Polo Resources Share Discussion Threads

[alpal2] 06/10/2020 16:19

shawzie: I would love that to apply. But tang is a lawyer so all bets are off on him doing the right thing. He hasn't done much right in 8 years, why would he do the honourable thing now?

[shawzie] 06/10/2020 14:44

Does anyone know if the following applies to Polo?

"In the case of involuntary delisting, the delisted company, whole-time directors, promoters and group firms get debarred from accessing the securities market for 10 years from the date of compulsory delisting. Promoters of the delisted companies are required to purchase the shares from public shareholders as per the fair value determined by an independent valuer."

[bamboozle46] 05/10/2020 20:02

Ok Shawzie, thank you!

[shawzie] 05/10/2020 16:06

bamboozie46
It is early days yet but assetmatch.com might be of some interest to you in the future. If you have a broker, they may be able to advise you.

[longjohnsilver1] 04/10/2020 09:21

888 is a proven clown for 12 years.

The kind of person blaming others for his own mistakes.

[glavey] 04/10/2020 03:12

"You haven’t answered the original question..."

1. Pot, kettle.

2. What original question?

[glavey] 04/10/2020 03:10

888, respectfully suggest you take a good hard look in the mirror.

BTW, I've noticed you have a habit of being selective when you refer to what people have written when you make a retort. Not sure that does you any favours.

[apfindley] 03/10/2020 22:32

Did you miss the rns??The listing is gone."has been unable to appoint an AIM Nominated Adviser within the timeframe set by the AIM Rules. The Company's shares will therefore be delisted with effect from 30 (th) September 2020 and will no longer trade on the AIM exchange."

[next time lucky 19] 03/10/2020 21:27

Well in the face of so much speculation. There are 34 nomads licences for AIM. Using the search facility any nomad has to do due diligence, check that the directors are suitable,etc. Based on the Polo response that you have to have an elected BOD to allow that process, it is clearly behind the wave. If Mr Tang wish to take it private the company would need to issue to shareholders how any share transaction would
Be Handled. Failing this communication it could be assumed the Nomad path is still being pursued. But the again we could speculate again....

[bamboozle46] 03/10/2020 20:42

Why is there no word from the board of Polo on their intentions now? What are people's thoughts on the possible outcome of this. And what are the little people like me supposed to do with their shares?

[apfindley] 03/10/2020 16:29

888.One word. Zorbas.

[longjohnsilver1] 03/10/2020 07:46

Brilliant communication from tang. Polo screwed people such as 888 for 12 years

Facts

[longjohnsilver1] 02/10/2020 21:40

The only difference is that tang doesn’t give a shixx

[glavey] 02/10/2020 21:01

"Their failure to remove Tang has directly lead to the current disastrous situation for all shareholders."

That makes sense, but only if you believe Tang was entirely responsible for Allenby's resignation and the failure to obtain a replacement NOMAD and that could only be rectified by his removal.

[glavey] 02/10/2020 20:48

888 you are misguided (still) and appear so aggrieved that you are unable to read and think straight. So you attack others. Why blame Phromimos. Phromimos were acting for certain shareholders, not their own account. Phromimos were not generally heard of until after the AGM. Do you know of any shareholder they contacted to solicit votes? No new votes were cast at the reconvened AGM.

To directly answer your question: "how would you feel if a group of shareholders had tried to remove you from office?" I would feel embarrassed and concerned, make every effort to engage with them to resolve their grievances and if I no longer had their confidence, stand down.

What would you do?

[longjohnsilver1] 02/10/2020 18:08

He also said that polo will be big

[apfindley] 02/10/2020 16:54

So you're admitting, that if they had succeeded in removing tang then polo wouldn't be delisted?So you're saying that tang is the underlying problem.

[888icb] 02/10/2020 16:32

But they didn’t did they which is the the important point. Their failure to remove Tang has directly lead to the current disastrous situation for all shareholders. Your other points may be true to various degrees but parading them in public via Phronimos has caused the delisting. I wonder if Phronimos explained how risky their actions were and that there was a significant risk of a delisting to the shareholders who supported them. We do not live in a perfect world and minority shareholders rarely succeed. The results of failure are far worse than letting sleeping dogs lie.

[longjohnsilver1] 02/10/2020 15:21

Absolutely correct alpal2

[alpal2] 02/10/2020 14:35

It was Tang who refused to have an independent director.
It was Tang's poor corporate governance in running Polo as his personal fiefdom.
It was Tang who fiddled the shareholding control.
It was Tang who caused the Nomad to resign.
Of course Tang should have been voted out.
If Phronimos had been able to get control we would have had a listed company with independent director, good corporate governance and a Nomad.

[888icb] 02/10/2020 01:49

The only failure of logic is on your part. As usual you fail to answer the question with your pompous ramblings which contradict themselves from sentence to sentence. Phronimos have written the letters and organised the votes to try to remove Tang and in doing so have washed Polo’s alleged dirty laundry in public. Whether some or all of their allegations are true is totally irrelevant to the point I am making. If Phronimos had not done what they have done Polo would not have been delisted. Delisting is a disaster for shareholders. So what benefit have shareholders had from anything Phronimos have been involved with? The answer is quite clearly absolutely no benefit.
Far better for shareholders for the company to be listed than delisted whatever the company’s failings. I don’t think anyone has ever been in any doubt that Tang controlled the company as Dattels did before he sold his shares to Tang.
There may be some truth in your final comment about punishing shareholders and while I don’t agree with acting in that way as it affects all shareholders, how would you feel if a group of shareholders had tried to remove you from office?