort of Buyout/ TSE"

based on what dougal?

a recent shower of postings on ctag board
from anonymous IDs whose history and
credibility you choose not to examine?

(i accept it is conceivable that they *might*
just be honest and very well-informed, and
have the best interests of other readers at
heart. - but doesn't seem very likely, imv.)

hi peckham, no, i
don't think i ever
posted on sound
so different spikey.

atb & gl.

luther, he's a man of principles. but if you don't
like them, well, he has others. - as the old saying
goes, if you can fake sincerity, you've got it made.

-- just as a consistency check, dougal, take a
gander at rusty's 29th july post on this board:

"I'm an investor, so I've got an interest in the stock rather than a blood-thirsty piece of vermin eager to witness a train crash as is the case with so many on these boards."

and compare it with his approach to posting
on the INFA board, e.g. on weds 31/7 21:37:

"Chart would suggest a retrace now to the strong base at around 0.25p. If I held, I would sell now and load up twice the shares for the same money if I believed in a tiny mcap of £3.5m coming good but that's not a reality.
I would say this share is out of bounds and any investor would need two pairs of trousers in case they get a hole in one. It's only fore the brave. Better off spending your beer money on birdies than hoping this hits any leaderboard other than biggest daily fallers."

(NB i have no view on INFA, just noting the
inconsistent stance from rusty across the two
boards. it speaks to his overall probity, imv.)

lol, be careful dougal.

... start chatting to rusty and
you might get an invitation
to top-up in a 'post-pre-ipo'.

(... interesting to hear that rusty used
to chat to HITS "back in the day". one
wonders why he now uses a different
ID, and what previous ID used to be.
after all, why would honest folks feel
a need to keep changing ID in lse?)

[for the avoidance of doubt, i am thinking back to some
situations in the 1980s when i dealt with robert maxwell.

just thought i should clarify, as i know some folks
on here can get rather touchy about motives etc.]

HTH.

thinking about different situations, and other shares,
sometimes the reason that somebody is v. persistently
expressing a view that seems very much at odds with
the evidence that the rest of the market can see about
performance of a company and its management could
be because that somebody is getting financial incentives
to maintain such a contrarian view (for example through
privileged access to lines of heavily discounted stock in
the same company, or in an entirely different company).

fortunately, it's a good thing there is no reason at all
to suspect any such thing at all going on with AOGL.

(which is why i've expressed such a strong buy opinion.)

"The reason I take a different point of view from most people is that I do unlimited amounts of research, non-stop on all the companies I am interested in and their assets.."

sounds remarkably like neil woodford.
how's he getting on these days, then?

peckhamrye ( - a nice place, i loved it when i lived there),
a big mistake from a previous government imv was to
allow AIM shares to be included in SIPPs etc. ... it's just
asking for trouble to let ordinary folks put their money
into AIM stocks in the hope of good eventual investment.

of course some AIM stocks will do very well, but on the
whole they are very poor quality compared with most
main market stuff, and it is asking for trouble to invite
ordinary folks to start dabbling in AIM for their pensions.