Member Info for Toffers

Del, I'd be happy to converse with you privately, but I'm not sure how it can be done, as I don't want the nuffin crew jumping all over me and making further personal attacks upon me, it's such a shame, we need a go between who is trustworthy! I think every genuine shareholder past, who has lost out, and present, should be given answers to a lot of questions, that never have been answered by this BOD. I suspect it's only a matter of time, probably very short, before this is over, not for a sale, but because someone in authority finally pulls the plug, Nomad or Auditor! My views.

How can I be a part of a boiler room crew when I've openly criticised the company in a letter of complaint to a statutory authority? idiot. You lot are the boiler room guys who think you can keep this alive with your continual small buys day in day out, and the odd large one, which you then let out in small numbers. You keep it up, working for Mac, who in turn is no doubt working for the company to keep this chugging along! You get back to reporting to your telegrammers with Mac the leader at the helm, along with GMF. Farsical. Brown envelopes all round. My views entirely of course!

They were well aware that litigation was likely for 3 years, yet they said nothing, the litigation commences early December 2021 but they mention nothing. I suspect, my suspicion, that they didn't mention it because they didn't want a mass sell off of shares, but is that a reason not to inform shareholders of this situation which is a material change in circumstance? in my view it is not. Just like they didn't inform shareholders of AC's sell off until after it had happened! Just like they wouldn't replace Queeld and Mispare's certificates because they knew I'm sure that there would be a mass sell off that they didn't want, especially as they were looking to raise funds in 2021. Is this really fair to shareholders, when shareholders also have risk management activities to consider? This is a public liability company after all, who should be very open and transparent with it's shareholders, tut tut. Look at the whole history since the 2019 suspension, it's littered with disasters and a lot of unaswered questions. Look at last year's AGM, they didn't want to answer any questions hardly and scuttled away. They are certainly expert at ducking and diving.

I don't thanks, I get the emails for some reason, but I can't read the stories, not that it's any business of yours anyway.

Oldspursfan, I'm afraid you are wrong in this instance. I am entitled to make my complaint for reasons I have set out to the appropriate body because I want answers. The failure to notify the litigation and the risks involved is a fundamental one in my opinion, as I, as I'm sure as many, would have re-assessed our holdings position, and in my case, I would certainly have exited, and I would therefore have exited at a much higher share price as evident at that time. I do not hold with the view that the auditors would not have been aware of this fundamental change in circumstances in that the company were not being sued in the High Court, a claim which if lost, could potentially wipe the company out, bearing in mind the amount of shares the claimants hold. That is risk management, to inform about the situation and let those who 'own' a slice of the company so to speak with their shareholdings, decide on their own next individual steps. I'm not arguing with you further, but my view is that you are wrong on this.

Beast, as per usual you have taken the quote out of context and not put it all there, and it was a sarcastic remark towards nuffin about grief over a shareholding!

Nuffin, I keep asking you to filter me yet you refuse. You always appear within seconds of me posting, which is very very odd behaviour. You keep threatening me which is also odd behaviour. You've been saying there would be a sale and this would be over, for well over a year, yet nothing, and a war is still in situ, and the company have two sets of high court litigation against it. Who do you think is going to buy whilst litigation is in situ? you are completely bonkers.

If I'm better in the bin Folio, why do you keep responding?

It's called 'risk management', it's what they are paid to do, the matter had been ongoing since 2018, an auditor worth it's salt would have found this out and refused to act if the company would not divulge. It's not just about the litigation either. Thanks to nuffin and his vitriol, I decided a complaint was justified and made it. I have expressed my views on the matter.

So many years? vile nonsense? wow, you really are scraping the barrel, and showing your true colours. You're the clown mate, not I. You're clearly on a witch hunt with me, I think most can see what you really are now, vindictive and nasty. As I've said so many times, filter me, and then there is no need for everyone to read the vile rubbish that you actually post incessantly.

I feel a complaint coming on to the appropriate accounting body about the auditors, never mind all the rest of it. Shareholders don't even know how much any policy for indemnity insurance covers the board for. The Queeld case is a very serious one, as financially, with the number of shares both claimants hold, it could be disastrous if the company lose. My views.

Hi scuba, no i meant it fell because there was never any reason for it to rise in actuality. Sorry if I didn't make that very clear.

Nuffin, you seem to forget it's a PLC! Furthermore, you and wtf are the only two who have threatened me about court proceedings. Strange that isn't it, in exactly the same manner! Filter me nuffin, I've asked you previously a number of times and yet you still refuse, and prefer to call me everything under the sun for some bizarre reason. Time for a brew.

And thanks Tygra, appreciate your post, spot on, as always.

This is just one very good reason why it's very important. DYOR, there's plenty of websites out there all inicating the same thing.

".....investors can use the annual report to prepare their forecasts and predictions. Consequently, investors can estimate future share prices and related cash flows. This information can be highly critical in decision-making."

https://www.wikiaccounting.com/annual-reports-important-for-investors/

That's okay, we won't include you in any claim then should there be one, as you've made your position clear!

So wtf and iknownuffin are clearly the same person,no surprise there! Multi monikers all round. As I have always said, these are my views, most of which though I try and support with some facts for debate, but you carry on. As I have said, the company know who I am and can contact me about any of my postings if they so wish, and if I consider that they have any merit in me issuing an apology then I will, but I think it highly unlikely, because if we went to court, then I would want every stone unturned so that we can find out exactly what was and is truth and what was and is fiction. I'd also like to hear from the auditors as to why they didn't notify shareholders about the High Court litigation, and insist the company divulge this, so that shareholders could have had a chance to consider whether they wanted to remain invested, or sell, and as I have said, I would have sold, for reasons which I'm happy to expand on in any court proceedings.

And you keep patting each other on the back with your recommend ticks, but the truth of the matter is out there, sp rose on nothing, and it fell because of nothing, and the Board did nothing to stop the decline because they couldn't, as there was nothing!.

Beast, it was something I heard, and quite frankly, with the war, it probably has been frustrated in any event. It's people like you that lead shareholders down a dark alley to their fate! The reason why I bought if you must know, is to see what the price action entailed afterwards, and as I thought, it was nothing but large sells going through as my buy helped lift the sp and then the telegrammers sold en masse. It was there for you to see. That's why I started to sell, as it confirmed what I thought, the gang were simply beefing it up again in order to exit. Hardly any are posting now, says it all really. And those that do, very occasionally, just repeat the same diatribe, like Mac! Pathetic. This simply was a pump and dump and nothing more. March 2015 they announced two interested parties for MT, but have never sold a bean! Says it all! My views but it's there for all to see.

How stupid are you? it could wipe the company out if they don't have enough cover. It's High Court litigation which is a material fact and change in circumstance which should have been notified in my view regardless of whether the case is won or lost.

Could be grounds for shareholders holding at that time to seek indemnity through legal action against the auditors may be for professional negligence? just voicing an opinion, because I'm very angry about the Queeld High Court litigation having not been brought to shareholders attention when it started, and only 16 months or so after a shareholder found it!