Onzima Ventures Share Discussion Threads

[cufes2] 01/8/2016 17:53

Yes you are twisting things because Nigel does talk about ONZ and specifically says . . . "We've tried to set it up with the greatest amount of flexibility so that we can maintain the value for our existing shareholders, us being Onzima and myself" . . .

[fido] 01/8/2016 17:25

"trying to twist something to his benefit that is simply never going to happen in the way he suggests"

I suppose that includes all the RAMPERS saying that a tie up with onz is a done deal even when NIGEL himself reels off a list of alternative options for N4 that DOES NOT include ONZ.

[fido] 01/8/2016 17:18

Nigel is keeping his options open and that includes a tie up with someone other than onz.
AS STATED BY NIGEL HIMSELF.

[fido] 01/8/2016 17:15

I twist NOTHING, unlike the blatant lying and gross exaggerations we see on this board.

[keya5000] 01/8/2016 06:59

Cufes in the fantasy world he operates within you ignore any statement of fact you cannot answer.

I can assure everyone here that N4 are completely aghast at the postings and suggestions that a certain individual is making and I expect some form of formal action may well start.

Like he's done with everything Onzima since he stated posting he's trying to twist something to his benefit that is simply never going to happen in the way he suggests.

[cufes2] 01/8/2016 06:53

Obviously Nigel doesn't have a clue either when he said . . . "We've tried to set it up with the greatest amount of flexibility so that we can maintain the value for our existing shareholders, us being Onzima and myself" . . .

[patientcapital] 01/8/2016 02:27

If the deal involves N4 it cannot not involve ONZ by definition. Now pull the other one.

[fido] 01/8/2016 00:34

PC,
If Nigel does a deal with another vehicle that DOES NOT include onz then how does ONZ`s share stay the same.
Answer, It doesn`t, it gets DILUTED.
Personally I don`t think you have a clue, but there you go, its of no interest to me as you`re in good company here.

[fido] 31/7/2016 22:40

The shares onz currently own will be hugely DILUTED its as simple as that.

[patientcapital] 31/7/2016 22:29

So you seem to think that the shares ONZ owns in N4 are somehow different and inferior to those owned by NT.Perhaps you would care to explain how this is so?The answer, naturally, is that each share ranks pari passu. If you don't know what a little elementary Latin means then I'd give up if I were you.

[cufes2] 31/7/2016 22:13

ONZ owns 49% of NA4 Pharma and Nigel owns 16% of ONZ . . . The two companies are interlinked . . . When are you going to stop ignoring this inconvenient truth . . . And your shell isn't actually a shell and has already reneged on a promise to return cash to shareholders . . .

[fido] 31/7/2016 22:01

Bottom line is the alternative shell has £6 million sitting in an account doing nothing.

Is that sort of money attractive to Nigel?
You bet your life it is.

[fido] 31/7/2016 21:49

Pc,

"Any dilution will be shared on a pro-rata basis between ONZ and NT"

No that is not the case and in fact Nigel states that in the last interview.
When asked about an alternative vehicle, Nigel stated that that vehicle would be jointly owned by that vehicle and N4.
Vehicle & N4.
Is there anything you do not understand about that.
IE NOT onz
Repeat NOT onz

[patientcapital] 31/7/2016 21:11

That is, of course, utter nonsense.

People are invested in ONZ mainly because of ONZ's direct 49% shareholding/ownership of N4.

Whatever N4 does ONZ has a continuing interest just in the same way as NT. Any dilution will be shared on a pro-rata basis between ONZ and NT. The two shareholders in N4 rank pari passu.

Fido, you have shown yourself to be ignorant and out of your depth where invesment matters are concerned.

Good night.

[fido] 31/7/2016 20:51

Purchmeisner,
People are here because they think N4 will use onz to float.
If not then onz are bust.

[purchmeisner] 31/7/2016 17:38

*not need to fund it

[purchmeisner] 31/7/2016 17:38

So in theory Nigel could issue a huge number of new shares to the potentially new vehicle in return for cash? But then he'd have to issue new shares to himself to ensure he has the majority holding? Otherwise he'll be completely diluted too surely.The thing is if this alternative deal gives N4 the funding it needs then I think ONZ share price will rocket even if their holding becomes diluted as not only will they not need to find it they'll still have a decent stake in what could be a £100m company in a few years.

[cufes2] 31/7/2016 17:18

There are potential rich rewards if the money is used to successfully develop the drugs and grow the business . . . It's how capital markets work . . .

[fido] 31/7/2016 16:59

Yes but that`s not what the RAMPERS have been telling people, ie get rich quick/huge returns etc etc, all of which have now been proven to be completely false.
Maybe this week will see a reality check on this high risk casino stock.

[cufes2] 31/7/2016 16:25

There is always going to be dilution associated with this type of investment . . . It's how capital markets work . . .

[fido] 31/7/2016 14:48

Purchmeisner.
Onz is a stake holder in the top company and will remain so but that stake will be hugely diluted by the new investment from the alternative vehicle.
The main point though is that no one will invest in onz without N4 and onz continue to be relient on handing round the begging bowl whereas the alternative could give N4 the full £2-3 million allowing N4 to reveive the higher 10-15% royalty which is why Nigel said that this was the best option.
I note that the shorters are saying that this is going to 1p but I think that the only real support is around 0.75-0.8p.
Best of luck.

[cufes2] 31/7/2016 13:10

The problem is it isn't an alternative . . . It's just pie in the sky nonsense from a desperate SRG shareholder . . .

[purchmeisner] 31/7/2016 10:41

Fido, if Nigel agreed to go with your alternative ONZ would still own 49% of N4 so it's quite possible your deal would add to the value of ONZ isn't it?