los pandos vineyard

truth_be_told

I see that another 3 comments from Glamdring have been deleted by the site adminstrators - that's 6 in total since the start of the week. Quite impressive!

cloud_dog

truth_be_told wrote: »

I have to disagree with Glamdring's latest comment regarding the 'unsubstantiated facts' in the bi-monthly updates because they are easily substantiated. I have managed to do it, as have others, so it is not impossible, especially if you look in the right directions.

Nothing has been independently verified / certified and in the public domain (as you have so eloquently stated) so, until this is the case you can disagree as much as you like but glandring points have as much validity. Belittling someone who obviously has serious concerns over his investment with this group is a tactic only a bully would use.

truth_be_told wrote: »

And the whole point of the fundraising exercise which involved investors' contributions was to provide the financial means that enabled the Company to fund the planning process which was always going to take 7-8 years to complete. The Company has, in effect, had to borrow money to fund its employees, architects, administrators,designers, legal and financial teams....... This information was clearly provided in the original literature.

Yes, and it stated a fixed 3 year term investment with a fixed return dependent on the amount invested.

So are you now saying that their literature was factually incorrect and they got confused over when they would need financing and that they didn't realise that they would not be in a position to harvest their 'assets' after 3 years because, obviously, it will take 7-8 years to complete (your words).

So are they fraudulent in their original representations or just inept business men and should be avoided; which is it?

cloud_dog

truth_be_told wrote: »

I see that another 3 comments from Glamdring have been deleted by the site adminstrators - that's 6 in total since the start of the week. Quite impressive!

Very strange. It's almost like you are happy that this fact might discredit glamdring in some way?

I think the normal punters reading this thread will take glamdring's posts (deleted as well) as a true and honest reflection on the pain and frustration he is feeling regarding his investment and in the way he is being treated; nothing more, nothing less.

kangoora

cloud_dog wrote: »

Yes, and it stated a fixed 3 year term investment with a fixed return dependent on the amount invested.

So are you now saying that their literature was factually incorrect and they got confused over when they would need financing and that they didn't realise that they would not be in a position to harvest their 'assets' after 3 years because, obviously, it will take 7-8 years to complete (your words).

So are they fraudulent in their original representations or just inept business men and should be avoided; which is it?

I'd be interested in the answer to this question

redbuzzard

cloud_dog wrote: »

So are they fraudulent in their original representations or just inept business men and should be avoided; which is it?

The two are not mutually exclusive.

truth_be_told

cloud_dog wrote: »

Yes, and it stated a fixed 3 year term investment with a fixed return dependent on the amount invested.

So are you now saying that their literature was factually incorrect and they got confused over when they would need financing and that they didn't realise that they would not be in a position to harvest their 'assets' after 3 years because, obviously, it will take 7-8 years to complete (your words).

Let's be clear on this matter. The whole planning process was expected to take between 7 and 8 years from 2007 which means it was, and still is, on course for delivery in 2015. I think you are confusing matters by presuming that the commercial land investment began back in 2007, it did not start until 2011. The delays experienced by the Company are not in the planning process itself, which they have managed to keep on track, but in the returns to some of their investors for reasons which have been clearly explained in their updates. Without the appetite of the banks to provide conventional development finance, the Company has had to raise the monies it required to complete the planning process by a number of alternative methods.


They are not the first development Company, and they will definitely not be the last, to encounter temporary cashflow problems particularly if circumstances change en route that are beyond their control, in much the same way that a pilot may have to change course during a long haul flight owing to unexpected and adverse weather conditions. You can't hold the pilot responsible for the weather - all any passenger wishes is to arrive safely at his destination.


Given that the Company has pledged to return the monies owed within a few months based upon the current advanced negotiations involving a number of parties capable of commencing the construction process, let's give them the benefit of the doubt, for now.


But until then, there is little point in continuing these circular arguments where some investors/bloggers insist they have up to date information on this project even though they will not take the opportunity to visit the Company, the project and local politicians and see the readily available documentary evidence for themselves.

truth_be_told

kangoora wrote: »

I'd be interested in the answer to this question

No more fraudulent than the situation where any of us may estimate the time it should take to plan a journey only to find that we are delayed en route owing to events that could not have been foreseen before we set off.


From the many conversations and meetings I have had over many years with Mr Eduardo Martin and his technical team, they are all very diligent and work very long hours and rarely ever take any time off from their task. Mr Martin, in particular, works an 18 hour day, 7 days a week, as he is intent upon delivering this project in full.


Don't judge him, or his team, until you have spent time with them and have seen for yourself the tremendous vision and expertise they have. And despite what a few people on here may think, who most probably have never met or spoken with them, Mr Martin et al do care very much indeed about their investors and are doing their very best to deliver the final result we all wish and hope for.

truth_be_told

cloud_dog wrote: »

Very strange. It's almost like you are happy that this fact might discredit glamdring in some way?

I think the normal punters reading this thread will take glamdring's posts (deleted as well) as a true and honest reflection on the pain and frustration he is feeling regarding his investment and in the way he is being treated; nothing more, nothing less.

I can understand the concern Mr Glamdring has over the late return of his pension money - I'm in a very similar position to him. Of course, it is understandable that he fears the worst for his investment but rather than displaying unacceptable threatening behaviour by making unfounded judgements, allegations and accusations, he should have sought a more intelligent way of finding out the true facts on this situation. If he wants to persist in thinking the worst that is up to him but it not proper, nor lawful, that he vents his frustrations in an undignified and unacceptable way in an open forum. all i can say from my own experience, that once I decided to spend the time researching the facts on this project and the Company behind it, my concerns were allayed and I felt very reassured. If Glamdring had done the same, I'm sure his opinion would be very different now.

cloud_dog

truth_be_told wrote: »

Let's be clear on this matter.

Oh Lord, if only.

So, lets be clear on this matter.

Please (pretty please) point me in the direction in the original prospectus where they state that:

1. The project as a whole will require greater funding than the initial fund raising will provide
2. If required, additional funding will be sourced from financial institutions (loans etc)

Also because you haven't stated it in your posts... (I'll help you out).... If loans (for example) are secured with financial institutions the risk to the initial investors is that their capital ('the assets') will be used as surety against the loan.

If subsequently the investment company were to suffer, I don't know..... cash flow problems, leading to potential difficulties in repaying or financing the primary debt their initial investment could be partially or fully lost.

Which brings us full circle because.... All along you have been arguing that the project is in good hands and is asset backed so your investment is safe but now you are indicating that the investment ('the assets') are subject to additional loans which become the primary creditor should the project falter or fail.

Now, I am basing all of this on your own updates based on your own significant investigations and verifications of the project (and this is why your are very happy with your investment) but surely even you must see there is significant risk associated with your investment if what you have said is correct.

Sooooo, please, lets be clear on this matter?

agent69

truth_be_told wrote: »

No more fraudulent than the situation where any of us may estimate the time it should take to plan a journey only to find that we are delayed en route owing to events that could not have been foreseen before we set off.


Don't judge him, or his team, until you have spent time with them .

I've been reading this thread for a while and have tried to avoid contributing, but just can't resist.

When most people plan a journey they do some planning to ascertain the most likely journey time. Anyone with any sense then adds on a contingency to allow for delay. The more important the journey the bigger the contingency. When the development was originally advertised, what contingency was allowed in the delivery programme, and how were cost over runs going to be funded?

Regarding not judging somebody until you have met them, I judge people on what they do not what they say.

As a matter of interest, were you taught by Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf