Subsea Resources Share Discussion Threads

[p3dr036] 05/2/2008 08:38

In a word nobby40 "None" - certainly as far as the shareholders are concerned

[aquilla] 05/2/2008 08:07

Gengulphus. Sorry, I didnt make myself clear. I was making a general point about sanctions. I appreciate they didnt impose any fines here. Maybe directors can get fined. Anybody clarify?

[nobby40] 04/2/2008 22:35

£4 grand down the drain - any hopes for the future SUB??

[gengulphus] 04/2/2008 22:22

On another note why don't they fine the directors and not the company (which hurts the shareholders)?

Eh? They didn't fine the company! They gave it a "public censure", but decided not to fine it - see the end of the "AIM Disciplinary Notice" RNS.

And as far as the directors are concerned, that RNS is announcing what the AIM regulator is doing about the company, not about the directors and advisers concerned.

I don't know whether the AIM regulator is actually doing anything about the directors and advisers, or even whether it is the AIM regulator's job to do - it might be some other body's job. But I do know that if it is the AIM regulator's job to deal with them, it's being dealt with separately from that announcement - because if it were done in that announcement, the announcement would have had to contain the same sort of detailed explanation about the directors' and advisers' acts as it does about the company's acts.

Gengulphus

[aquilla] 04/2/2008 21:50

harki - 22 Jan'08 - 06:47 - 4753 of 4870
ready to fly north.in the bag.

What a complete prat.

On another note why don't they fine the directors and not the company (which hurts the shareholders)? Oh I suppose then they'd award themselves salary increases to cover.

[tibrahim] 04/2/2008 19:29

Thanks safman like they say only invest what you can afford to lose so heres hoping something comes good but if not a lesson learnt.

[safman] 04/2/2008 17:57

i think u need to be careful here.. its lucky it is still on AIM at the moment and if they are successfull with their fundraising.. cannot see it at any value other than .. 0.1p..

saffy..

[stegrego] 04/2/2008 17:53

The LSE should go after the ex-directors here and clean them out - not been bigger pirates since Blackbeards time!

[tibrahim] 04/2/2008 17:08

The 100,000 at the end is my buy just doing some bottom fishing & the last 2 trades at .27 could also be buys so will just sit & wait for any better news DYOR.

[isis] 04/2/2008 11:58

I think it is now.

[sven2006] 04/2/2008 11:48

this not sunk yet ?

sVen

[marwalker] 02/2/2008 18:43

Craig are you the skipper that we filmed the M2 sub off Plymouth a few years back with a submersible ? The only man in the country that owns and flies an ex military helicopter !

[pugugly] 02/2/2008 17:39

ck:- I have your e-mail address Thanks. R.

[edmondj] 02/2/2008 08:21

Or HMRC threatening fines/prosecution if returns are not deadly accurate, compared with the extent and scale of misleading investors here.

[captainfatcat] 02/2/2008 08:09

Ed yes agree, it makes me sick when you think this country sends pensioners to jail for refusing to pay their council charges of a few hundred quid. Yet these guy fleece investors of millions.

[ctreksalvage] 02/2/2008 07:01

Thanks for that pugugly
I will go after a dp ship at the end of the the year, but till then me and Redeemer will struggle on, a few beers and a few smiles what more could I ask for .In 2009 I will start another venture which will make the salvage game look like chicken feed

Pugugly for you [e-mail]

best regards Craig

[edmondj] 01/2/2008 18:01

Ridiculous, that the regulators focus on bashing the company while directors move on - to a clean bill of health.

[tombarr] 01/2/2008 17:54

I note that, there is an FSA registered Mark Frederick John Gleave working for Apollo Advisers of 25 Hill Street London W1J 5LW.

You'll find the liar Gleave is on the Board.




Call 44 020 7495 8060 if you feel you might like to ask them why, given today's announcement, that Mark should be permitted having anything to with investment. You might also like to ask the same of the FSA and the LSE.





Hope that this helps.

[pugugly] 01/2/2008 17:30

P3dr036:> You are so right - however unless the previoous Board Members still have their PI insureance in place I suspect they may be a bad risk for any lawyer to chase in that they may not have enough cash to make any judgement agaist them viable.


ctreksalvage;> Best of luck with your projects - remember if you ever decide to look for 3rd party funding I might be intrested sugject to terms.

[p3dr036] 01/2/2008 15:59

I've printed out both documents - the AIM Disciplinary Notice and the Company's response so I can have a good read.

If I had lost money as a result of investing in this company in the period 2005 - October 2006, I would be really angry right now. The Disciplinary Notice gives a catalogue of errors & omissions. But it seems to me that the Stock Exchange have, so far, let the SUB board off very lightly indeed - just a slap on the wrist.

All the response says as far as i can see is: "It wasn't us, guv! It was the previous lot!!" However I believe that there are people on the present board who were there before and who should take the blame!!

I would like to see those shareholders who lost money in this debacle banding together to seek legal redress from the members of the previous board who were responsible for the errors and omissions listed by the Stock Exchange. This would certainly happen in the USA. Let's hope that those shareholders can find a willing lawyer on a "no win - no fee" arrangement so they can at least try to get some of their losses back.

I watch this with great interest!

[ctreksalvage] 01/2/2008 15:48

I truely am sorry for the people who lost money on this, the idea is correct Im doing the same thing but with a lot tighter budget I do agree it is high risk ,but it beats the hell out of working for Asda .
Redeemer will start recoveres in Early April (weather dependent of course)Take care

[karn evil 9] 01/2/2008 15:19

This is incompetence of EIC proportions !!!

[p3dr036] 01/2/2008 14:27

caveat emptor!
It was the many over enthusistic press releases issued by Mark Gleave [and a snotty e-mail I received from him complaining about a negative comment I posted on here] that turned me away from investing in SUB at around the 25p level. so perhaps I should thank him. It was also dear old "bello39" who old timers on here will remember for his slavish defence of SUB at all costs.

But frankly, anyone who invested simply believing the company's "jam tomorrow" P.R., without doing some serious investing of their own, was asking for trouble. There were also people like tombarr, captainfatcat and others, on here making good sense.

Life is tough but one can always sell and take a loss if it turns out that the decision to buy in was a poor one.

However no one is ever forced to buy into any company. SUB was always high risk!

[rp] 01/2/2008 14:17

In any other walk of life bad service or incompetence is normally followed by refund or compensation. Only in the Alice-In-Wonderland world of the City is "we are different now" perfectly normal.