los pandos vineyard

truth_be_told

glamdring wrote: »

I have answered the question in a previous blog...i can categorically state that I have not been offered travel payment..lol....?

well, let's hope for your own creditability that no documentary evidence becomes available on here which contradicts this posting

glamdring

third time.....can you please tell me how many valueless uk sipps there are that were introduced by m&c,future solutions,pfr services and alhaurin wealth planning? Can you please tell me how many uk sipp providers are holding valueless sipps due to monies being invested into m&c?

I would welcome a copy of the companies audited accounts.

A veiled threat? it isnt a threat of any type..you have spent two weeks telling me that the information that myself and others have is untrue and that I need to go to Spain to see it for myself...a point I have confirmed at least four times lol

glamdring

at the end of the day every argument that 'truth be told'has is identical to every argument the m&c has...the wording and phrasing is identical..that is why I believe you are eduardo and mike....i give your company no credibility because it deserves no credibility....the whole process of the investment and the way in which funds have been sought is wrought with dubious actions and the use of underhand actions performed by blacklisted individuals....the whole development saga itself is just a saga that has no substance...the updates from m&c contain no substance.....what you want is for me and everybody else just to sit in silence...believe every word you say and wait for you to return our monies...not a chance in hell I am doing that....when I enter into an agreement with somebody I expect them to deliver what they say they are going to deliver...not vanish off the face of the planet...send me reports that are to be fair an utter joke and treat me like a mug...which is exactly whart m&c have done..treat me like a mug....I had worked out that I wouldnt get my money two years prior to Feb 2014 and amazingly it turned out to be correct....i treat people the way they treat me...m&c have treated me like a mug along with many others.....'truth be known' i do not care what you write on here and you are totally correct about one thing... i do not believe one thing that you or your pseudonym m&c tell me and have no interest in starting to....there is one resolution to this...the immediate return of my money...which we both know is not going to happen because m&c have no money....what you waiting for mike to sell the house on the los pandos land that is valued at approx 800,000 euros to start paying people back? it wnt be enough

Mistermeaner

Audited accounts of the company (the legal entity) in which you invested is the only thing you need, everything else is hot air.

In the accounts you will see the in and outs of cash and the assets and liabilities, with this you assess the net worth of your (and everybody's) investments. Assuming of course you bought a share of this company? (If not then you gave someone an unsecured loan)

I would expect there will be numerous legal entities and companies in all this but ultimately each will own (or be owned by) some / all of the others. The accounts, while complicated, will show this.

This can be done remotely, physically seeing things is irrelevant. I can sow you miles of land next to my house, but I don't have title to any of it.

Glamdring despite tbt being a !!!!!! he is right in dome respects that continuing this slanging on here is pointless, you need to establish facts.

You handed over money, you must have something in return - what was that something? If shares in a company what company? Where is that company? What does it own, who (company) owns it? The answers to those questions are in the accounts. Meeting some blokes in Spain is pointless, as is finding out where other people's sipp money has gone.

If you didn't get shares you have made a loan: there must be paperwork - what sort of loan and who to (secured against an asset? Insecure?) Who was it to (an individual a company?) What are the precise terms of that loan and what rights do you have (eg audit / recivery)

I feel for you I really do but you need to cut through the bull !!!! and get facts: starting with what you know (not asking pointless questions to which you are getting no answers)

Perhaps you can detail on here specific facts from the paperwork you have and me and other s can maybe help

Good luck

truth_be_told

cloud_dog wrote: »

Truth be told, I'm feeling a little bit ignored. You've visited this board twice now and you haven't responder to my post so, I've reproduced it below for your careful perusal. Please comment based on your wealth of weighty facts.

Please accept my apologies for the delay in responding to your previous comment. I shall try my best to answer the points you have raised from my own understanding based upon the fact that I’m both a cash and a SIPP investor as there were essentially two different types of investment agreement.

Those who invested using their SIPP were placing a down-payment (i.e. a deposit) on the purchase of a specific plot (or plots) of land in the sector designated for commercial development with the option to either complete on the outstanding balance at the end of the contractual term or, alternatively, request a developer buy-back at the original price plus a fixed level of interest. Should the investor wish to complete on the purchase they would be doing so at a much lower price than is the currently the case and they should, therefore, have benefited from the substantial gain in value brought about by the considerable advancement in the planning permission achieved during the intervening period.

The vast majority of cash investors were giving the Company a loan, at an agreed level of interest, with a first legal charge over a segregated piece in the non-commercial sector that has a value, as independently assessed by the public notary, greater than the level of debt secured against it. Not only is there a first legal charge but the debt is registered at the public notary.

Regardless of which type of contract an investor has entered into, the key point raised has to be does the overall value of the asset exceed the liabilities of the Company? The level of fundraising that the Company has undertaken to finance the planning of this project is under careful scrutiny by its highly reputable tax and administration partners, who according to some on here don’t even exist!!

Development companies raise the funds they require in distinct phases, borrowing against the increased value of the asset as the project acquires the various planning consents on the way. In this respect, raising funds through private equity is no different to the way the banks would lend money during more conventional finance arrangements whereby they would only release funds in tranches according to milestones achieved in the planning process. At each stage finance is raised to complete the next vital stage, the overall level of debt is not allowed toexceed the independently assessed value of the asset in much the same that a homeowner would not be allowed to capital raise on their property unless it had sufficient value determined by a surveyor.

So what is the current state of affairs? Well, according to the information I have seen for myself, there has been another very recently determined independent value of the project which, together with the net asset value of the business (i.e. the overall value of the assets less the liabilities of the Company), are presently been verified and authenticated by a number of different bodies, including the local tax and administration authorities and the public notary, and will be in the public domain within the foreseeable future. These documents will demonstrate that the value of the assets exceed by many times the total liabilities of the Company, making it extremely attractive and profitable for a construction Company to develop the site.

truth_be_told

ggb1979 wrote: »

Audited accounts of the company (the legal entity) in which you invested is the only thing you need, everything else is hot air.

In the accounts you will see the in and outs of cash and the assets and liabilities, with this you assess the net worth of your (and everybody's) investments. Assuming of course you bought a share of this company? (If not then you gave someone an unsecured loan)

I would expect there will be numerous legal entities and companies in all this but ultimately each will own (or be owned by) some / all of the others. The accounts, while complicated, will show this.

This can be done remotely, physically seeing things is irrelevant. I can sow you miles of land next to my house, but I don't have title to any of it.

Glamdring despite tbt being a !!!!!! he is right in dome respects that continuing this slanging on here is pointless, you need to establish facts.

You handed over money, you must have something in return - what was that something? If shares in a company what company? Where is that company? What does it own, who (company) owns it? The answers to those questions are in the accounts. Meeting some blokes in Spain is pointless, as is finding out where other people's sipp money has gone.

If you didn't get shares you have made a loan: there must be paperwork - what sort of loan and who to (secured against an asset? Insecure?) Who was it to (an individual a company?) What are the precise terms of that loan and what rights do you have (eg audit / recivery)

I feel for you I really do but you need to cut through the bull !!!! and get facts: starting with what you know (not asking pointless questions to which you are getting no answers)

Perhaps you can detail on here specific facts from the paperwork you have and me and other s can maybe help

Good luck

i absolutely concur with this viewpoint about establishing the true facts behind the investment and documentary evidence supporting which is available and will very shortly be in the public domain. The details of the planning consents etc are already there but details about the finances will not be published until they passed independent verification, which is due very shortly.
Whenever i have visited the Company in their offices in Altea they have been only too willing to provide me with reams of documentary evidence and have always answered my specific questions to my satisfaction.

cloud_dog

truth_be_told wrote: »

Those who invested using their SIPP were placing a down-payment (i.e. a deposit) on the purchase of a specific plot (or plots) of land in the sector designated for commercial development with the option to either complete on the outstanding balance at the end of the contractual term or, alternatively, request a developer buy-back at the original price plus a fixed level of interest.

But, this does not appear to be happening for quite a considerable period of time, based on glandring's desire to see his investment return. So, the company are in breach of the terms of the agreed contract, yes?

Ok, so, firstly....

truth_be_told wrote: »

The vast majority of cash investors were giving the Company a loan, at an agreed level of interest, with a first legal charge over a segregated piece in the non-commercial sector that has a value....

Can you please define what is 'non-commercial sector' (of land; I assume)? And, if it is land, how can non-commercial land have significant value to a commercial organization? If you meant agricultural land, it probably would have been best to state that rather than this ambiguous term.

Secondly...

truth_be_told wrote: »

....as independently assessed by the public notary, greater than the level of debt secured against it. Not only is there a first legal charge but the debt is registered at the public notary.

I didn't think this independent assessment was in the public domain? Are you referring to this mythical 'independent assessment' or another; if so, please provide a link to it.

truth_be_told wrote: »

Regardless of which type of contract an investor has entered into, the key point raised has to be does the overall value of the asset exceed the liabilities of the Company? The level of fundraising that the Company has undertaken to finance the planning of this project is under careful scrutiny by its highly reputable tax and administration partners, who according to some on here don’t even exist!!

But, there is no evidence of this so, at the moment common sense dictates that we lean towards the 'it doesn't exist' (which it doesn't at this point in time).

truth_be_told wrote: »

Development companies raise the funds they require in distinct phases, borrowing against the increased value of the asset as the project acquires the various planning consents on the way. In this respect, raising funds through private equity is no different to the way the banks would lend money during more conventional finance arrangements whereby they would only release funds in tranches according to milestones achieved in the planning process. At each stage finance is raised to complete the next vital stage, the overall level of debt is not allowed to exceed the independently assessed value of the asset in much the same that a homeowner would not be allowed to capital raise on their property unless it had sufficient value determined by a surveyor.

This is all well and good as long as the company isn't in default of its agreed contractual commitments, which it appears it is. So, thanks for the Business 101 lesson but, how one might orchestrate the financial structure of a company to use its assets has no bearing what so ever on its financial planning based on placing contract.

truth_be_told wrote: »

So what is the current state of affairs? Well, according to the information I have seen for myself, there has been another very recently determined independent value of the project which, together with the net asset value of the business (i.e. the overall value of the assets less the liabilities of the Company), are presently been verified and authenticated by a number of different bodies, including the local tax and administration authorities and the public notary, and will be in the public domain within the foreseeable future. These documents will demonstrate that the value of the assets exceed by many times the total liabilities of the Company, making it extremely attractive and profitable for a construction Company to develop the site.

Again, this is where things get very 'foggy' and I do not believe your above statements can be true, purely and simply because you have created a dichotomy of 'truth'.

Previously you have stated you are 'just an investor' and are not associated with the company in any shape or form.

If we take this as being true then you cannot have seen company sensitive, non-public information.

If you have seen company sensitive information prior to its release in to the public domain then this shows a distinct lack of judgment on the company representative who showed it to you and further indicates a badly managed company where not all investors are treated equally.

So, truth be told, any chance you can tell the truth and confirm which of the above two situations is true?

cloud_dog

truth_be_told wrote: »

i absolutely concur with this viewpoint about establishing the true facts behind the investment and documentary evidence supporting which is available and will very shortly be in the public domain.

So it's available but not available; there you go with your dichotomy again

truth_be_told wrote: »

The details of the planning consents etc are already there but details about the finances will not be published until they passed independent verification, which is due very shortly.

So, they are already there but haven't been independently verified. Which means they have no value as they could be garbage until independently verified.

truth_be_told wrote: »

Whenever i have visited the Company in their offices in Altea they have been only too willing to provide me with reams of documentary evidence and have always answered my specific questions to my satisfaction.

I'll tell you what, give me an hour and I can provide you with documentary evidence that the man on the moon is legit. It's garbage unless it's verified by appropriate independent assessor(s).

As ggb1979 says.... all we need is the audited accounts.

truth_be_told

cloud_dog wrote: »

So it's available but not available; there you go with your dichotomy again

So, they are already there but haven't been independently verified. Which means they have no value as they could be garbage until independently verified.

I'll tell you what, give me an hour and I can provide you with documentary evidence that the man on the moon is legit. It's garbage unless it's verified by appropriate independent assessor(s).

As ggb1979 says.... all we need is the audited accounts.

This should prove interesting! your hour starts now!
I can assure you that the likes of Deloittes do not produce garbage but then you are obviously such an expert in these matters. I'm surprised that you don't offer them your full assistance- they should appreciate someone with your intellect and wit within their organisation!

truth_be_told

cloud_dog wrote: »

But, this does not appear to be happening for quite a considerable period of time, based on glandring's desire to see his investment return. So, the company are in breach of the terms of the agreed contract, yes?

Ok, so, firstly.... Can you please define what is 'non-commercial sector' (of land; I assume)? And, if it is land, how can non-commercial land have significant value to a commercial organization? If you meant agricultural land, it probably would have been best to state that rather than this ambiguous term.

Secondly...I didn't think this independent assessment was in the public domain? Are you referring to this mythical 'independent assessment' or another; if so, please provide a link to it.

But, there is no evidence of this so, at the moment common sense dictates that we lean towards the 'it doesn't exist' (which it doesn't at this point in time).

This is all well and good as long as the company isn't in default of its agreed contractual commitments, which it appears it is. So, thanks for the Business 101 lesson but, how one might orchestrate the financial structure of a company to use its assets has no bearing what so ever on its financial planning based on placing contract.

Again, this is where things get very 'foggy' and I do not believe your above statements can be true, purely and simply because you have created a dichotomy of 'truth'.

Previously you have stated you are 'just an investor' and are not associated with the company in any shape or form.

If we take this as being true then you cannot have seen company sensitive, non-public information.

If you have seen company sensitive information prior to its release in to the public domain then this shows a distinct lack of judgment on the company representative who showed it to you and further indicates a badly managed company where not all investors are treated equally.

So, truth be told, any chance you can tell the truth and confirm which of the above two situations is true?

Yawn yawn! It is pointless me repeating that I don't work for the Company, that i'm an investor who has known the Company for 8 years and I'm delighted that the Company should trust in my professionalism, background and discretion to trust me with certain bits of information knowing that I shouldn't abuse it The other investors will receive the same information as soon as it possible to put it in the public domain. Until then, you will just have to be patient and wait, won't you!!!