We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
Well Barclays are wrong Pianista and you should get back in touch with them to clarify if that's your broker !!!
If you hold here and it matters to you I think you should .
ffc - not according to Barclays! They say the number of shares held is not taken into account.
That is not correct pianista
there are two votes and in one of the votes every single share you hold matters !!!!
If you vote via your broker, and you hold, say, a million shares, your vote is counted as just one vote, not a million votes!
This means that the "85,000 PIs" will have negligible effect on the result - assuming IIs with their zillions of shares are not similarly affected.
Surely this would invalidate the voting?
Shareholders can protect their shares buying bonds which pay healthy interest in the proposal
Please visit the web site, take the survey and tell everyone
Open to everyone not just shareholders. www.FundSirius.com
To all HL holders you have only ten minutes left to vote
Scott
I'm going to try to answer or give you an alternative viewpoint to your 10.48 post:
Because of the situation we are now in I've pledged more money as part of the fund Sirius campaign. However, had Fraser come to us Pis last year I would have not pledged as I was of the opinion back then required monies could be raised elsewhere. If such an attempt by Fraser had failed back then any negotiations with AA ( or indeed another interested party ) would have put him in an even more disadvantageous position when negotiating. Remember we were circa 3p before AA offer.
OR: "The SM business case was rather compelling. It remains just as compelling today."
I have been believing in the SM business case for a long time.
However, the problems encountered in fundraising over the past year have greatly reduced my confidence.
The issue of the quality of the TorPs seems to be a real issue, as the rating agency only recognized the ADM torp at the time; and the potential h.y.bond investors seemed also not positive on this. The gov also seemed not confident enough on the cash flow in 2021 or 2022 as promised in the SM original plan, as the gov considered it a great danger for the taxpayers' money (for the guarantee) even if to provide the guarantee at a later time when another $2b invested (which is much bigger than the $600m that SM claimed to be able to re-risk the project and support the following-up debt funding).
The CEO of AAL also mentioned that marketing is the main challenge, and this seems that in his mind this is more challenging than the risk of the deep shafts.
SM made an updated plan saying a $600m would derisk the deep shafts; however, it seems that they are not confident enough about this given the fact that they take preference of the full funding guarantee of the AAL deal than other short-term funding options around $600m. If $600m can dig the deep shafts from 45m to the bottom and help SM start to produce Poly4, the shaft constructor should have signed a fixed cost contract on the deep shafts with the additional $500m, rather than only with the tunnel constructor signed a less risky tunnel fixed cost contract. Clear, additional $500m was not enough to let DMC confident enough to reach the bottom of the deep shafts and therefore signing a fixed cost contract. This means that even if SM gets a short term bridging fund of $600m; the risk of the deep mines may still remain, and the following-up funding difficulty would still remain.
Although I am not happy with the AAL deal that would push all the shareholders out with only 1/3 of the price in the most recent open offer, and 1/4 of the stage one open offer, I am still glad that at least there is one big mining company interest in the project, which may indicate that the SM business case may not as compelling as SM/CF promoted, but still a somewhat compelling if an experienced and powerful mining company is willing to provide the full funding and take all the risks and challenges to complete the project.
Hopefully, AAL would finally agree to treat existing shareholders, especially the large number of PIs better by making some improvements on their offer before the voting (or after the voting, if there is still a chance to do so; which seems only possible in case a counter offer emerging after the voting; the chance seems low at the moment).
Sheps - Always kept an eye out for your posts over the years, all the best to you in the future.
T.
D day coming - I`ve not voted through the share centre as yet on my long term investment. I have to say that I`m not an investor type - I was attracted to this by ;
1 Investing in a project that helps the uk - jobs economy etc (Though I don`t live local)
2 organically qualified and long term of the resource
3 to invest a little money in what I hoped and looked from the positive PR a risky but viable down to earth project.
Yes or No - part of me would like to vote yes but I can`t help thinking that the project would not be where it is without pi investment - my money. Voting No means the local economy might not get their mine and knock on wealth and that irks me.
If it were agreed that the present bosses were not to gain their windfall from SXX or any future AAL shares or such or donated to some charity or investors who are deserved cases (disabled and such) I might be more tempted to vote yes and take my loss. I hasten to add I`m not disabled.
I`m on the verge of voting no.
I think 42 million is a fantastic achievement in such a short time and it seems momentum is building given that it was 29 million at the weekend ?
Well done Yashmin and the other shareholders brought together over at sharesoc your endeavours are much appreciated
ffc
Easy to promise when no likelihood of it happening or commitment. A feel good exercise only
It seems that the strength of the no vote prevails on this board.
But how do these vote no reasons get communicated to the other PI s/h?
Is there any co-ordinated effort locally? Does anyone have an idea of the strength of the no vote.
And will it be enough?
This figure 470 mill would have been achieved làst august september .no problem .so why did you not attempt fraser
No longer hold--but please use common sense and do not listen to those posters who will have big smiley faces if this goes into Administration and all shareholders money lost
1724 pledge 42million looking at the figures 11.12 thousand pi s may hit 200million .
Broker ratings out today for aal
DZ Bank Sell 16 10
Barlays Capital Buy 28 00
Fraser and his crew, if the man was to stand down or voted out .that finance figure could go 3/4 the amount, no trust left for fraser to have these funds . Would have to be somebody else ,,would not trust this man to run the corner shop
All, after much consideration, I have voted NO due to the following reasons.
1- Likelihood of administration is medium to low because I personally think that after almost 10-15 years in this project, Fraser, BOD, IIs (with their bonds) and hopefully the Government will not let this mine go into a black hole. The mine will be built. There is still a chance of it getting into full administration but if it does, IIs, Odey, Polygon will lose much more money than us (the PIs) and somehow I cannot see them letting themselves losing millions .
2- Assuming some sort of rescue package / reasonable offer comes in after we managed to hold back AA's opportunistic takeover, I still have the chance to be part of the project and able to recuperate my losses even if it takes several years for the share price to breakeven.
3- If I vote Yes, it means I have accepted and surrendered my huge losses (and what I would lose further if this goes administration would be a drop in the ocean compared to Fraser, BOD and IIs) , letting Fraser and BOD to walk away with FAT bonuses when they should have also asked PIs about the option of raising funds, not being transparent and fail to protect shareholders' interest after cooking up all the misleading funding information / prospects during the past few years.
I wish I could vote Yes but given where we are now, voting NO seems to be the lesser evil and MAY just give us the PIs a chance to rise up and see the light at the end of this dark tunnel compared to voting Yes. And even if the takeover goes through, there is NO GAURANTEE that AA will keep their word about investing in the local communities and not replace / reduce its existing Sirius workforce after a year or two.
Had you noticed that when there's lots of committed and encouragement for no votes the price seems to increase.
Now I think the price is being manipulated down to scare those on the borderline to part with their shares.
Hope it's the no voters who are buying them. I'm holding and voted no.
pledges stand at almost 42 million from just 1724 respondents. Image what could've been achieved with the official backing and marketing by Sirius.
The Board will never be able to justify not giving this a go - and that's why there are lingering doubts about the sincerity of the parties involved in this deal and why there is a great deal of anger and resentment towards Fraser and his crew.
We could have sold everything except the MTS for £1 and retained the MTS.
I’ve bought some shares in AAL (down 10% so far so still better than SXX :) )
OR
Here's a thought. Instead of upping their bid, what if AAL agreed to leave a few scraps for us PI's. if they paid 5.5p for 78% of the company that would value the company at Odey's 7p, but would leave us with 22% of our investment. That would be a smarter counter to Odey's 7p demand and would go a long way to repairing AAL's reputation in the local community.
Have you seen the last two RNS ? Ooh you not seen them because you’ve sold up!
Has anyone any idea how long the meetings are expected to last on 3rd or is it how long’s a piece of string! Just on a tight schedule. Train down the night before so that’s not a problem.