Azure Share Discussion Threads

[Abuse team] 12/5/2006 15:44

Post removed by ADVFN

[Abuse team] 12/5/2006 15:39

Post removed by ADVFN

[very quick] 12/5/2006 15:23

Hi Anomalous: What is the chance of a reversal here?? I do hold some of these again.

[Abuse team] 12/5/2006 15:17

Post removed by ADVFN

[Abuse team] 12/5/2006 15:13

Post removed by ADVFN

[dusseldorf] 12/5/2006 14:55

Not the sort of start I was looking for, the appointment of two directors who have a very lackluster history, I wonder if there are sufficient shareholders to vote them off(!)

[dell314] 04/5/2006 11:44

It appears that your old chum, Peter Abbey(a.k.a Chiddingfold), has been busy again.
After checking out who had been stockpiling PMA rather conveniently just prior to them announcing RTO negotiations, it turned out to be Garnham Founders Fund(Apparently another Peter Abbey vehicle).

Funnily enough, Barry Gold is Chairman of PMA and has also been on company boards where Chiddingfold have muscled in and been a fellow director with Peter Abbey on others.

Nothing like a good coincidence, eh??

All IMHO, DYOR etc.

Rgds
dell

P.S. Perhaps, Private Eye might like to add this one to their Peter Abbey files........

[gee777] 02/5/2006 16:24

are azh coming back?

[Abuse team] 28/4/2006 03:08

Post removed by ADVFN

[Abuse team] 20/4/2006 19:03

Post removed by ADVFN

[clocktower] 18/4/2006 15:54

double post error.

[clocktower] 18/4/2006 15:54

Keep up the good work.

[Abuse team] 17/4/2006 11:38

Post removed by ADVFN

[dell314] 04/4/2006 09:42

Twilight Zone, or what??

Rgds
dell(time traveller)

[knitcraft] 04/4/2006 09:36

Pleased to meet again VH, trust you are well if a couple of years older.....BUT, no wiser I suspect !!

[vanhalen] 04/4/2006 09:31

faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaantaaaaaaaaaaaastic !!!

just like old times !!!

All we need now is sprocket tool !!!

[knitcraft] 04/4/2006 09:28

I see you lot are still bickering..... I`m still knitting...

[jmillskeel] 04/4/2006 09:25

Totally agree

[paulkent] 04/4/2006 09:18

lol
Id forgotten about jaknife!...i see two years hasnt changed his incredible inability to see alternative views to his own!!!..and just for old times sake i did read back through some posts, and found that (which id forgotten) I was initially anti buying RSV because of the dilution planned, but then decided to take the risk with a small amount because of the staggering oversold position, and the prospect that they might have to buy it back at much bigger prices, as things could always go wrong re the reorganisation and D4E

wot u miss completely in ur unbiased (lol) approach jak, is that it WOULD have been a very orderly market, if the mms either HADNT sold so much, or had corrected their position and bought back what they needed to at the time...the order of the market was entirely in their hands. They might have lost some money, but thats not the markets fault, only theirs.

but anyway, my post above was actually mainly querying the LSE motivation in arriving at a solution (with bias so it now appears) to help the MMs out rather than allow nature to take its course and thus help the investors. Was it simply the bias of an individual within LSE, or institutional bias, or what?..im intrigued to know why, in whatever specific meeting took place, someone (coz its always a PERSON) argued for a solution that favoured the mms at the expense of investors. Id love to think the relevant minutes could be obtained...can they be forced to provide them? - actually, why would they want to hide them if nothing to hide anwyay?

[uknighted] 04/4/2006 08:42

JakNife, you know full well that they only managed to supply the shares because of the new issue.
Your "totally unbiased" position continues to amuse me, its just as well you are not biased towards the MMs, but then if you were you would not be in the "perfect position"!!

[vanhalen] 04/4/2006 00:19

Exhibit 15 ........... incredible !!!

[uknighted] 03/4/2006 22:56

The problem was solely created because the MMs sold shares they had no chance of supplying. When I purchased the shares I was not aware of any supply problem - I acted in good faith - unlike the MMs. I object to your accusation of a "collective conspiracy" but accept that in your "perfect position" and being "totally unbiased" you have to defend the actions of the MMs.