Member Info for The.Italian

pure speculation of course,but that was my immediate reaction to the bit in the interview re IVY.

rest assured CB.no white flag waving from me. not in my nature.

i have to agree mel.in a way that was what i was seeking to highlight. are we now just undervalued or has the intrinsic value that did exist been destroyed?.obviously as a continuing investor I'm hoping it is the former. as always time will tell. worth noting (although i do not attach overly significant weight to this), that we have not been notified of any significant major shareholder reductions. also N&G are still underwater, at least on the simple average cost of shares analysis.

whilst i haven't tried to do this with any great precision, (we don't yet know what our annual revenue will be) on a broad brush view it looks as though at £33m we are valued at less than half our annual revenue. just saying.

so can we expect news of an investment in Ivy Farms soon then?

morning thompi.looks like your account will be looking a bit healthier after this news. certainly doesn't look like the story has finished here yet.goingto need careful monitoring.hope it works out for you in whatever you decide.

morning PR.i certainly will.i suspect you may find yourself not too far off the 90p mark fairly soon,particularly with the director's buys today.not sure how they tie in with insider position,but obviously will go down well.looks like a concerted effort to support the s/p to me ,but they are not insignificant amounts so pretty positive imo.good luck with whatever you do.

you're welcome RBBe.you are quite correct of course,regarding the replacement rules.sorry i had quite forgotten this point.good luck with your further enquiries.

interesting review,but I'm still troubled by that"mostly" word .is it being used in a numerical sense,i.e. of the number of issues cited the majority relate to manufacturing, or is it being used in a qualitative sense, i.e. the weight of seriousness of the issues raised falls mostly in the manufacturing area.optimists re taking the latter view and this is i think how most people including waite are interpreting it.personally i am waiting for more detail. disclaimer.i was out completely by 2.15 on wednesday(modest overall loss due to taking profits earlier,so not a massively disgruntled former investor,but certainly a disappointed one) and i am now looking at things from the "do i reinvest?"perspective.not sure yet.

addendum.vi expect there would be a reasonable, if short,period of notice of any listing change etc,so hopefully you would be able to reach a decision at that time based on up to date values and prospects. im sure you appreciate this, but any reinvestment in qualifying assists would,if based on business property relief, require fulfilment of the 2 year ownership criterion.

RBBe i think you will find that being traded on OTCQB does not count as being "listed"for the purposes of the relevant hit legislation https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/recognised-stock-exchanges-section-1005-income-tax-act-2007/shorter-tables#united-states-of-america . obviously a listing on nasdaq would remove the availability of business relief but i am very sceptical that this is a realistic option in the short to medium term.i am no expert and i maybe wrong about otcqb status, but if the capital taxes office(or whatever it may be called now)still operates a helpline in this benighted post covid era of insanity and obscurantism, a telephone call to enquires might be able to confirm.hope this helps

afternoon albert.yes let us hope so. im quite happy to remain patient and completely agree that it is critical to get the app as glitch free as possible when it goes live.looking forward to developments.

afternoon mel and albert.glad to hear they have recruited someone in the social media area.hope she has plenty to do very soon!on a different tack i was looking at the post on advfn and there was one suggesting the reviews on the app store were very unfavourable,it was from i think a serial deramper on there, so i took it with a pinch of sal,t but had a look. napster gets a score of 4.6 as opposed to spotify's 4.8. not a huge difference.what was interesting was that napster had about 1200 reviews ,whereas spotify has a couple of million(I'm doing this from memory so the actual figure may need checking).for me this demonstrates the huge gulf to be bridged, but also in the same breath, the huge opportunity. not suggesting we are ever going to rival spotify,but (and its a very big if i accept)we only need to steal a very small part of their lunch (indeed a small part of their breakfast would probably do,or even a bit of their mid morning snack) to impact significantly on our m/c.question is can we do it!

thanks albert.interesting take on the motive.hope you are right.

hello albert.ive tried agin but i think the problem is my very old browser.i keep getting a message saying it does not support spotify play and that i need to download the app.sorry folks i know this is boring.thanks anyway albert for trying to help. still think it is mildly interesting that he has chosen to do an interview now with apparently nothing new to say.does it presage some substantive news?probably not, but we can but hope.

what is slightly dispiriting weareall guessing is that instead of any comments or discussion on the RNS today(apart from a couple of posts at the start)we have spent the whole day arguing fruitlessly with booth.i accept the i have been the principal culprit today and that i should know better.my apologies.

sorry booth but testing accuracy of self diagnosis does not,as I'm sure you are aware,equate to ability to self diagnose "the cause". nice try but they are simply not the same .another desperate attempt to assert a damaging argument by conflating difference concepts.

oh god.you really couldn't make this garbage up.what on earth does " if they did die buying it and hadn't used it as only just bought it" mean? are you suggesting that the mere act of buying med 3000 is potentially lethal? dont bother replying as i do understand what you are trying (i emphasise trying) to say, but it is just tendentious, garbled anti med propaganda. with respect,whilst most of your post is risible tosh,there is one point in it which does require sensible and careful consideration.where have we been told that the human factor study is looking at the ability of patients to self diagnose the cause of their ed? can you please give us the express reference as this is not my understanding. this is a genuine question and if that is the case i shall of course be happy to accept that my understanding is at fault.

thanks albert.i will try again later today

i haven't seen the interview as i do not wish to subscribe to spotify.presumably no one has any positive comments on it,but just wondering why bother to do one now if nothing to say.do quite like the irony though of doing it on spotify.