General Comments, page-152

I need to repost as apparently some of my opinion was dressed as fact.

Just the key bits without some of the banter.

NOR II is headed the same way as NOR I imo. Millions raised from investors/grants (immutable fact). Stuff done; whilst technically the work may be sound, commercially it has no/little interest, imo although the financial statements support my thesis. NOR's I and II are more akin to R&D centres than businesses with a profit motive, imo although the financial statements support my thesis; that is, if one of the biggest revenue sources is R&D Rebates then is it unreasonable to brand NOR as an R&D Centre? And yes, R&D Grants are classed as a Revenue item and taxable.

After millions was invested in NOR I, it was sold for a fraction of that amount (under GBP300k). PO's LinkedIn profile only mentions the millions raised and the sale. The sale amount is neglected. Why?

My post here gives links to PO's LinkedIn profile where he clearly states:
i. NOR I raised millions
II. the business was sold*

* My previous post also links to the ASX Ann re: acquisition of NOR I.

https://hotcopper.com.au/posts/41809591/single

These are all immutable facts.

The only opinion I offer is a belief aka an opinion, and it is purely my opinion therefore IMO:
NOR II will be flogged for cents in the dollar and PO will parachute safely into another role. Cents in the dollar means in this example, imo, a small % compared to the amount received in CR's and Government Grants. And if there is an acquirer, it is logical but an opinion, that PO would be offered a role of some sort.

On another note, there has been talk about PO controlled entities being creditors to NOR. As at AR19, there is about $40k owed to Ocean Broadband. Nothing else is stated in Related Party transactions. This is a fraction of all creditors.

See here:
https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20190830/pdf/44826mf4hvh0t5.pdf

All imo, IMO

PS. When people attempt to gag the Growler by reporting contentious posts, it acts as a motivator. It means, at least 1 person wishes to quash a controversial opinion based on research and previous actions. It then means I rephrase the point and it becomes harder hitting than when I first post. And it also means some get the opportunity to read ostensibly similar material, twice. So thanks.