My main point was to respond to the incorrect post that it cost...

My main point was to respond to the incorrect post that it cost $7 mil, which was either a deliberate attempt to further manipulate SP trading or an incorrect and emotive posting which may have caused undue worry and panic by shareholders.

I know why you posted, and there was valuable information in your post. However it contained content at least as, if not more, misleading than the post you responded to - due to the mixup between expenses and loss.

I did acknolwedge anything is possible which also means you could be right, but so could I, or it could rest half way in between, which I suggest may even be more likely.

$1.2m had been lost in operating expenses by end of year ($1.2m=operating loss). At this point in time Telemedcare had cost the company at minimum $1.7m, no maybe.

The maybe component is how much of the $3m funding, and how many further losses were incurred. PB would not be selling if Telemedcare was running at a profit right now, the shareholders would rightly revolt at such action, as that is exactly what the company needs right now. Therefore, it stands to reason further losses have been incurred in the last six months.

If you rework the figures on page 16, (page 17 clearly shows 3.7 mil in loans is included in Total net identifiable liabilities, which are the original Telemedcare borrowings of existing Telemedcare shareholders, which are to be paid from profits when profitable, not by STI), hence take 3.7 from the 3.9 mil under loans and borrowings gives 200 thou. If you then add this (instead of 3.9 mil), you get a positive 825 thou in net liabilities result, instead of the negative 2.1 mil as shown.

following so far..

The published figures show it also included deferred income of 1.7 mil, if you then add that as well as removing the 3.7 mil above, back in to the calculation, you get a positive 4.2 mil figure ?

You lose me here. What are you adding the deferred income to exactly, back into what calculation? What has this got to do with operating loss for the period? Deferred income is indicative of revenues for the first six months of 2011, which seem to be in line with the revenues of the last six months of 2010.

And if you take the deferred income into account with the cash and cash equivalents at the end of the year, (on page 17), you end up with a positive 1.7 mil figure.

Then we need to add the unkown value of sales since, (over the last 6 months) and/or any percentages of user charges recieved, less costs, before we could then accurately predict the likely outcome.

Totally lost, how does this relate to the stated revenue and operating loss. I don't even know what you're predicting here

You can even play devils advocate with the statements on page 16 :

Stated contributed revenue of $280,965, add the estimated rvenue of 1.6 mil (if had for 6 months), you get 1.89 mil.

Stated contributed a loss of $1.196 mil, add the estimated loss 1.7 mil (if had for 6 months), you get 2.9 mil

2.9 mil take 1.89 mil, you end up with just over negative 1 mil ?

No!!! You have effectively gone $1.89m - $2.9m = ($1m). The $2.9m is not expenses, this is loss. Subtracting the loss from revenue gives you a meaningless figure. Expenses would be $1.89 + $2.9 = $4.79m.

Side note - I have no idea if the wording 'in addition to' means addition to the $280k already stated, or in addition to STI itself (so inclusive of the $280k), could mean either.

Then again we need to add the unknown revenue from sales and or percentage of user charges less costs to that.
It's not so simple and we know until they tell us and/or someone asks the right question at the shareholder's meeting, we can't do it accurately.

I thought it was pretty simple, at least until you started referring to the assets and liabilities. I'm hoping a third party will chime in, might help to clarify things.