Member Info for Trisor

UG - the shares have been allotted to them. You got that wrong too. Don’t get me started on the legal stuff

This will either take off or not. Everything else is you continually yapping about things that come into your head. Some might be right some might be very wrong

Which professionals? Do you even know who Oval X is? Lansted still own 17 percent of this company

Why would I do that UG when I think this will be multiples of where we are today with time…to make you a buck?

Total BS EXMS. The Q and A also says they are free to sell their shares whenever they want. The statement is correct - they don’t derive a benefit from a low sp per se. But if they sell they derive a benefit. They’d make more money if they waited and sold when we are at much higher levels. But they’ve derisked the project. Fair dos. Sensible on their part.

I tend to believe what people tell me until it’s proved otherwise by hard facts. I’m also very aware that plans do change and things that you thought might be feasible don’t work out. It’s life and business.

Really EXMS/UG. My approach was a completely balanced. I go to AGMs. I look at the RNS’ and you get my opinions. Positive and negative. In fact I sometimes get comments as to whether I’m on your side. I’m obviously not.

UG you constructed an assumption based on the wrong law a couple of days ago. You both need to work in fact and reality

Neither do you UG

Many people got the interview response UG

Let Nanoo speak for himself .

Nanoo who is your source? What’s the proposed takeover price and what do you need to get out?

UG from time to time its important that everyone has a reality check on one's slanted thinking. EXMS (or you) taught me that

This all wont mean you wont be proven right or wrong but it does show that one's assumptions can be very very wrong as well as very very right. So for example you financial assumptions might also be very very wrong but also may be very very right

United Guy I don't know why they didn't raise 500k . I just have a feeling they needed the money they went for quick. I cant answer your question why it was 400k and not 500k or 600k or 700k etc

MyIPA- the relevance is that UG constructed an entire argument around how cave cunningly wanted 10.1 percent of shares so he could have a go at Duffers. And that was why they didn’t place all the allocated shares. I was arguing NNN needed a rapid cash injection to get deals over the line and 400 k was deemed sufficient .

UG we had an AGM not an EGM.

ExMS I don’t think you have been looking at the update

ExMS perhaps this is what the act said in 2006?

I think this goes to show that assumptions made can be completely wrong. So anyone listening to EXMS and UG DYOR very carefully

Im waiting with bated breath, cuvio. It couldnt be that it is 5% and UG has constructed an entire argument on the back of an incorrect legal assumption could it?

Cuvio in the interests of clarity (and if you know) please could you set out the law on this?

So basically we are all idiots apart from you ? Is that what you are saying ? What a guy this duffers? Simultaneously a persuader of the educated and the money men, but the worst business man ever. FFS

No he had 1.7 m at the time at least Exms. Before Lansted. Had his chance then .