Member Info for stokey12

Manabouttown - If you read my initial post carefully I did not restrict the request for evidence of shorting to just MM. If there is any shorting of the stock it would be interesting to know.

Also can you explain what is wrong with criticising or objecting to a post in reasonable tones compared to the tone you use when criticising somebody who disagrees with you.

The Fire Brigade have lodged a new comment. I antcipate that it will be dealt with by way of conditions due to the nature of the comment.

Manabouttown -In relation to your 10.30 post in your08.24 post you said 'this is nothing to worry about they paid a load of bills small warrant exercised that means no need for placing so city cheats don’t get a load of cheap stock to cover their shorts.' That is making a statement of fact. In my response I clearly referred to it as a theory. There is nothing wrong with having a theory but you should be able to back it up with some facts. It is this coming up with theories which have no factual basis that undermines your credibility.

Flow77 - In relation to your 11.42 I was not suggesting that the market makers were shorting the stock that was Manabouttown.

aimofthegame6 - In relation to your 08.33 post I am not sure that whoever has those warrants will do a quick sell. My reason for that is that it would make more sense to hold them as they are registered under the EIS scheme so if they hold them for three years the capital gains would be tax free. On the other hand if thet sell now they may have a capital gains liability'

Manabouttown - In relation to your 08.24 post I see that yet again you are running with your theory that market makers have shorts and want shares to cover them. What is the evidence that anybody let alone a market maker is shorting the stock I have not seen any. It makes me question your motive in continually coming up with a theory that as far as I can see has no foundation in it but just undermines your credibility.

Newboy58 - In relation to your 08.04 post the only other example i can think of is his predecessor who exercised options on shares at 0.6p when the share price was around 0.5p.

BumbleB - In relation to your 07.35 post I thought he just could not explain the drop in the share price that fitted in with his theories about the rise in the share price being all about Peel. Of course the drop was just the market makers playing games.

Newboy58 the bulk of the new issue (5,500,000) were issued for the exercise of warrants at 0.5p so whoever got those has made an instant 50% profit.

Piltick In relation to your 09.40 post I would refer you back to the RNS. In that it stated it was hoped to conclude the acquisition in Q1 2020. That would mean by March 31. Working backwards from that means that the EGM would need to be by Mid February at the latest end of February so time is getting tight.

Telephoneman - In relation to your 09.22 post Dave Ryan has stepped back from the negotiation due to a conflict of interests so I am not sure that he would be in a position to answer the question.

We now have the response from Natural England which is largely positive the remaining issue they raise can be dealt with in the planning officers response.

The RNS in relation to the acquisition was almost a month ago we still have not had the shareholder circular. If anybody has more expereicne than me of mergers and acquisitionscan enlighten me is such a gap normal?

Dodger47 - In relation to your post of 07.22 your position is one that a number of people on this board would subscribe to. My concern with that approach is you risk being taken to the cleaners.I would only adopt that approach if it was necessary to remove an impediment to growth. As an example if the 8 major recyclers that PHE were to indicate that they would only deal with PHE and would not go into any arrangement that would include W2T. In that scenario I would agree to an acquisition at a higher cost than otherwise would be the case as it would lead to a greater return.

If we are not valuing W2T being a private company on the basis of its balance let us look at the Cooperation agreement with Peel. The worst case scenario gives a license fee revenue to PHE of circa £2.9m. The question which needs answering from the shareholder circular is will the total revenues from the collaboration agreement, with any necessary amendment, justify the valuation put on W2T. That is an individual jusgement call for each shareholder to make. If the answer to that question is no then the question becomes would the acquisition remove any impediment to other agreements being reached which would raise additional revenues. If the answer to this question is yes then we would need to look at the total value of the additional contracts that could be agreed to see if that would justify the acquisition being approved.

I am going to anticipate one of the points Manabouttown is likely to make. No I do not have any reason to believe that the impediment point is a factor but I am puzzled by the timing. At the time of the collaboration agreement the current arrangement did not seem to be an issue so what has changed that it now is a issue?

I note that PHE has not so far given any forward guidance on expected revenues. I would expect revenues in the low six figures to appear when the end of year results are published in June. If the results are very good they might come out earlier. If this leads to an operational profit then the share price should react favourably.

On the point of licensing fees from the collaboration agreement the timing of those would depend on whether they are payable in advance or in arrears. If they are payble in arrears I would not expect to see any until next year.

If it was not for the uncrossed trade the share pricewould have ended higher. Hopefully tomorrow will be just as interesting.

tetrolite - It would, seem that there might be an urgent need for some 50tpd DMG units

TheLoaf - In relation to your 12.17 post what makes you think that PHE will be paying for the units itself. The site owner will either be buying the units or leasing them from PHE. As Manabouttown says in his 12.20 post the PHE business model is as with Ceres Power to collect license and other fees for the use of the DMG technology. The worst case scenario is that PHE will make £269,360 from each unit.

Audible - In relation to your 07.30 post with the greatest of respect BumbleB is not sacremongering he was asking a valid question what if there are voles there. One of the reports noted some evidence that there might be voles. In that case a prudent developer would make investigations to determine if there are voles present as to find out after work on the development has started would incur additional costs. I do not detect BumbleB saying anymore than that.

That is quite different to the debate me and BumbleB have been having which is over whether and if so for how long the planning authority should wait for advice from Natural England before taking the application to committee. These are to different things. BumbleB has I believe moved on from the discussion about Voles you are the only one still going on about them.