Scotty Group Share Discussion Threads

[minerve] 19/3/2011 18:04

Just to give you an idea of what problems could lie ahead if we went with option 'A'......

As the example points out below, there is the risk that the shares could be de-listed anyway. If option 'A' is chosen, and delisting occurs, then the liquidity of our investment becomes extremely illiquid. The availability of a ready market to sell our shares disappears. The luxury of us being able to sell, as individuals, as and when appropriate to our own agenda, disappears with the listing. Transparency, because there is no market price, disappears and our collective strength as shareholders is weakened.

What faith do you have in the current board of directors, or new directors unknown, that they will indeed make sure this will not happen?

Have a read. Comments please..

Regenesis plc ('Regenesis' or the'Company')

Statement re suspension

In the Chairman's statement accompanying the interim results for the six month
period ended 30 June 2007, issued on 29 September 2007, reference was made to
the requirement for the Company to comply, by the close of business on Friday
15 October 2007, with AIM Rule 15. AIM Rule 15 requires that the Company has to
implement the investing strategy approved by shareholders to the satisfaction
of the London Stock Exchange.

The new strategy, which is the provision of short term asset finance, was
approved by shareholders in April 2007. Since that time, the Company has not
been idle. Over the last six months, loan applications totalling £19.1 million
have been reviewed by the board and considered carefully, particularly in the
current financial environment. A loan of £774,500 was committed and drawn down
in May this year and a further loan of £135,000 has been drawn recently; four
further loans have been agreed and committed, but have not yet been drawn down
by the borrowers. When drawn down, these additional loans will utilise most of
the Company's lending capacity, taking into account its current equity capital
base.

In spite of these commitments, an insufficient proportion of the committed
loans was drawn down by close of business on 15 October 2007 to fulfil the
requirements of AIM Rule 15 and, accordingly, trading in Regenesis' shares on
AIM was suspended from the start of business today. The suspension will
continue until the Company can demonstrate that it has complied with AIM Rule
15, at which time, trading will be restored. If this cannot be achieved by 15
April 2008, admission of the Company's shares to AIM will be cancelled.

The directors wish to emphasise that these London Stock Exchange regulatory
matters do not relate to, or have any impact on, the financial position of the
Company.


IMHO & DYOR

[minerve] 19/3/2011 16:59

Well, we are yet to hear from anyone who is going to vote 'YES', any takers?

[paulbate] 19/3/2011 15:10

Bob

I agree

Being told that we will only get 1.8mill from the circ 4mill paid by "IE" is one thing, but then being told we will only end up with 1.2 mill after expenses is a p_ss take. Why dont the bl--dy expenses come out of the cash being taken back to Austra???

The fact "IE" are willing to pay 4.2 mill suggests that there is a product that someone wants......this whole deal is a set up between the Board and IE to benefit both parties.

Stuff em, vote NO

[blodders] 19/3/2011 11:10

Thrice Capital held over 8% in 2004



Are they going to play a part in "2011"?

AS ALWAYS DYOR

[scotty tsquared] 19/3/2011 05:20

"... stick to my day job ....."

............... of exposing the fools ..... who try to fool others .....

Yeah I'll stick to that .....

LOL

[minerve] 18/3/2011 21:56

You are paranoid and delusional. No one followed any voices. People invested and followed through the belief that the business would grow. It hasn't, RNSs were way to optimistic and misleading and, just in case you haven't been on this planet, we have just gone (and are still going) through the worst economic/financial period since the late 1920s. It has been a lesson learned about all aspects of investing, none of which you could of predicted or known about.

You put your money on red, when others were putting it on black, and you try to claim that you are experienced, educated and know better because you chose the right colour. LOL

I would stick very much to your day job, if I were you, because you haven't got the right mindset to be a private investor.

IMHO & DYOR

[scotty tsquared] 18/3/2011 21:37

Minerve, the shareholders followed the 'Voices' in the past ........ I think they have learnt ..... like Levelhead .....

[scotty tsquared] 18/3/2011 21:35

POSTED BY the SCOTTY GROUP ...... TODAY ......

"Since then the Board has been in discussions with several third parties and has received an offer, dated 15 February 2011 ........."


POSTED BY SCOTTY TSQUARED ......... within 36 hours of the 'deal' being done ...

Scotty Tsquared - 17 Feb'11 - 06:58 - 4746 of 5297

ScOLD ???


WHO KONWS BEST !!!!

..... you got it !!!!

[minerve] 18/3/2011 21:29

PAULBATE

If I read it clearly, most on this BB have expressed the opinion that they will vote NO for option A. We are still waiting to here from others, including Levelhead, on what their opinion is now considering the cash in the shell is going to be much less than originally thought.

I agree that in none of the information given, there is no clear explanation of why this €2m should head back to Scotty Austria. It just seems a coded message for 'Scotty Group Austria will receive €2m funding to aid its business going forward': So what? The company will not belong to us by then.

IMHO & DYOR

[minerve] 18/3/2011 21:21

ScottyTsquared

All because we concur doesn't mean we are the same 'voice', person, group, company or planet. We have just read the information and come to the same conclusion, it is not unusual for shareholders to do this.

Also, we are not asking for shareholders to vote the same way. It is up to them.

Ladybird1, Share_shark, GG and myself are all mature enough to except that others may have different opinions and may vote differently. If others feel, we have got it wrong, let them persuade us that we have, through reasoned debate of course!

[paulbate] 18/3/2011 20:21

I still fail to see why any of the offered monies should go back to Austria.

I will be voting NO,

[scotty tsquared] 18/3/2011 20:14

Beware on one 'ADVFN Validated' member.

Beware of several 'ADVFN NON-Validated' members .......


for they all sing from the same hymn seet. WHY ?????

Ask yourself the question ......... are they the same ..... 'voice'

[ladybird1] 18/3/2011 16:46

Pleasant to sign off the week on a(unique?) note of harmony, whatever the ultimate outcome may be.

[share_shark] 18/3/2011 16:06

I concur with you 4gazza and have already checked the information, kindly provided by you,regarding Wurstinger.

[4gazza] 18/3/2011 15:57

Fellow investors
Wustinger has enjoyed spectacular success over the last few years by building up Pankl Racing and CarboTech. Both these companies were in poor shape when he got involved and after a few years he was able exit at a very big increase in value for all sharehoders involved. He is a professional who will not rip off the minorities as his reputation is very important to him.
On a practical note I have asked my broker to check the market for me 10 minutes ago, he came back and said they are 5.5/7.5, bid 5.8 probably 6 for 100,000 and offered at 7,5 for 1,000 and at the same time Ernst is effectively 8.5p bid for 5million so what do think will happen to the share price next?
Have a nice week end.

[minerve] 18/3/2011 15:26

Well, good contributions on the BB again, and I think GG's post (Ref 5285) pretty much represents the general consensus of ladybird1, share_shark, obviously GG's and my own, if I may say so.

Be interesting to note what you think LH, considering the information from the new release?

Minerve

[goldengoose] 18/3/2011 14:10

Quite, I've seen it flip to and fro several times (deals on wheels :). BFN GG

[ladybird1] 18/3/2011 13:59

GG Thanks. Presumably somehow part of the rather curious Barclays holding.

[goldengoose] 18/3/2011 13:53

Many thanks my lady.

Thrice holding is managed by one large investor who has been with us since the merger (Obviously I'm not sure about the way it works, as I've seen the shares move between a couple of holding names - presumably also managed by this investor).

He has, of course, seen the value of his investment diminish, though I assume he is still a very wealthy investment banker. It was this/his substantial holding that swung a rather tense vote at the last AGM.

Afterwards I had opportunity to discuss Scotty with him, having opposed his view in the vote. Subsequently, I found myself agreeing with his pragmatic prognoses; for better or worse, we must give Scotty every opportunity to succeed or fail, it sits on a knife edge, but all is not yet lost.

In words to this effect, I found my own commitment strengthened and determination to remain invested and engaged through to this point. I hope to be inspired sufficiently at the next meeting to continue - despite the wrong side of that knife being felt these last 12 months.

If Scotty can just find stability, everything else will fall into place including the share price with Institutional support and Buy backs. So close and yet apparently so blooming far away!

GG

[ladybird1] 18/3/2011 13:32

GG

A very good post, if I may say say, both in content & tone. I hope the latter will be reflected generally as we run up to post. As to content, I should say you reflect my own sentiments pretty well precisely.

A query if I may. I'm obviously out of touch, but might you please explain re

'Thrice Capital Management LTD - Is by far the biggest shareholder, a fine gentleman too, imo.'

New one on me.

Thanks - & again for a fine post.

[goldengoose] 18/3/2011 13:18

Thrice Capital Management LTD - Is by far the biggest shareholder, a fine gentleman too, imo.

Ernst is obviously passionate and prepared to stand up & meet any necessary shortfall - I'm not sure it means such a full placement will necessarily or immediately be executed. But it meets the requirement for sufficient working capital is in place to continue trading - which is vital.

I'm pleased too the price is stated - obviously disappointed we've reached such lows!

Personally, I think if Ernst and Thrice want plan B then that's what will happen, and I'd be content to support them & eventually see us de-list; if it means Scotty can ultimately enjoy long-term profitability and growth.

The world can and does change quickly! 12/18 months from now, a few significant contracts, maintaining a dual listing might yet benefit SCO, I've risked everything this far, and I'm minded to see it through.

I've always been predisposed to trusting the BOD, mostly because I've attended most AGMs and measured them as individuals - men of integrity, intent & commitment. Though I'm presently intent on rejecting the 'cash now' option, I do appreciate their proposal is aimed at offering shareholders the timely last option to finally cut and (r..) maybe make something different happen with 'our' losses or remaining stake.

Looking back never helps to see the future, of course history repeats its self all too often, we're all mindful of that, and rightly so here; it's made fools of us all. Except STD - who managed that all by himself, and given recent replies, is quite an expert in this art $>)

The Lord moving on is appropriate & timely enough given the scenario.

All being well, I will attend the GM and listen to the main player's views before finally deciding where to cast my vote, presently believing the BOD vote is erring on the side of caution for shareholders - given past performance & uncertain future, being the reasons behind rightly endorsing 'A' (no mention of being unanimous).

I have been about as committed here and to Scotty, as any, and while I genuinely empathise with LH, I'm more prepared endorse sentiment posted by Minerve and question if this mightn't also be KK's view. Voting plan 'B' may well cost me several more thousand long-term; potentially available if Plan 'A' is pursued and reaches their presently predicted conclusion and shareholder approval.

But equally, I believe the business rewards (anticipated by Ernst, hopefully Kurt, and perhaps others) still outweighs inherent risks associated with a total game change (UK Investment Shell). Which of itself doesn't nearly excite me as Scotty's products and partnerships.

Each to their own of course, and I'll make do with 'A' if I find myself in the minority voting No to continuing sale/shell discussions.

My very best wishes to you all; in reasoning, discussing and drawing your own conclusions before making your views known and vote count in April.

Cheers! GG €>)

[ladybird1] 18/3/2011 11:38

Shareholder approval will be a formality, s_s - see above.

Good thing, too. Costs of listing out of all proportion to size of company.