Totally Share Discussion Threads

[sikhthetech] 06/4/2026 14:30:09

Yet another Resident Doctors strike
The govn have never got to grips with the underlying problem.

The govn curtailed local NHS spending causing huge problems for local NHS services.

[sikhthetech] 04/1/2026 21:51:17

Happy New Year all.

The NHS continues to be a mess. Labour govn continues to tell local NHS bodies, ICBs to cut expenditure!

[sikhthetech] 14/12/2025 17:46:25

The gov continue to tell local ICB's to reduce spending.

The govn are clueless and set themselves up for trouble. After they came into office, they gave resident doctors(were called junior doctors) huge payrises and now those same doctors are going on strike again.



On the one hand the govn's wants to reduce waiting lists and on the other they are demanding local ICB's cut spending on private providers and NHS hospitals!

England NHS waiting list is still at huge 7.4m, so the govn haven't achieved much in 1.5years.




Operations and treatments cut back as NHS orders hospitals to save money


"Regional health boards have ordered some hospitals to cut back on the number of patients they are seeing, meaning hundreds of thousands of patients could have to wait longer for treatment.

The rationing measures are being applied mainly to private firms doing NHS work, but multiple NHS hospitals are understood to be affected too."


"But documents seen by the BBC show integrated care boards, which are in charge of spending on behalf of NHS England, asking hospitals to make patients wait longer and reduce the numbers they treat until the end of the financial year.

One asked a private provider to reduce activity by nearly 30% and to make patients wait eight weeks longer, on average, while stopping taking on new referrals for a period as a way to cut back on the amount being done."


"A surgeon at a private hospital said they had had to cancel all their scheduled NHS operations for the coming weeks, with some patients only given a few days' notice.

They told the BBC: "I had a full day of joint surgery planned this week and patients were just told a few weeks before that their life-changing operations would not be taking place.

"Many of them had been waiting over 40 weeks for treatment. It's devastating for them."

A letter by Circle, one of the biggest private hospital providers in the country, to its doctors said at some sites they may have to stop seeing NHS patients altogether.

Daniel Elkeles, of NHS Providers, which represents NHS hospitals, said restrictions were also being placed on some NHS hospitals, calling it a "real concern".

"If the government really wants them to deliver the 18-week target they would have to go flat out and use all available capacity and that will mean needing additional funding.""

"It is estimated the orders in place against the private hospitals that have reported so far could lead to 140,000 fewer patients starting treatment by the end of March. But given some NHS hospitals are affected and not all the restrictions placed on private hospitals are thought to have been been declared that could be an underestimate.

David Hare, of the Independent Healthcare Providers Network, said: "Given it is patient choice driving demand for treatment in the independent sector - and the scale of the challenge in getting NHS waiting lists down - we‘ve been surprised by the extent of the proposed slowdown, which will leave significant amounts of available capacity going unused across both the independent sector and the NHS.”

Rachel Power, chief executive of the Patients Association, said: "These reports are deeply alarming and poses a serious risk to patients' ability to access the treatment they urgently need.

"Calling it 'activity management plans' distracts from what this really is, another barrier standing between patients and timely care."

[red army] 21/6/2025 21:11:12

Same ole story

[1gw] 21/6/2025 20:57:58

And in terms of what was raised from the sale of the business, it seems they raised enough to pay off the (secured) bank loan, but the administrators don't expect to be able to repay:

£4.5m owed to HMRC (PAYE and VAT)
£5.7m owed to other creditors

So an estimated £10m short, without I think counting the material additional cash requirement that was due to materialise. And this from a business that the directors reported as having £34m net assets as recently as 30 September 2024, thanks to £46m of "intangibles" on the balance sheet, nearly all of it goodwill.

[red army] 21/6/2025 20:55:06

I had an idea that she was sloppy with her management skills and discipline.

[1gw] 21/6/2025 20:24:06

The administrators' documents posted to the site linked below give a lot of detail on how things stood when it all came crashing down.

It appears the company was already overdrawn by end-March (cash at bank on the management accounts balance sheet showing as negative) and “creditors, including HMRC, were already stretched beyond terms.” They only started consulting on the 111 contract redundancies after the contract ended and so had to incur ongoing staff costs, with no associated revenue, above what might have been expected anyway from the unwind of a negative working capital contract.

E&Y were brought in on 28 March to review cash flow forecasts with a view to identifying options for financing and it looks as though this might have led to the discovery of the unfunded negligence claim (“a material additional cash requirement was due to materialise in the short term”).

What a mess. Where was the financial control? Even without the “material additional cash requirement” showing up, to let the business get to the stage it was at in late March is just shocking control, isn’t it? Was Finance just missing in action, or were non-finance execs so convinced that the 111 contract was going to be renewed (despite the experience with the NW London UTC contracts) that they ignored Finance warnings?

[andymunchkin] 11/6/2025 16:52:38

donn2c1 6 Jun '25 - 17:41 - 22217 of 22229
0.500050 11 0
You piece of scum Sikh.
You ramped and ramped, 1GW constantly challenged the state of the balance sheet and along with plenty of others pointed out the issues……….got it right. Doesn’t matter about who lost what on other shares. Just have some respect for those that followed your constant denial and ramping of TLY and lost cash (not a smidgen of what you have judging by your ‘I will loading up’ ramps) No response needed, save it for trolling other threads
----
shamElEss pIecE of sCum.i mAy aDD

[andymunchkin] 11/6/2025 16:48:52

sikhthetech 1 Jun '25 - 21:52 - 22204 of 22229
0 2 1
1gw,

"How can you have a placing if the accounts show you're insolvent? Don't you go into administration?"


That's my point.
If they were insolvent, as you've been suggesting for weeks, then why didn't they suspended the shares and go into administration on either the 1st or 2nd TU last month?

Another of your many suggestions proven to be false then.
;-)
----
adMinistRATion & sUsPension nOw @ sIckcnT.cUm ooT of ur sUspennders & sAy smeThing u ramPing Loon.

[jugears] 10/6/2025 12:43:10

THE END, I'm not surprised, hence why I sold at 21p having bought at 15p, Very poorly mamanaged & very poor business mode, to many eggs in one basket, you can't beat a good old UK house Builder,can you Sickly?

[fenners66] 10/6/2025 12:14:17

Totally found fame at last with an article in the Daily Mail , to say , its gone.

[sikhthetech] 09/6/2025 19:45:04

There you go, as expected, blnx gang, going back over a decade!!! Blnx now called nexn.

Up pops 1gw's blnx running mate, digitalis to support his mate.



Digi, mate of 1gw and blnx(now nexn) and Nano holder. Both blnx & Nano shares crashed on red flags I warned about. The companies newsflow showed my assertions were true.

Digi attacking TLY for 14 years, whilst ramping blnx, aka rthm/trmr/tap and now nexn.




Blnx down from c$55 to as nexn, $10.


Rthm down from c590p to 100p, as expected.
Nano down from c70p to 15p, as expected

etc

and the BoD aware of 1gw for at least 2 years!!! Coincidence Nano crashed in Feb 2023!!

[fenners66] 09/6/2025 13:15:38

The "PHL Group" they have referred to in the RNS is the more generic definition of "Group" rather than any
PHL Group Limited definition.

Finding the PHL Ltd company that was set up in 2009 seems to be a challenge from Companies House records but they have certainly been around , say PHL Primary Care since 2016.

I would be intrigued to see if there is any relationship between PHL or its directors and owners , past or present and Totally though......

[buywell3] 09/6/2025 11:31:10

PHL Group G1 Limited


PHL Group G1 Limited is an active company incorporated on 3 June 2025 with the registered office located in Fareham, Hampshire.

PHL Group G1 Limited was registered 6 days ago.

[donn2c1] 09/6/2025 09:32:56

Stop bleating like a spoilt defeated child in the playground Sikh. Today’s RNS hammers the last nail in. Accept it. I suspect most on here don’t give 2 hoots about your constant gripe with 1GW. Let it go for your own sanity.

[sikhthetech] 08/6/2025 19:41:11

1gw

"Did the directors carry out further goodwill impairment tests for the 30th September interim accounts given the continuing indicator of impairment (market cap below net assets)"

It's good to see you've now accepted that the issues to look at are around 2023/2024 and wasn't really a problem 10+years ago (given you've been attacking TLY for that long).

As you're still milking this...
The medical negligence claim should have been notified. It'll be interesting to find out who knew what and when.

"given the continuing indicator of impairment (market cap below net assets)"


Yes, interesting...My point still stands...

During 2023 and after Nano crashed, there were hundreds of smaller sell trades daily, here and at AGL, to push the share price lower.
At the same time you were desperately posting deramping posts, which, at the time, were proven to be false (virtually all them).



Dec 2023, I posted, which is exactly what you are doing now:
Dec 2023, I said:
"Forcing the share price to below nominal value so you can force the company to reorganise and come up with more stories.
Maybe 1 of your stories out of dozens will come true."



2024, during H1 presentation, Wendy Lawrence, says they are aware of you.
GBCol - 04 Jan 2025 - 13:13:29 - 21678 of 22157 Totally Health - 2014 onwards - TLY
<...>I note from the last presentation that WL was aware of you, so maybe there is some history there that would explain it or maybe youâ€â&bdquo;¢re solely here to try to wind up STT.

Personally I donâ€â&bdquo;¢t take pleasure in others losing money but each to their own. HNY.




And you've already admitted that it was the 2nd year running that they didn't answer your question:

1gw - 11 Nov 2024 - 12:07:24 - 21616 of 22126 Totally Health - 2014 onwards - TLY
Yes, looking forward to the written answers on the subsidiary net current asset position and on the "what happens if you lose another big negative working capital contract?" if they follow through on their commitment to respond. Their immediate answer on the second question appeared to be we don't expect to lose one! They didn't expect to lose the NW London UTC contracts, yet they did.

For the second interims session running I had pre-submitted a question on impairment tests - did they perform them for 1H given the indicator of impairment? For the second time it was apparently ignored - I somehow doubt they'll attempt a written response to that, but you never know."



Yes, there are questions for the company. There are also questions as to what they know about you and for long. Who knew what?

The crucial question being, if the mcap wasn't forced below net assets (and nominal value), would they be in the current situation? Would they have been in a better position to ride out the problems? If so, was the share price deliberately forced lower with the hundreds of smaller sell trades?



You still fail to answer simple questions...
Given you portray yourself as a well researched, reasoned poster,why do virtually all your shares crash? Why do virtually all your stories/suggestions turn out to be false?

How many multiple ids do you have on each of advfn and lse?

[1gw] 07/6/2025 18:11:35

Perhaps the main point of interest now for many aggrieved shareholders will be whether any of the directors will face personal sanction for what's gone on here and whether the auditors might be held to account in some way.

The company had £34m of net assets according to the audited consolidated balance sheet at 31st March (2024) and again on the unaudited consolidated balance sheet at 30th September. Yet after losing the 111 national resilience contract and discovering the medical liability issue it is apparently insolvent.

Some of the more obvious questions to ask are around:

o Were the goodwill impairment tests carried out for the audited accounts deficient to the extent of inviting action against auditors or directors?

o Did the directors carry out further goodwill impairment tests for the 30th September interim accounts given the continuing indicator of impairment (market cap below net assets) and the evidence that actual revenue decline was so far away from the revenue growth assumptions detailed in note 14 to the annual accounts?

o When did directors actually learn that the 111 national resilience contract was unlikely to be extended (i.e. was there a requirement for 3 months' notice of extension specified in the contract) and why did they leave it so late to inform the market given the statement the CEO had made on 7th November about not expecting to lose any major contracts in the short-term?

o If the medical liability claim was actually a material factor in the insolvency, who knew what, when and why was it not disclosed earlier?