bosley
- 20 Feb 2004 09:34
dawall
- 03 Nov 2006 09:31
- 22046 of 27111
Agree with oblo in that SEO's management have now to deliver and quickly, not several months down the line after several further confusing RNSs. I for one will be disappointed if there is no announcement of deals on Monday and a detailed forward plan for roll out and Starpol / Greenseal volumes. They are in the last chance saloon and quite frankly I think they are lucky to be there. They won't get another chance at fund raising. Hopefully they will bring in a new face or 2 that can get things moving quickly and some one who understands new technology role out. Hopefully it can also happen before some decides they want to take out SEO on the cheap.
bosley
- 03 Nov 2006 10:15
- 22047 of 27111
it would be good if someone could make the point about the vagueness of a typical seo rns.
hewittalan6
- 03 Nov 2006 10:30
- 22048 of 27111
I know. A shareholders RNS along the lines of;
A company that may or may not be a packaging company has today, or perhaps in the future as soon as last year been accused of a number of very precisely vague RNS. This is / was / will be in the region af alot of RNS.
We the shareholders (though not neccesarily of SEO) have emotions about this and we may express them at some point in the future. We have recently signed Letters of Intent which will be signed next month to throw unspecified fruit at the board, the quantity of which will be released when we can be arsed.
By the way, spare a few coppers for a cup of tea, Guv.
For more information you can ask whoever you like. We aint gonna tell you.
RNS Ends.
bhunt1910
- 03 Nov 2006 10:36
- 22049 of 27111
Far too precise - you mention such concret items as emotions, you mentioned fruit and finished with an End - needs to be more vague to qualify as an SEO RNS.
garyble
- 03 Nov 2006 10:52
- 22050 of 27111
I expect nothing more than:
"With the passing of all items proposed, we have now overcome a major obstacle to SEO's path to commercialise key products, for which there is keen interest by major global players. We can proceed to finalising contracts refered to in the RNS of 9th September, subject to agreement by Biotec and Sphere".
Tonyrelaxes
- 03 Nov 2006 10:54
- 22051 of 27111
RNS Number:*****
Stanelco PLC
03 November 2006
Stanelco plc ("the Company")
The Company wishes to report that they appreciate the money and will continue to spend it. No further information will be given until it has run out.
Enquiries:
Please do not bother us
02380 867100
This information is provided by RNS
The company news service from the London Stock Exchange
END
dawall
- 03 Nov 2006 11:17
- 22052 of 27111
garyble
unfortunately I think you are probably nearest the mark.
Then we will suffer another long uncertain wait.
123456
- 03 Nov 2006 11:19
- 22053 of 27111
I BOUGHT 87.157 SHARES AT 10.47 IT HAS SHOWN UP AS A SELL
oblomov
- 03 Nov 2006 11:22
- 22054 of 27111
Spot on, Tony, apart from the 'appreciate'! lol
Nice to see a post from Q, in his usual no nonsense style!
greekman
- 03 Nov 2006 12:13
- 22055 of 27111
Alan,Tony,
I think you should both keep taking the tablets.
But seriously, I agree any further info needs to be precise in it's contents.
Tonyrelaxes
- 03 Nov 2006 12:34
- 22056 of 27111
Oblo - Enjoy!
bhunt1910
- 03 Nov 2006 13:34
- 22057 of 27111
How many times do SEO issue amended RNS's.
Stinks of incompetence to me.
If they cant add up - what chance do they have of doing a deal with some of the mighty supermarkets
It really does worry me sometimes
alfalfa
- 03 Nov 2006 13:58
- 22058 of 27111
Folks just can't do the maths today ! Presumably, the figures were taken from the registrars and weren't checked in-house.
Whatever, that takes care of those errant 831 shares.
Tonyrelaxes
- 03 Nov 2006 14:12
- 22059 of 27111
According to page 171 of the Prospectus the new Finance Director became full time from June 2006.
This is the 4th amended RNS from 2nd June 2006.
Each one relates to incorrect figures - OK, one was the wrong year, 2005 instead of 2006, but that is figures too!
The new FD's salary (120K) is 50% up on his predecessor. Bet he got that one right!
greekman
- 03 Nov 2006 14:24
- 22060 of 27111
If the posts re confidence in SEO management (including mine) are anything to go by,they (the management) will be worth every penny if they can survive the EGM.
I wonder if it is in their job description 'You will stand up and face the wrath of SEO investors'.
Will anyone make history in the annals of finance/investing and return from such a meeting with an ASBO (Anti SEO Behavior Order).
Valium anyone.
Tonyrelaxes
- 03 Nov 2006 14:28
- 22061 of 27111
Greek - lol
Oily - More ammo now. How you getting on?
dawall
- 03 Nov 2006 15:06
- 22062 of 27111
SEO's management and company secreatry are a completely F---in' useless bunch of c--ts. If it wasn't so serious it would be laughable. How many incorrect RNSs can be issued before it warrants FSA or stock exchange involvement?
How many times do they need to be told to check, double check and check again before releasing an RNS. Next time they should just release the 1st one in "draft" form then we can all expect a follow up. Incompetence is far too kind a description for them! Much as I disliked Shares Mag attitude to SEO I can see exactly how SEO tempted there shorting strategy!
bosley
- 03 Nov 2006 15:15
- 22063 of 27111
dawall, it's time you started saying what you think instead of sitting on the fence ;)
garyble
- 03 Nov 2006 16:07
- 22064 of 27111
Nice 14m buy there....someone taking up a position for Monday's outcome!
bhunt1910
- 03 Nov 2006 16:45
- 22065 of 27111
Not sure whether anyone else has noticed - but there have been some clever posting of shares today. There have been several posting of large volumes whcih look to me as though they are being notified 24hrs late - almost to the minute. They go through as an L trade - but appear as buys - wheras in fact if they had been posted 24hrs ealier - they would have been posted as a sell.
Take the trade at 16.37 as an example - and there have been lots more during the day.
Thats assumimg that I understand an L trade correctly