Bns Telecom Share Discussion Threads

[commsman] 01/10/2008 17:02

came across from iii..........

please avoid this company!!!!!!! having worked for them i have read most of the posts here and i can assure you that several posters whom have had there posts chopped on iii are telling the truth 100%..... i know what goes on and still goes on


Define a disgruntled salesperson?????? Considering that 90% of them have walked out in the last 4 months does that not speak for itself..

---would you sell a product to someone that does not work??????
---tamper with agreements after signing????
--- tricking customers into signing parts on lease agreements before install thus guaranteeing no come backs.

i have the proof, emails , literature and recorded calls to prove all this and a lot more

[dabberman] 25/9/2008 17:46

Yeah, noticed these fall whenever there is a sell. I think there are so many shares held by their CEO and BOD, plus a couple of institutions so maybe their are not many shares in circulation. If that was the case then the value of the shares might be artificially high because they are not in circulation. Then as soon as some do become available, no one really wants them so they keep dropping every time some are sold. Can't really see any value or prospects here and they do seem to be just a bit dodgy with that loan to the CEO.

[rebess] 24/9/2008 14:10

Big fall here.

If shares are lodged as security against borrowings, there'll be a margin call I fear.

[rebess] 18/9/2008 11:21

Geordie

Thanks for the information and the trouble you took. - I'm a wiser man for it.

Who's supposed to protect us I wonder? It's really scary!

[rebess] 16/9/2008 13:25

Geordie

I believe a quoted share in England is a Financial Service and as such would come under the auspices of the FSA.

This apart, it seems we are in agreement that there exists a 'Licence to Rob'.

[geordieduke2] 16/9/2008 11:48

The FSA will not do anything here because there are no "financial services". Although if this is a publicly traded company you would have thought potential investors should be able to have some trust in "the system" to make a judgement whether or not to invest. Companies House are supposed to ensure good governance so that people have faith in the system. There is the Companies Act that lays out the law regarding companies. But sadly white collar crime is not actually viewed as a crime. Steal a tin of beans from a shop and you'll be sent down. Steal a few millions by going bust or not paying back an unsecured loan and everyone will pat you on the back for beating the system. No one thinks about the people that lost for their gain and how it ruins lives. At the most they would get a warning to be more discrete in future. If the company goes bust partly as a result of this loan the customers will be without a service and Ofcom will do nothing either. Nothing will happen, these guys are above the law.

[rebess] 15/9/2008 10:29

The AIM market has created a situation whereby robbery can take place with impunity.

The police overseeing this market, the FSA, are totally impotent and this fact in itself is an encouragement to the would-be felons.

There is a chain of skullduggery stretching throughout the whole rotten structure that brings such companies to the market, involving more than the companies themselves.

There was a time when participants in such scams would have been mounting the scaffold, but not anymore.

[geordieduke2] 13/9/2008 09:51

Market cap down £20m, city conned out of £8m, more interested in making unsecured loans to property companies owned by CEO, flagrant disregard to AIM rules

Looks like it made the trade press

[geordieduke2] 08/9/2008 17:05

I think the point is that perhaps this crowd is best avoided. If they are up to anything I doubt there is anything anyone can do about it. My old man was in business and people used to go bust on him all the time. They used to get the money and he used to pay for it. Why it's not classed as theft I'll never know, because that is what it is. The scum that went bust used to drive around in Bentleys. They would go bust taking out large salaries and loans and then phoenix the next day to do it all over again. Not saying that is what these guys are up to but they certainly don't smell very nice. Best put the stone back and go elsewhere.

[geordieduke2] 08/9/2008 13:45

Angel, thanks.



Take your word for it though.

Latest RNS seems to suggest that KBC were not consulted about the loan, yet the shareholders considered it to be fair. So if the loan went ahead with the agreement of the shareholders without the need for consultation with KBC, then why the meeting with shareholders at KBC? If it was approved then it's legal and that's it.

[rebess] 08/9/2008 10:28

Geordie

"once they have a taste for it they can't stop"

I agree, it's like financial masturbation.

It's like the problems that have caused the 'credit crunch'.

Will the greed and recklesness stop now that all the bitter lessons have been learned? - I don't think so!

A new language will emerge, new descriptions, new invention of the products on offer, all designed to generate huge fees and mind-boggling bonuses that will eventually capsize the ship. Then a new ship will be launched and it'll start all over again.

As you say,. once they have a taste for it they can't stop.

Say after me " I don't care if I do go blind".

[geordieduke2] 06/9/2008 09:37

Ha! Is white collar crime legal? That's what lawyers are for isn't it? No doubt they have real problems trying to find something to spend their millions on whilst sticking 2 fingers up to their suppliers that have lost. The thing is, once they have the taste and have got away with it they do it again and again and again. Question is, is BNS next? I certainly wouldn't want to be extending BNS credit right now. As for an unsecured loan I wonder what the chances are of getting that back. At least there is some insight now as to how a telecoms company made an unsecured loan to a property company.

[rebess] 05/9/2008 18:44

Wow! - A Great double act.

Must be legal though.

[geordieduke2] 05/9/2008 15:02

But Barry Moat left PDR in May before it collapsed, which is a whole month before the collapse, so surely you are not suggesting he had anything to do with it?

PDR business model was get 3 months credit and sell for cash. BNS business model is get 3 months credit and sell for payment from leasing company.

Float on AIM, get a payout and then watch shares go down and down despite trading in line with board expectations.

PDR hire some nutcase (Condie) with a trail of failed businesses behind him. BNS hire some nutcase (Stewart) with a trail of failed businesses behind him.

Large salaries and plunder cash from the companies.

Both have Graham Wilson as chairman and KBC involved.

Surely any parallels here are purely coincidental.

[angel of the north] 04/9/2008 16:53

Some directors here also on board of PDR - went BANG! a few weeks ago!

[rebess] 04/9/2008 16:26

It appears from the RNS that the company are in breach of AIM rule 13. This rule requires that directors, other than the related party of the loan - Mr Moat, voting on the fairness and reasonableness of such loans, and wether it is in the interests of shareholders, should only do so after consultation with their nominated advisers.

The nominated advisers in this case, KCB PEEL HUNT LTD., are distancing themselves from making a statement as to the fairness of the loan as they were NOT CONSULTED - Hence the breach.

In view of this, Mondays meeting should be interesting. I wonder how they are going to field shareholders questions?

Watch this space!

[rebess] 01/9/2008 11:31

geordie

Been away, just read your comments and I think they're very valid.

Stripping cash-assets out of a company that must surely need every penny it's got in order to see out the present climate, is a strange and what I would regard as reckless thing to do.

Even though Mr Moat is the largest shareholder, with total control, he, nevertheless, has a duty to the rest of the shareholders not to deliberately put the company at risk. I believe this duty is enshrined within company law.

This non-secured loan seems to me to be a massive risk, not only to shareholders, but also to whoever/whichever is involved in extending credit-lines, assuming there are any, to BNS Telecom.

It would be interesting to learn of their views.

[geordieduke2] 20/8/2008 15:24

It would appear from the RNS that BNS Telecom is merely a vehicle to provide an unsecured loan of almost £800,000 to the CEO of the company. The same CEO that operates a property business out of the same offices. Is this money to finance that and the future of BNS Telecom is not telecoms but property?

Doesn't look like good practice for the company to be in the business of providing very large unsecured loans to the CEO when the company is operating in generally adverse trading conditions, in a competitive market and having made a loss! They are described as a Telecoms company but now not sure whether they are a money lender or a property business. Perhaps if the telecoms side is struggling there is a need to get the cash out in unsecured loans. I wonder what happens if he doesn't pay the money back?

[geordieduke2] 13/8/2008 16:48

What CEO would authorise unsecured loans for that much when the company is not exactly doing very well? Aaah!

[dabberman] 11/8/2008 11:06

Could well be right, it does sound like disgruntled sales guys, one at least does admit to working with the competition. There was also someone claiming to be a customer and the share price had collapsed well before these guys started posting. So perhaps worth trying to find out if, as these "posters" claimed and what they were saying was indeed "fact" as they claimed. Better to expose them if their claims are untrue.

[lentonlad] 10/8/2008 20:56

Crikey Geordie. My gut feel from reading all this is that there are a handful of disgruntled ex-employees out there trying to get there own back. Probably salesmen who didn't make the grade and 'were moved on' - most likely now plying their trade with the competition! One things for sure - BNS have lost a load of money over the last 12 months.

Regarding the removal of posts I may be able to shed some light on this. I was in the US recently and read an article in some magazine about the increasing amount of litigation by companies against 'posters' for things like defamation, disparaging remarks against individuals, etc. Where it gets interesting/scary is that if posts can be deemed to possibly influence share prices then the market regulators can get involved - if found guilty then someone just playing around on a message board can face fines or even jail! Might be completely wrong about iii and the rules in the US might be totally different but you might want to be careful - it would be a nightmare to get done for posting someone else's slander! Can you remove old posts? You might want to check!