Member Info for The.Italian

morningMrH-m.its probably just me ,but I'm struggling a bit with the logic behind your 9.15 post.im afraid i cannot see how this arrangement can be in the best interests of shareholders. we get the same amount of loan funds regardless of the s/p at the time.i f it's lower it simply means N&G get more shares at a discount.how does it assist potentially the company if the s/p is low? i realise i may simply have missed the point.i was relatively relaxed about the finance when it was announced as the amount did not seem unduly concerning.i realise i was completely wrong and have underestimated its effect,although there are other factors work as well.perhaps the belief was that the s/p would be more robust because of general market expectation about prospects,which would have made the finance more acceptable,but clearly this has not proved to be the case.i am more concerned in away about davis capita'ls role in all this. surely they cannot be happy with developments as they do have a significant holding.why could they not have provided this relatively modest finance? why oh why has lansing davis not been appointed to the board? is there a rift?i hope not.just on detail we do know that £1.540,000 loans have been issued to date.the RNS says that that is the total issued to date (as i said yesterday no idea how the maths works to get to that figure though).

a lack of understanding of the mechanics here is apparent in the case of some posters. so far there have been 3 tranches of loan notes issued, .not 2. the first tranche of notes was issued in febuary ,followed by one in march and one in april. you need to distinguish between the issue of the loan notes and the entirely separate and independent conversion notices. the company does not need to announce the issue of the loan notes, only the conversion notices. thus no announcement was made in march as although the next tranche of notes was issued no conversion took place. there is an apparent discrepancy in the figures in todaysRNS, which refers to a total of £1,540,000 notes issued to date. the original detail RNS stated the notes were o be issued in tranches of £540000 .obviousl you cannot get to total of £1,540,000 using £540,000 as the multiplier.i have emailed the company about this in case i have misunderstood. setting aside this discrepancy, it is interesting that nice and green converted half of the first issue, but waited until now to convert that oustanding half and the entire contingent of the next two issues all at one go. does this suggest they only converted half originally to see if the s/p fell, but have now decided that the s/p has gone as low as it's likely to and are, therefore, converting all they can at the lowest expected price? obviously there other possibilities, but i was quite intrigued by this idea. probably rubbish i expect.

no bucolic its not just you.posts definitely removed.my post/s today has/have gone (can't remember if it was just one or two ) all a bit odd.

dulyred it looks as though you have to go on to the investor meet company website and register.ive just done so and its pretty innocuous. i have found the presentation and will watch it later.

not yet.expect it may take a little while to work through the admin systems. im on HL

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9448979/Farmers-slam-Blue-Peter-encouraging-children-stop-eating-meat-climate-change-challenge.html the relentless march of the meatless. aploogies for posting something from the daily mail. not there most authoritative source of information (but then these days what is!) just for reference re anic

welcome and good luck.

well that is perfectly possible albert. my point really is that it is a condition of the davis loan that naps uses commercially reasonable efforts to secure his appointment asap.(i haven't checked the wording again but i think thats how it's put). so either there is something in the situation which makes it not commercially reasonable to have done it by now, or naps have failed to meet the condition. im not suggesting this is problem (conditions can easily be waived if both parties agree )but bearing in mind the crucial importance of the davis loan to napster's future (my emphasis), i wold have liked to see the appointment confirmed. perhaps it will be part of the next major announcement.

agreed .it didn't look like it was just PIs,although you just can't be sure.

interesting that despite what appears to have been a concerted programme of selling, possibly by one body or individual (speculation only of course) and despite the dire s/p performance,we have as yet had no disclosures of changes in major interests. as I've said before i cannot have involved dollens as he is subject to director reporting requirements. could be someone with less than 3% starting point of course, but at least it appears that the more substantial holders are staying firm .does anyone have any thoughts as to why lansing davis not yet appointed to BOD?

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2021/apr/07/cash-gifts-and-strong-arm-tactics-musics-problem-with-nfts just for anyone interested ,as it was a topic briefly a little while ago.not suggesting it has any relevance for napster.just seems to highlight how complicated everything is getting.

so not exactly an explosion of pent up interest after the holiday break then! oh well there is always tomorrow.gla

anyone else getting slightly concerned at the increasingly explicit nature of Booth's posts? are we finally discovering the real motivation behind his obsessive posting?

apologies 51.5%,typo

so pretty heavily oversubscribed.we will get 51.1% of the excess application .actually a bit more than i might have expected,but nevertheless a significant expression of interest.

no he did not say what your are endeavouring to suggest with your distorted interpretation of his actual words.if he meant "any gel...will still have the desired effect" I'm sure he could have found the words to say it.he did not.

the purported interpretation of ian eardly's comment is clearly inaccurate. it attaches an alleged meaning to it, which is in no way supported by the language actually used.

the simple(and innocuous answer)is that it won't be.it will be seen as a method of addressing the symptom,but not ,for many at least,the underlying cause.where causes are purely psychological(a small proportion i accept)it may actually help to address the underlying cause,but forthose whose causes are physical in nature it will assist with symptoms.leafletting will address the issues of them being advised to consult professionals regarding the underlying causes.this will be perfectly normal and will not undermine the market imo.all this leaves aside the probable "recreational "users who will very probably form a significant market in their own right

nothing new in what you are saying.im sure everyone realises that the level of efficacy in practice,which will undoubtedly vary from individual to individual, will be crucial in determining the product's ultimate success. the point is that with the ce mark, fum will now be able to get the product to market. you are simply stating the obvious, but with the determined negative slant, which characterises all your posts. that is, of course, your privilege.

interesting that the protocol has been disclosed on a public forum. i assume it is either no longer confidential or liambooth has the written authority of futura to disclose it. as to the substance i think it is safe to assume that the designated body has taken full cognisance of all available information etc when reaching its decision to recommend approval of CE mark.