los pandos vineyard

glamdring

it amazes me how a continued view of peoples funds being in 'safe hands' is true. I do not call using blacklisted financial fraudsters to get a hold of peoples pension funds at all safe lol...i also do not call m&c using their own telemarketing office under the name 'future solutions' in order to perform pension reviews in 'safe hands' either lol....i do not call a company who gain funds in this manner legitimate....the excuse that mike and eduardo cannot come to the uk because they have too many files and drawings to bring with them pretty lame..in rfact its embarressing...do they not own laptops in order for them to present information effectively lol...seriously its all laughable..the reality is that mike and eduardo dare not come to the uk..that is the truth...what they expect is for investors to fork out more money and go to Spain hwn it is in fact them that owe the money and should have the god damned decency to come to the uk to explain to people face to face...but they will not do that..it is that simple...their excuse for this is that they do not want to get heckled.....'truth be told' can rattle off as much information as he wants...all his comments are based on 'people not taking the time to want to go to los pandos'...that in itself demonstrates exactly what type of people are behind this..the sheer arrogance to think that people are going to spend more money amazes me!

Duke203

Thank you so much everyone for this thread, it has been a thoroughly entertaining read. When I saw a vineyard thread and 12 pages of replies, I knew it was going to be a corker but it still came up with many surprises, including the owner or his brother, popping by to enjoy the fun too.

Return on Investment is obviously a key measure to gauge the success of a savings decision. When the Return of Investment question comes into play, then oh dear me.

Good luck to the punters getting their money back

brasso

truth_be_told wrote: »

.....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.

You say that as if it's a plus point.

Someone who works 7 days a week and gets (I presume) only 3 or 4 hours sleep a night is not someone I would have any confidence in whatever. He must either be in a state of permanent fear and anxiety about the business, or totally spaced out through lack of sleep. Either way, not good.

truth_be_told

glamdring wrote: »

the reality is that mike and eduardo dare not come to the uk..that is the truth...what they expect is for investors to fork out more money and go to Spain hwn it is in fact them that owe the money and should have the god damned decency to come to the uk

well, Glamdring, I am sure that appreciating your concerns about your investment that you could have asked for them to pay your costs for the trip over there. Would you like to deny categorically on here that the Company never made such an offer to you??

truth_be_told

glamdring wrote: »

...i also do not call m&c using their own telemarketing office under the name 'future solutions' in order to perform pension reviews in 'safe hands' either lol....i do not call a company who gain funds in this manner legitimate!

Another misrepresented piece of information! M&Cs telemarketing division did not perform pension reviews. Anyone contacting them expressing a wish to have a pension review was passed on to someone on a panel of regulated IFAs in the UK to undertake a full pension review.
So sadly it is you who continue to distort the facts

Mistermeaner

The truth will out in the end.

I am intrigued by 'truthbetold' contributions as I don't see what is to be gained by the argument (unless he's just baiting gladring for fun)

Those of us not directly involved are presented with 2 sides of an argument without any substantive evidence either way, don't know what to think.

Personally very sorry for anyone who has lost money or is worried, but unless I'm niaive they had either been suckered in a scam (or at best a very bad and insecure investment) or have been missold.

If the former then I feel for you, a clear lesson for others.

If the latter then surely their must be recourse; particularly if as it seems gladring invested in this thing via their sipp.

Or am I missing something? (Apols as scan read the first few pages and not all links)

I get stuff through in post all the time, alot of it well marketed (eg the 'holiday bond' where your investment is used to renovate old buildings and turn them into posh holiday homes which you then get a piece of) sounds great but clearly unregulated and my instant thought always is (a) incredibly risky to back such a niche horse when there is a world of equity readily investible and fully regulated and (b) why on earth, if there was any merit in the business plan, are they knocking on my door for investment vs the established routes to finance?

I just don't understand how someone can get suckered on this sort of thing?

I hope everything works out for gladring and that no-one else suffers the same

Mistermeaner

As if on cue

cloud_dog

cloud_dog wrote: »

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?

Truth be told, I noticed that you forgot to reply to my queries.

Would very much appreciate it if you could spare some of your valuable investigative time and respond.

glamdring

m&c have never offered to fund any travel costs...no

and yes m&c were running a telemarketing operation from their offices under a different company name and cold calling people in the uk to get them to enter into sipps via an fca regulated company in derby...and that is the flaw of the UK sipp market..it is an orchestrated way of getting hold of pension pots....to be fair truth be known has an answer for every single point I have made for weeks...how on earth somebody who is only an investor would have answers to the points I have made is beyond me...truth be told is not just an investor..i believe he is a part of m&c and he is lying about who he says he is...in fact its quite clear that he is lying by the type of information he has..conman

glamdring

truth be told..there is one piece of information that i do not have and as you have every other piece you will be able to fill me in...how many uk sipps are currently left penniless that were instigated by m&c,future solutions,pfr services and alhaurin wealth planning? And how many different sipp providers now hold sipps that contain zero funds because they invested in m&c?