Triad Share Discussion Threads

[arthur_lame_stocks] 12/4/2019 11:00

FWIW I also had a small top up here a while ago. We may have to wait for results to see whether trading is holding up or not but if it is these are immense value.

[brendainvesta] 12/4/2019 10:28

Flushed? It has been rammed down with an industrial toilet brush. Any more lies from her and she will end up in the clink.
We will not be hearing any more of her lies directly from her or via her minions on this or any other public forum.
IMHO this is now an opportunity to acquire shares at a depressed price with the cause of the price drop proven to be fiction in the High Court. This is where research pays off, I have been topping up since Triad Group and its Directors we’re all totally vindicated and compensated in the HC.

[bones] 12/4/2019 09:59

Has the poison pill been flushed down the pipe though? Will this remain a hinderance to future dealings?

[brendainvesta] 12/4/2019 09:22

Word of the day “Top-up”, yes even on a Friday.

[brendainvesta] 12/4/2019 09:19

Bones, I think they have just got rid of the troublesome lies from that shareholder. The high court case would of been for that reason. This new beautiful silence creates the foundation for increasing the SP, attracting new investors and hopefully gaining a new institution investor or two. This is now a new start.

[pride23s] 08/4/2019 22:14

I added another 7453 to my holding.

[bones] 08/4/2019 18:04

Four buyers today Sicknote! ... and a biggish seller at 36p. Desperate, or what?

[s34icknote] 08/4/2019 14:38

Huge spread five p !!!!!No wonder no one buys !!!Sicknote

[brendainvesta] 04/4/2019 13:35

Alanadale and 1integrity
Please would you pass on my question to MM.

It is ‘why is she attacking and complaining about the effect of the bankruptcy and not the cause of it, which I believe has nothing to do with Triad Group. ‘

[bones] 04/4/2019 13:22

Oh well, hopefully a sign of a steady if unspectacular year to 31/3/19, accumulated cash and a significant dividend increase may help things along, should those events turn up.

[brendainvesta] 04/4/2019 13:05

Bones
I am guessing about final costs.
A short hearing with all associated costs awarded, I have been told could be between £50k and £125k. Damages are very difficult to guess but again I have been told may be in a similar region.

[rcturner2] 04/4/2019 08:12

I turned up Triad in a share screen and this certainly seems to be a fun share!

I can imagine the legal matters will be putting a lot of people off.

[brendainvesta] 03/4/2019 22:34

There does seem to be a repetitive/circular motion to the posts on this site with regards to Triad Group.
There has now been an open offer to question MM on matters.
I would very much like to accept this offer as I am a very frustrated invester.
I have a portion of my pension invested in this company so am minded to have these rather public spats ended.

My question to MM is why have you persistently attacked the effect of the bankruptcy if you don’t agree that it is legal instead of attacking the cause of the bankruptcy? I believe the cause has nothing at all to do with Triad Group.
I apologise for my rather blunt posts in the past but I cannot fathom why you seem to deliberately damage a company that you are a major share holder in!

[bones] 03/4/2019 16:02

Also, if shares would have to be sold by the trustee, as Dangersimpson2 suggested in an earlier post, it would make sense for TRD to agree to take the shares back in-house using up a small part of its surplus cash. That would have a two-fold effect of keeping shares out of the market and marginally improving the company’s EPS.

[bones] 03/4/2019 15:21

Brendainvesta, why does the brevity of the court hearing affect the level of damages? The QC and court costs i can understand but surely if the gravity of the offence would be the same whether defended or not, how does this reduce the “correct”; level of damages (however that is determined)?

[brendainvesta] 03/4/2019 15:13

After speaking to some legal friends I need to adjust down my guess for the potential total costs/damages. They suggest such a quick case will only provide for £100k - £150k.
Also one of the earlier posts stated that the bankruptcy administrator still holds cash of hers that I have been told nearly covers hat amount.
The outcome is that the overhang is small to non. Good news for the share price

[pride23s] 03/4/2019 07:31

yes on two fronts share value and entertainment!!!

[brendainvesta] 02/4/2019 20:35

Yes, great value even when the share price goes down.

[pride23s] 02/4/2019 17:27

Who needs Brexit when we have TRD...…...

[brendainvesta] 02/4/2019 16:22

1integrity... “merely making observations” this is not exactly true by you stating that the Royal Courts of Justice, High Court, Queens bench division is a sham.
It sounds like you are also, literally a poster boy for the Bankrupt.

[1integrity] 02/4/2019 07:59

Dearest 'investors'

Thanks for your warm welcome, its not required, I am an enigma' I have no desire to get involved in any detail, pointless debate or gossip, I was just offering an alternative view to what DS2 considers "complex". Life is as complex as humans make it :)

There appears to be many assumptions, is there a touch of paranoia in this chat room ? DM2 assumes me to be a novice, how rude. Coincidences, maybe, maybe not, life is full of coincidences ?

I agree although we are all using non de plumes / alias for writing in this "chat room", a coincidence ?

I am merely making observations from what appears to be a ridiculous situation which beggars belief.

The 'bankruptcy' and stolen shares etc Voldemort protests about maybe one of you should ask as her directly, and hope she responds in 200 words or less ?

Voldemort does appear to be a very intelligent person. The detail in which she writes is extreme, to the point of boredom [yawn]

My identity is of no importance, I don't care who you are as nor should you care who or what I am. Curiosity killed the cat! I can however assure you all I am not Voldemort.

Integrity = the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles.

For the record, writing on this BB wont resolve anything.

May I go back to being an observer and let you hot shot investors sort it out.

I reckon if persons would 'man up' and get this sorted using - integrity trust and transparency then we could all be popping champagne.

Ciao

yours

Integrity xx

[brendainvesta] 02/4/2019 07:46

Oh well an easy transition for me from she who can’t be named to him who cannot be named.

[sailing john] 01/4/2019 23:35

Welcome 1integrity. I note you joined ADVFN on the 12 Dec 2018 - the same date the Mira was blocked on Twitter and have made just the one post above. Conincidence!?

Your post above is very similar in content to Mira! - though thankfully a little shorter. Are you Mira?

[dangersimpson2] 01/4/2019 23:27

bones,

Yes that's about it. The claim as far as I am aware is that the shares were certificated and shouldn't have been dematerialised. Whether that is the case or not I have no idea, but what all parties seem to agree is that they were. Which means that when they were returned by the bankruptcy trustee they were, I expect, returned in that form. I doubt MM would have had them certificated again given that that would mean her having to accept the court's decision. Since the bankruptcy is not discharged then the bankruptcy trustee should just be able to apply to the court to seize them again. It appears MM has other assets such as property so those could be seized instead but the shares are the most liquid and divisible assets so it would make most sense for the trustee to claim possession of the shares.

1integrity,

Welcome to advfn and congratulations on your first post. You've certainly weighed in on a complex topic in an obscure microcap for such a novice investor!

One word of advice to a novice though - whatever your opinion it is best not to make absolute statements that accuse organisations of things you cannot prove in a court of law - the reason we are all having this discussion is that MM appears to have made claims that she could not back up, or was not willing to turn up to court and do so. Although it is unlikely that most organisations take action on this sort of thing, given the recent court case it would be wise to make it clear where you are stating opinion not fact.

As for making a millionaire bankrupt, there is no logical inconsistency, the test is the same as for companies, who can be asset-rich too. Bankruptcy occurs due to being unable or unwilling to pay a debt when it becomes due, that is determined by a court of law to be legally valid. The test isn't, do they have the money or assets, but are they able and willing to hand it over to meet a demand that is deemed valid by a court of law.

Hope that helps.