Bartercard Share Discussion Threads

[graphos] 02/4/2007 08:16

Timshare

If you haven't already tried the Richmond office:

Sovereign Gate
18-20 Kew Road, Richmond, TW9 2NA
0870 920 0001

I emailed a couple of senior people directly, but as I suspected, it wasn't until I gave my trade coordinator a hard time (and threatened to resign my membership, which I may still) that a director finally called me back. I had to hassle my coordinator three times.

[timshare] 30/3/2007 19:41

anyone got any information on how to contact the managemnt as i just cant get through... thinking of logging a formal complaint. all i want to know is what is going on as a shareholder!

[davidlloyd] 28/3/2007 09:30

For those still interested in BRTR.....
Bartercard has sold its licence for INDIA - Wayne is keen to point out the potential size of the market. However, now that it is not required, no mention is made of the price obtained.

"India is a huge market with great potential and we are delighted to have made this licence sale. We are actively looking to increase Bartercard's presence further in Asian countries." [WS]




Also, note the new format website - good to see it being updated and improved.

DL

[waxinglyrical] 05/3/2007 23:33

Bartercard has become the first official sponsor of the ECB OA - in a three-year deal worth £100,000, designed to raise the standard of umpiring and scoring in the game from grassroots club level through to minor county standard.

The ECB Officials Association (ECB OA) has been set up by ECB to represent umpires, scorers and match referees throughout cricket in England and Wales.



coincidentally:

"ECB caught in Data Scandal" -

Interesting bedfellows!

[yump] 28/2/2007 09:30

LOL just thinking the same thing !

[davidlloyd] 28/2/2007 09:14

well at least we are not sinking with everything else today.......

;-)

[aporterman] 27/2/2007 09:44

I see a new-look website ... and much improved too - not on all the Country sites yet - but definitely a more professional introduction to Bartercard ..

[edmondj] 07/2/2007 13:46

Fair points although we can only wait and see what is the outcome.

[graphos] 07/2/2007 13:41

David Lloyd, you're correct. This is about a blatant breach of contract (so I was told). The non-exec matter is not really that important, even if it (allegedly) triggered the breach.

G

[yump] 07/2/2007 13:28

With a bit of bs, they could re-list as a renewable energy trade exchange, then we'd all get our money back, plus some ;-)

[davidlloyd] 07/2/2007 12:00

EdmondJ,

Irrespective of the Non exec being reappointed or not, Nabaro had an agreed contract with BRTR as I understand it which they did not fulfill as defined. Ergo, they are consdiered to be in breach, and should take responsibility for the impact of that action....hence BRTR seeking damages..

Thats how it seems to me based on the limited info available..

DL

[aporterman] 06/2/2007 21:35

Don't understand J Dean ... what do you mean by that?

[james dean] 06/2/2007 19:35

A double handed two finger job.

Regards.

DYOR.

[edmondj] 06/2/2007 19:19

Depends why the non-exec was not re-appointed; if that was a BRTR initiative then the Nomad may have felt affronted and the contract broken anyway.

I am only deducing from the BRTR management info cited above, which does not inspire me with confidence. I also felt the Wayne Sharpe circular to shareholders was specious, he blamed the Nomad for shareholders' lack of liquidity but rejoiced in being a private company again. If WS could not manage BRTR's Nomad more effectively then he can't be much of a stockmarket entrepreneur. The newspaper report read as if he was pleased to be back flirting in a nightclub. I am hardly surprised this guy has fallen out with the City.

[aporterman] 06/2/2007 18:16

Thanks Graphos -- it looks like the Nomad shafted Bartercard - I always felt that there was an agenda against BRTR - I hope we make them pay dearly for it.

[wiganer] 06/2/2007 13:29

According to Companies House website various Bartercard companies should have filed accounts by 31st January 2007 but appear not to have done so.










The PLC itself is up to date with its filings:




Bartercard Real Estate is yet to file accounts, only having been incorporated in 2006:

[asmagliocco] 06/2/2007 13:13

Thanks for the update Graphos.

[graphos] 06/2/2007 12:29

I have some more information - finally - from senior management at Bartercard. You guys may or may not know this already. I have been told it's public domain.

Apparently a senior member of Nabarro was in fact a non-executive director at Bartercard UK. Part of the contract that Wayne negotiated with Nabarro was that they should find a new NOMAD should they wish to resign, giving three months' notice, too.

When this aforementioned non-exec director was not re-appointed, Nabarro suddenly (and coincidentally!) resigned as the NOMAD, without finding a replacement. Thus far Nabarro's counsel have been unable to give a credible reason for the resignation. Bartercard are sueing for very large damages as a result.

Where does this leave us shareholders? Well, as you know we are now shareholders in a private company but we can't liquidate or trade those shares. My source at Bartercard is unable to predict what will happen (including a possible re-listing - we don't know), but he says that some kind of recompense is being sought for shareholders, and 'may or may not' come out of the damage claim.

[sack of spuds] 31/1/2007 11:13

ah the magical dividends!!! thanks david.

[davidlloyd] 30/1/2007 13:26

Same for me SoS. Apparnetly 'tis OK to just leave them there - the magical dividends should they occur will be credited to the account. No difference in legal terms, still yours etc

DL

[sack of spuds] 30/1/2007 10:45

shes not the silly cow that was on big brother is she???

i have my brtr in a nominee account...now we cant trade them what do we? just leave it there or get a paper cert or what. any thoughts?

[james dean] 29/1/2007 11:28

EJ -

Good point.

Regards

DYOR

[edmondj] 29/1/2007 10:05

She looks as if she might have a fake nose.

Is Bartercard not an inappropriate sponsor?

[yump] 29/1/2007 09:58

Bet its a 'special' dividend. You know, one of those you have to shine UV light on to see it ;-)