BNN Technology Share Discussion Threads

[redhill9] 05/11/2017 10:10

wetwestwales4 Nov '17 - 21:25 - 8273 of 8275 0 0
Redhill9: name that paragraph ....

A somewhat strange request but since you ask shall we name your paragraph "Total Tosh"?

[perfect choice] 05/11/2017 09:49

Exactly and11, Wet says follow the money but also previously stated he is a holder (post 8004 on 19 Oct so appeared after suspension) so should we all buy then on that logic! You can see they are getting desperate as the PWC report didn't deliver what they wanted to happen. Fact is DM is there in a new role I think he is best suited to than running an entire company, he hasn't gone which seems to winding up some posters here, with their heads in the sand refusing to accept the PWC report outcome. Looking forward to the suspension being removed and announcements of new appointments as evidence of Harry's excellent work.

[and11] 04/11/2017 22:31

Wet! Something Serious found in your opinion!!! Exactly..that’s all it is... no fraud..that’s what l would of said was serious, which has clearly been dismissed by PwC’s investigation, as DM would have been sacked...I’m sure you said you were invested here...I’m sniffing a rat here, as your comments sound like the typical rubbish posted by the shorting crew, in my opinion of course 😎😎😎😎

[wetwestwales] 04/11/2017 21:25

Redhill9: name that paragraph ....

[wetwestwales] 04/11/2017 21:21

PC: tosh. "If something serious found DM would have gone", and "Harry doing a great job getting things back on track". Evidence to support this ?! DM has gone...to pasture in HK "where he always wanted to go" (according to some on this BB). He's not CEO any more, out to grass in HK, keys to the til taken off him, and a promise to repay £500k in 7 weeks. Now that's "something serious found" in my opinion. He was spending our cash on 'business activities' that included globetrotting in luxury. Oh, and Harry has done nothing yet. 2 months suspension, no end in sight, a local dog walker met the new CFO (!), and people here are hoping for £1 on relist !! So you carry on with hope. But as for facts......get your head out of the sand, and always follow the money !

[delboy39] 04/11/2017 15:18

I agree with PC , at this point it looks like Harry is getting things right to get company back on the market .
Early days but I do feel long term this will get back to the good days in the next 12 months .

Longs stay strong

[andy] 04/11/2017 12:06

Perect Choice,


Before this all started nobody here was suggesting DM should be moved away to a new position and lose the CEO role, because the new position was "what he is best suited to doing", were they?


So the obvious question is, why is it now so good, when it wasn't before?

[perfect choice] 04/11/2017 10:12

So comical these posts now redhill9, just because the PWC report didn't give the DM haters what they wanted, they just try to discredit it instead. If something serious was found, DM would have gone. He hasn't and will now be focusing on the role I feel he is best suited rather than trying to build a business as a CEO. Harry is doing a great job getting BNN back on track. Wait for the new appointment announcements and we will see that.

[redhill9] 04/11/2017 08:46

Congratulations westwetwales for the most factual errors/pieces of nonsense I ever read in one paragraph.

Are you trying to win a bet?

[genises] 04/11/2017 08:22

Wet West Wales
Chee if I had a loan of that much I would had done a runner.
Your amount needs correcting.
From experience.
You obviously have a small holding as those that have % holdings do have privilege information in alot of aim companies.
Directors do like to keep the larger investor informed in case they need support in the future.
Look forward to the new directors,update and the loan being paid off in shares or cash.

[newmanontheblock] 03/11/2017 21:01

PC. Fully agree. Suspension may prove beneficial as share price was in a down trend before. Now, with a new CEO and CFO and better governance...and updated trading performance which shows a good performance...just maybe the shares will bounce upwards...never know! Shorts could be squeezed and decide to close out? Could be back above a £1 by April 2018? Who knows....

[perfect choice] 03/11/2017 17:16

100% right redhill9, any form of grievance procedure is confidential and almost guaranteed to have legal action from affected individuals if anything was disclosed.

Key fact is that the PWC recommendations were based on "largely focused around the remediation of a number of issues connected to corporate governance, culture and compliance" to quote.

So no dismissals, no siphoned money, no ghost contracts, etc any of which would have had to be declared if existed.

So while activities were undertaken legally, there is speculation on "how" things were done needing amendment through "governance, culture and compliance" improvements. So this "implies" DM move by "mutual agreement" i.e. could not be forced but was agreed in best interest of the company. Clearly this implies DM did not do everything "perfectly" but also implies there was nothing major. I still think DM was doing to much and a more focused role for him is best while a wider business development oriented CEO is appointed, which is now the outcome I see.

I have read comments elsewhere by those closer to the company that there was a view that the suspension of the shares could have been avoided. Suspect this is an after the event view as Scott's accusations were serious enough to justify but when the investigation was made and finally reported, the real situation just didn't justify suspension (thanks Scott!).

BNN are now taking the opportunity to get the new Board in place and get control back in the business so while suspension is frustrating for some, I welcome the time to get the business back in line. And suspension would not be lifted anyway without a core exec board so if you are going to change things, might as well get the new board in place first.

On that note, interesting post Lowerp if true. You are clearly close to the company if you happen to meet the new CFO. RNS next week would be good so now onto selecting new CEO and once that person is in place, issue RNS for removal of suspension and trading update. That is what I expect now. Looking forward to the details and a new exec team driving business growth.

[redhill9] 03/11/2017 16:20

Re: No disclosure of the allegations.

Let's imagine you are a senior manager/director of a listed company and a fellow senior manager/director makes serious allegations against you, the sort of thing if proven could be career threatening or worse. Following these allegations your employer decides to suspend you from your employment pending investigation and clarification. After that investigation you are cleared of any wrongdoing BUT your employer decides to issue an RNS anyway detailing what those serious allegations were even though they have been proved false.

How do you react? Do you say "fair enough", I don't mind false allegations against me being made public, or do you find that behaviour unacceptable and immediately contact your lawyers.....?

We may all be curious about what the allegations were but if unproven it is completely unacceptable for the company to publish them. Can't people understand that?

Yet again people on here (yes, Andy, you in particular) seem unable to think.

[delboy39] 03/11/2017 15:39

Ssc .

You have it spot on , ( Andy , Jaknife , pj1 etc ) never tell the full story .
They play at fake news between them on a daily basis .

[ssc85] 03/11/2017 15:30

Andy is the process over yet? If they reopen trading with nothing revealed I'll agree its not been transparent but until that point I don't see why your non position holding knickers are in a twist.

I note in your 'facts' as listed above you've neglected to tell the other half of the story detailed in the last two RNS's by the company (which are actually facts) regarding cash position being good and board positions being finalised. Yet again perpetuating a narrative to fit your snakey little game.

[andy] 03/11/2017 13:14

Redhill,

The facts as I see them:

CFO resigns on a Friday evening, making "serious ellegations" against the CEO and Chinese director.

Monday morning, RNS issued, share suspended.


Given that an RNS normally has to be cleared by the lawyers, I would suggest that decision was worked on over the weekend.

Nature of allegations not released.


Now we have:

No disclosure of the allegations.

DM now ex CEO, and moved to HK.

No legal action taken against the former CFO.


What part of that scenario is clear and transparent?

[redhill9] 03/11/2017 12:57

ssc853 Nov '17 - 10:45 - 8254 of 8256 1 0
Redhill Jaknife is Ann infamous shorter, best to ignore. He's just laying the foundation to hammer any nervous investors into selling to suit his own gains. Of course he'll say he has no position and is just posting out of his own good will but we all know the likelihood of that...

Thanks, yes, I'm aware he's well known for his tactics on this and other boards/threads. Unfortunately there are some who read his tarradiddle and seem influenced by it.

[redhill9] 03/11/2017 12:54

Jaknife, just to be clear on what you are saying:

1. You don't know what the allegations were against the two directors, but nonetheless you believe that whatever was alleged about DM to be true, despite PWC and the BNN board having investigated and said otherwise.

and

2. You haven't seen the PWC report but nonetheless in your ignorance of the report's contents you know it to be a "whitewash" and a "cover up".

Perhaps you could explain why PWC, let alone the BNN board, would concoct a cover up if the allegations were true, knowing that such a deceit would inevitably become apparent? And would you care to explain what is in it for PWC? As I said - you're talking nonsense.

This is another example of you using your prejudice against a company and your own self interest to spout ludicrous silliness which ignores reason, logic, facts and common sense. Constructive negative comments are to be welcomed when based on facts or honest opinion but that isn't the case here. You ought to be embarrassed and ashamed by your transparent dishonesty.

[ssc85] 03/11/2017 10:45

Redhill Jaknife is Ann infamous shorter, best to ignore. He's just laying the foundation to hammer any nervous investors into selling to suit his own gains. Of course he'll say he has no position and is just posting out of his own good will but we all know the likelihood of that...

Quite a conicdence that all those spinning the negative yarn all claim not to have selling positions yet those who remain positive are openly holders...

[redhill9] 03/11/2017 10:34

Nonsense and you know it. You are really suggesting that PWC are complicit in a cover up?