Member Info for Ssccss

The only argument I can see people putting forward on hereto vote yes, is basically in the hope it will end suspension so they can sell, even if they sell for peanuts. I understand people of fed up of this situation. It will be a shame if the yes votes win because you will have just helped SL mug us.

But you can't tell me why hepran can you? How do you see that happening. By what mechanism?

In my mind, SL will have to either give us more information as to why we need to vote yes. Or if he can't do that, he will have to find another way to avoid his corporate responsibilities or he will have to accept them and get on with it, if he wants to see his money back. You know, do what he is actually supposed to be doing, which is running a company to add shareholder value and make a profit. Or is that too much to ask?

Voting yes to SL giving himself that much power without him being up front about it, when we don't know the financial state of the company or what is happening with the GV is utter stupidity.

I'm sure some posters here probably work for SL.

That's an extremely arrogant post Kong. We don't have any information to back your assertions/assumptions up. I totally disagree with you. Why do we suddenly have to pay the shares back? What assets do we have? Where are the accounts?

We need more information from ppp in order to make a yes vote. That is painfully obvious.

Kong you don't have any proof of that. Even SL himself has not made that statement. So what's your reasoning?

Fair enough Zag.

We are not against each other here, although you'd never know it. It seems some people take this all very personally.

He can say no and as far as I'm aware he's a capable adult, so I don't think I'm being disrespectful.

If people don't discuss things, how does anything ever move forward. If we all just keep our thoughts to ourselves, does that benefit us and those around us. I don't think so. I think communication is key to most things.

Well we all know that asi.

I thought the point of this BB was to share ideas and discuss them. I'm simply doing that. You seem to clam up when asked to share your ideas but you're more than happy to slate others ideas.

I'm just trying to understand your perspective because we have both been here for the whole year and we have both engaged with most of what has gone on here. So just wondering why we have such different interpretations. Genuinely curious.

If a nice RNS comes in, you will vote no. If you hear nothing you might vote yes?

So let me get this straight. If SL gives you no good news about the company, you will gladly hand him over control. However, if there is good news about the company you will vote his judgement down?

I'm confused as to what you think the vote will achieve?

Is it just that you want to passify SL because you think ppp is finished and you just want to do ask he asks in case he develops a sense of morality and corporate responsibility, thereby letting you kindly have your investment back because you were nice to him?

Rally don't follow your logic at all.

Defaulting Just means not holding up your side of the contract but we don't know what the contract is... And it hasn't been made clear why ppp is on default. Would have thought that would be very significant and important information to put in the RNS.

*are not where

Well NU, if the auditors where waiting on the Gem deal... SL has stated in the last RNS that the Gem deal has not yet been entered into... Very confusing.

Most of their narrative. I'm not a fan of the speculation related to how SL came to be in antons will. However, can't rule it out but it's irrelevant to the situation right now anyway. I have based my vote on the lack of information from SL and RM. Plus the vagueness of what is actually in the rnss and the lack of supporting information. Plus no audited accounts to see the state of play for myself before voting on an important financial decision. Not to mention no AGM. I don't need the TG group to tell me any of the things I have based my voting decision on. It's here to see for anyone who cares to look and consider. Plain as day.

I don't trust TE or SL. I don't need to trust the TG group because I can read and comprehend the RNSs and the other facts of the situation for myself. However, the conclusions I came to myself over the last year, align with the narrative of the TG group.

I don't agree Zag, it's just common sense to try and inform people of their viewpoint as they have been in contact with SL legally and they have done more research than most of us. I really think you are barking up the wrong tree and you have a bee in your bonnet about the TG group. Yet you can't explain what you think they are hoping to achieve? The most obvious answer is they are trying to protect their investments. Occam's razor.

Kong, it's not simple at all. No reason for the company to fold if we vote no. That's purely scaremongering. Why on earth would anyone vote yes to dilution without any supporting facts presented by the company as to why the dilution is needed. We have had no information from the company on future strategy. We have no audited accounts. We have had no AGM. Honestly, your post is disingenuous at best.

I think it's difficult to tell from this BB what the overall consensus is among shareholders. I really hope the nos win but I'm equally, I can see why people may not vote or just vote yes in the vain hope this will be the end of suspension. Would be a shame imo.