Sharesmagazine
 Home   Log In   Register   Our Services   My Account   Contact   Help 
 Stockwatch   Level 2   Portfolio   Charts   Share Price   Awards   Market Scan   Videos   Broker Notes   Director Deals   Traders' Room 
 Funds   Trades   Terminal   Alerts   Heatmaps   News   Indices   Forward Diary   Forex Prices   Shares Magazine   Investors' Room 
 CFDs   Shares   SIPPs   ISAs   Forex   ETFs   Comparison Tables   Spread Betting 
You are NOT currently logged in
 
Register now or login to post to this thread.

stanelco .......a new thread (SEO)     

bosley - 20 Feb 2004 09:34

Chart.aspx?Provider=EODIntra&Code=SEO&SiChart.aspx?Provider=EODIntra&Code=SEO&Si

for more information about stanelco click on the links.

driver's research page link
http://www.moneyam.com/InvestorsRoom/posts.php?tid=7681#lastread
website link
http://www.stanelco.co.uk/index.htm


greekman - 06 Dec 2006 16:35 - 22848 of 27111

Oblomov,
Not saying it does not need approval, just asking if when a product that has been approved (Starpol 2000) and an improvement is made (Starpol 3000) is FULL testing required and approval required for the product as a whole or just for the added ingredient. The statement 'under the same regulation' ,could that mean it is only any none adverse effect of any additional substance. Just asking.
There is no record on the FDA site re submission or approval for Starpol 3000, which I find confusing.

Garyble,
Just read your post. It is strange that Starpol 2000 is still not mentioned on the FDA site.
Did you find your info via the SEO site as I did re Starpol 2000.
FCN 558 relates to Starpol on the FDA site (2000) is not mentioned.
I will stay confused.

oblomov - 06 Dec 2006 16:53 - 22849 of 27111


You're not the only confused, greek.

My last few emails to SEO have gone unanswered or I'd ask if they could clear up the confusion. Does anyone have any more success than me communicating with them?

automatic - 06 Dec 2006 17:06 - 22850 of 27111

oblomove
i e/mailed them a couple of times, i didn't get an answer either not even the mandatory one

automatic - 06 Dec 2006 17:14 - 22851 of 27111

still in ftse then

automatic - 06 Dec 2006 17:16 - 22852 of 27111

On one BB someone posted that Sylvia was on holiday and that a temp was there, lets hope so?

Mad Pad - 06 Dec 2006 17:37 - 22853 of 27111

Kicked out of Small Cap to Fledgling index.

NS - 06 Dec 2006 17:43 - 22854 of 27111

http://www.ftse.com/tech_notices/2006/Q4/FTSE_UK_Review.xls

pinnacle - 06 Dec 2006 19:27 - 22857 of 27111

Well done Stanelco!!

Demoted, no news, no contracts, no income!!

It's now up or extinction!!

Schroders must have known this was going to happen - Let us hope it is a temporary situation.

As I have said the clock is ticking and time is not on their side.


Where are these elusive/alledged contracts?

tweenie - 06 Dec 2006 20:02 - 22858 of 27111

may all at seo have a very shitty xmas.

garyble - 06 Dec 2006 20:41 - 22859 of 27111

Greek,

FCN 558 and the info I posted is on the FDA site {will post link later}.

You'll probably find that the FCSs are identified by their constituent names and not their brandnames. Also, as Starpols are simply blends of existing approved substances with the odd "top secret" ingredient. it maybe only the additional elements with reference to the pre-existing FCSs that need a mention.

Tonyrelaxes - 06 Dec 2006 22:45 - 22860 of 27111

Re Starpol 3000 - FDA

Just checked my notes of the EGM of 6 November.

Oilywag asked about the 16 week period being up in December.

MW said "Starpol 3000 is a coextruded material of 3 layers like a sandwich. Two outer layers are PLA derived from corn starch. The filling is Thermoplastic starch from BioTec. Thermoplastic is considered to be a foodstuff coming typically from potato starch which does not need any approvals. PLA is a materialused by some supermarkets already for food contact. The only formal test we need to do is just to get a confirmation of the combination of the two materials put together would not be safe. There is no reason why two food contact materials put together would not be contact safe. We are waiting for that."

PL added "we are waiting for final approval"

IB "The development of the material is complete, it is being produced by a pilot machine."

Oilyway "Is it being tested in the States at the moment? ... as part of approval process".

MW "Yes, There are tests going on.."

Clear everyone?

garyble - 06 Dec 2006 23:40 - 22861 of 27111

As Starpol 3000 Tony!

greekman - 07 Dec 2006 07:27 - 22862 of 27111

Garyble,

Re your comment "You'll probably find that the FCSs are identified by their constituent names and not their brandnames". Yes that makes perfect sense.
As to the details on the FDA site, I did see it there, it was the none mention of 2000 or 3000 that threw me.
Your previous statement makes it clear.

Tony,
Your bit also helps. Looks like Starpol 3000 Approval (fingers crossed) is just a formality.

Cheers Greek.

oblomov - 07 Dec 2006 09:16 - 22863 of 27111

Tony/greek

'PL added "we are waiting for final approval"'

It answers the question 'approval not obtained as at 6th. November', but not the question 'Why not?' and not the question 'How has it thus far taken 210 days when the default FDA approval/non-approval period is 120 days?'

And can we believe information given by members of SEO's brilliant management team verbally when we cant even believe what they put in a RNS announcement!

greekman - 07 Dec 2006 10:10 - 22864 of 27111

Oblomov,
I agree it is strange.
All I can surmise is that the date of submission for Starpol 3000, was not 120 days prior to 6th November. SEO as we well know are very good at getting dates, info wrong.
If there was an FTSE top 100 for RNS AFX cock ups SEO would be at the top of the leader board.
I still feel that whatever the result from FDA a news release would be a must as per LSE rules.
If approval has not been granted, due to the product not reaching acceptable standards and SEO kept it quite, I would be contacting the LSE and wanting to know what actions if any they proposed to take.
Whatever the result from the FDA it must be sp sensitive.
I think we will just have to wait and see.
(Out now for most of the day).
Cheers Greek.

oblomov - 07 Dec 2006 10:34 - 22865 of 27111



Greek, 'If approval has not been granted, due to the product not reaching acceptable standards and SEO kept it quite, I would be contacting the LSE and wanting to know what actions if any they proposed to take.'

Particularly as the 120 days from the AGM statement in May would have been up before the EGM and open offer in November.

greekman - 07 Dec 2006 14:55 - 22866 of 27111

OB,

Hear, Hear.

oblomov - 07 Dec 2006 15:34 - 22867 of 27111


I'm feeling much better now I've read the latest from PM1. Big deals today or tomorrow, then! I feel awful for all those nasty things I've said - I hadn't realised there were people at SEO working 24 hours a day (but only for some of us - maybe not for me)!

'Stanelco staff are working flat out (like 24/7 for some of you) this is a fact, and when people are working that hard, the rewards will come in, it could be today, it could be tomorrow, but when those deals arrive they will be big and very profitable, and the share price will reflect that.'
Register now or login to post to this thread.