See I don't see this as being an objective opinion or criticisms at all. I see this as being an outright distortion of reality and perhaps even a purposeful ' hidden ' agenda to set about destroying a company and / or its reputation for some ' unknown ' and perhaps opportunistic and even fraudulent reasonings.
So let's look at the individual specific counter responses to what you have just attempted to portray.
Missed the Financial Report deadline. - That's right they did , and of course this was no fault of their Accountants and or the timelines which were required in examining and re-stating the carried f'wd Intangible assets in view of the restructuring of the entity . Nor did it have anything to do whatsoever in the ASIC relief to these sorts of delays due to COVID-19
So what did they do about it - Well they appointed a much needed CFO and beefed up their internal accounting department with additional staff.
Your claim of selling 5 million shares in January does not even warrant a response because in BOTH cases of Adrian and Richards selling of shares at different time , they were net net incremental in amounts and certainly not windfall or opportunistic amounts pocketed by either of them. In fact quite the opposite with the Company obtaining significant additional working capital amounts.
I think their response to their previous ' not doing another capital raise ' is very adequate and speaks for itself in that they were approached by their appointed advisers due to significant changes in market conditions , and that due to the fact that a capital raising would be required at some point in the future that a lower price now would be better than perhaps a much higher price later on. This would at least allow for some onboarding of some much needed institutional support now , whilst leaving room for more later on. Imagine if every company listed on the ASX was bound by previous statements made in obviously made in fast moving and changing business environments and markets. They would never effectively be able to run their business in the interest of shareholders and key stakeholders.
They have already stated the reasons that they cannot name the 3 new Institutional holders as they have not met the Corporations Law and ASIC requirements of obtaining 5% or above. He did however state that this reveal of confidential and at this stage private matter would be left as it should be with these Institutional holders as to whether they wish to make public at this time this information. I'm sure the ASX with their queries knows who they are and also are aware of the laws governing their confidentiality . So I don't think Adrian would outright tell porky's about them actually existing.
I don't see what your point is in regards your constant reference to the mobile App when they have stated clearly that the Spenda services provide " Strong " innovation in the area of terminal free payments. Most of this is more specific to B2C than even B2B and they have already stated that B2B will be their primary focus. Most B2B transactions will be done through online interface either by your computer , laptop , or Mobile through specific QR codes and unique identifier stored card details so what does it really matter anyway - its a one step process and with the Payer not actually going out to the Payee's site ior establishment in making the payment. It's all inclusive software ....and NOT a mobile app at this stage. And from what he is saying , it's not much to adapt and bolt on this process. Not a real game changer for me at this point in time. Even if a Parent was lets say wanting to pay their private school fees via Installments through Spenda ( so more B2C ) , they could simply login to Spenda , be approved , and have their plan set up seamlessly without the need for a specific app as you say. In addition to all this , remember back in July August when they said they were in talks with a Telecommunications company. Was this just for testing ?
Mergers are often referred to as acquisitions and vis a versa . They are quite interchangeable and more dependent on the type of transaction as previously mentioned and the corresponding advantages / disadvantages with respect to the myriad of tax considerations. So now that the values have changed substantially in Cirralto's favor ( maybe ) , it is no longer what looks to be a ' merger ' of equals but more an acquisition or even a reverse takeover if you are looking at it strictly from the aspect of control.
I don't think you can read to much into the so called ' Glitch ' in the payment transfer . They would have done this literally thousands of times without an issue . Why do you think they have been doing all this testing? What only to schedule a one off live Webinar to demonstrate to its Shareholders only to then see this ' micro ' delay for all to see. So I don't think this means anything particularly when others have stated that their experience was at light speed. And the Mastercard and Visa networks are at ' Light Speed ' across the FISERV central security platforms.....so nothing to see here from your comment.
And in so far as your " sligh of hand, hiding facts, being cagey " comment - Well these are just pure conjecture bordering on defamation of Character in my opinion. There are obviously matters which Adrian cannot disclose under Corporations Laws and ASIC regulations . And to say he is cagey is really only an obvious attack on his Character and disposition when put in these situations where he has to be deal and be mindful of how far he can actually go.
So are they more small things that you are purposefully trying to make bigger. Most likely . Are they so-called ' Seen and ' Unseen ' things that ONLY you are obviously endeavoring for others to see more. Absolutely.
(20min delay)
