Let’s pretend we are taking legal action say the PLC casino “players

Comments

1. ---

   wildrides

   7 October 2014, 17:10

   I thought fish were supposed to be hard to outwit .

2. ---

   Badger

   7 October 2014, 18:12

   kulbas, congratulations on being the most fawning contributor I’ve ever seen anywhere on any blog.
   What’s up? Worried your short might begin to run away from you?
   Some of us come on here to see the other side of the story (of which I’m not yet convinced), but it’s pretty obvious what your agenda is. Disgraceful, imo.

3. ---

   turbograndad

   7 October 2014, 19:37

   Badger, I was a QPP share holder, when Gotham landed their discourse I set about exposing them and their motives, did my research, and came up with Daniel Yu, as a possible culprit, but at the time no body really wanted to know, it was as usual rampers away. Gradually QPP just did’nt smell right, and I then started to look at Tom’s research, and it looked more convincing than QPP’s evolution, from then till now. I sold at 207p at a loss of 5k, and have as always chalked down to experience. There is a point when you have to decide, do I have faith,trust,belief,whatever your persuasion in this company. I had lost mine, I sold. Men believe what they want to belive, and denial helps them to deal with the truth, it mistakenly makes it bearable.

4. ---

   alcira16247

   7 October 2014, 20:10

   Turbograndad

   Sir

   Your posting exactly mirrors my own experience! My losses with QPP almost the same, too!

   Thank God, I became aware of Tom Winifrith’s research and ShareProphets solely by reading the vitriol postings of QPP rampers.

   Anyway, at current Quindell share price, Tom; has saved me a considerable amount of money. I guess, that might be the same with you. too?

   I owe the guy and therefore wish him and his every success! Tom, has a very rare quality, in my opinion, that of integrity!

   Maybe, Mr Terry, the multi- millionaire exective chairman of Quindell, might feel equal to Tom Winnifrith, by answering some of the damning accusations made against his company?

5. ---

   barry

   7 October 2014, 22:22

   I know I have said this before to you Tom, but I do wish you you would moderate your language in your reports. You responded by saying you are your own man and will write what you wish, or words to that effect. I think your investigating efforts are fantastic and I have ditched my holding a few weeks ago, but why not give your insights in a less aggressive manner. Those that believe you don’t need that type of delivery to be convinced while the non believers may think you are a bit of a jerk for being so abusive. I look forward daily to your disclosures.

6. ---

   turbograndad

   8 October 2014, 09:11

   alcira yes we need to level the playing field, and Tom aids us to cut through some of the bull s—- that is fed to us. Where there is money involved there will be all kinds of devious practice, as is well documented with our illustrious banking industry. I think the stock market provides a natural hiding place for malpractise, so if we are aware we can make better, guarded decisions, hard won I’m afraid, but I’m in it to win it, believe me. Meanwhile see you around the boards, good to concur, GLA.

7. ---

   Dominic Cooper

   8 October 2014, 11:58

   If you want to read these articles, read them!

   If you prefer to bury your head in the sand, then search google for lse qpp chat.

   QPP1000 / Steamy the 2nd (for it is he) has, for example declared that Quindell have always converted over 99%+ of all accruals into cash.

   Really?

   Firstly, although 2 + 2 can = 5, over 99% is usually referred to as “100%”.

   These accruals are of course contested court cases. Nobody is able to predict with 100% certainty which contested court cases will win, and which will lose. Nobody.

   And once those contested court cases win, the amount of fees that Quindell are able to charge have to be “assessed if not agreed”. What this means is that they potentially have to take on another contested court case to determine what their level of fees are.

   The uncertainty involved is so great, in fact, that the Law Society took legal advice from a senior barrister which said that you could justify accruing nil on such a case. [which many law firms would do, because then you don’t have to pay tax on cases which may never be won].

   Of course if they did a prudent accruals policy, it would still be ok, because they could say “we expect income to be £x, but due to uncertainty, we think it appropriate only to accrue 50%, pending future review and restatement”. But they don’t.

   And of course they know that if they sue Tom, Tom will simply ask them these questions. And the Judge will not accept “these scurrilous allegations are denied” as being a sufficient answer (even though Bulletin Board Morons consider that to be a sufficient answer to Gotham).

   If Terry and Moorse fail to answer the questions propery, then Tom wins. End of. They know that.