George Frangeskides, Exec-Chair at Alba Mineral Resources, discusses grades at the Clogau Gold Mine. Watch the full video 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.
1) Support a management team which is working on behalf of the smaller shareholders and is moving towards an exit, or;
2) Cause chaos at board level and hand the management of the company on a plate to those organizations who have absolutely no interest in retail investors. They would insist upon funding the route to production with their own equity and in the process would dilute us virtually out of sight.
So far I've seen no logical argument which makes any sense of supporting point 2.
Caldwell is the only thing standing between us and oblivion. (I do like the odd bit of hyperbole!)
If you want a response from the board you have to write to them the old fashioned way as per the AGM circular.
"Shareholder Communication with the Board of Directors
Shareholders who are interested in communicating directly with members of the Board of Directors of the Company
(the “Board”), or the Board as a group, may do so by writing directly to the individual Board member or to the Board
generally at GPO Box 5261 (Level 27, 111 Eagle Street, Brisbane, Queensland) 4001, Australia. Shareholders may
not use any electronic address provided in the Notice, this Circular or any related document (including the form of
proxy) to communicate with the Company for any purposes other than those expressly stated. The Company Secretary
will forward communications directly to the appropriate Board member."
In my opinion the reason they have issued the RNS encouraging people to vote is because of Good Governance practices which as per the AGM Circular "necessitate that companies which have received 20 per cent or more of votes cast against
the Board recommendation for a resolution, or when resolutions are withdrawn, provide a final summary in the
explanatory notes to resolutions at the next shareholder meeting. It is common to explain what actions the company
has taken to consult shareholders in order to understand the reasons behind the result and update on the views
received from shareholders. The Notice of the Meeting provides the final opportunity to update shareholders on what
actions were taken and what impact the feedback has had on the decisions of the board. "
Given the boards response to those resolutions which received 20% or more votes against it was as follows..... "The Board notes that if the shares held directly and indirectly by certain major shareholders were excluded, these
resolutions would have passed with over 80% of the votes cast in favour of the resolutions. ". They clearly need as many PI votes as possible or the statement will look even more ridiculous next time. I mean its like saying Labour would have won 80% of the votes cast in the last General Election if you exclude those who voted Conservative.
They also need PI support to pass resolution 11 & 12 given it needs 75% of the votes passed to be for it to pass. Given that the two shareholders holding 20% of the shares will clearly vote against it - its already almost an impossibility that it would pass.
Anyway I have lost all confidence in the board and will vote accordingly.
Am I the only PI that thinks it’s bizarre they are advising that I give them even more power to dilute me even more?
Why would anyone vote for that?
I’m afraid I’ve had a gut full of their incompetence.
Totally disrespectful to owners of the company.
If feels like the next general election here. Two main parties an absolute shambles and smaller parties not going to cut it.
Don’t think I can even hold my nose and vote for the resolutions. Did that last year and what did that achieve?
Not interested in holding size. Proportional similar for my lifestyle I suspect.
So what really happened? Can’t just leave it hanging
Is
redknight
talking
to
a
wall
or
making
suggestions
to
someone?
And a final thought...
Apart from the fact that Scott can still remain as CEO even if he gets booted as a Director...
If you boot the whole Board, who do you think will elect the new Directors...?
BHP, Newmont, Jiangxi.
And what do you think will happen to the SP in the ensuing turmoil..?
And they say turkeys don't vote for Christmas...
Yep Add ….. every cloud
If they're afraid of a creeping takeover we should be heartened. At least it suggests someone's interested in the company!
I appreciate your constructive reply Aquinaga and believe Mr SOLG is on my mind morning and night.
We are not wealthy but we have oover £120,000 at risk.
I have been accused of ramping but I make no apologies for seeking out the positives, trying to take an objective view and backing posts up with incontrovertible facts.
And I'm sure you recall me hammering the company in the past, e.g.
Berating Mather for over hyping
Slamming Sangha for his utterly unprofessional public statements and
Having secured a one to one with Twigger a couple of years ago, telling him in no uncertain terms that the Corporate Governance was a disgrace.
Etc
But I've also had constructive dialogues with all the PRExecs, Ingo, Ayten, etc.
Onr day I'll tell you the real story of what happened under Darryls disastrous tenure...
Hi Aquinaga
I did the same 2 months ago. No reply, which is one of the reasons why I voted against these clowns . I am saving Mather only.
Hi Gino
Wondered the same ….. wouldn’t it be easier for the likes of HL & II to group all the votes and send them in as one lump so to speak?
Yes, a creeping takeover after a creepy takeover.
So we are set up now for the predictable...
1. AGM.. hope and pray (Twigger thrown under the bus has done nothing to please BHP by looks of things lol!)
2. PFS release before Feb 14th (anything later becomes 'mid' and not 'early'). Better get on and appoint an outside firm to approve it then!
3. Then we'll see the greed in full play with a nice little 157m share issue to ... mmm Bob and Maxit know someone interested already wink wink
4. Then after the usual regulators tick box period of not taking the pi55... we'll have around 6 weeks before an offer is dropped into our mai boxes.
That the gist of it or am I being too blunt?
Chinese clearly can't buy in open market as knee deep in NDA's and due diligence. That's an assumption by the way.
Remember it's not 26% against...its 26% of those voting...
So even if they get a 75% turnout that's 35% against....!
DBW - Solgold say that 'virtually no pi votes had been received compared with this time last year '. I would imagine many PIs' shares are held by nominees (in my case Halifax) who should issue clients with the relevant voting form for the AGM (some nominees require you to assert in your Account Management to have them supply you with these - how obstructive is that?). Halifax advised that I needed to return the completed form to them by 14th December, which I have done, and presumably they lodge these forms with Solgold thereafter.
I wonder if these show up at Solg as PI votes or as the Nominee?
Thanks for your thoughts.
Trouble is for me we appear now to be in a position of weakness for future negotiations , share price being just one.
Understand some things can’t be disclosed, the lack of direction is appalling. Of course it can be a bluff, going to our own production and all that but that is expected from a junior miner. But without that positivity and hopefully direction you find ourselves in the mess we are now in. Particularly after the failings you rightly point out.
No, there need to be a charm offensive but the last two RNSs were hopelessly out of date and dressed up.
The company needs another shack up I’m afraid.
Sorry...fat thumbs...14p to 9p....
And if anyone doubts their motivation, Scoott has huge 'skin in the game'...
He gets a base salary of $200k which no plc CEO would get out of bed for.
Ok some might resent his options, but they will be worthless if he doesnt deliver and...as well as owning 17 million shares, he bought more well above the market price to try and stabilise the SP while Berry Street were vindictively trashing it...
Those two exercises precisely explain the current malaise...
Berry Streets hamfisted sale of 40 million shares took the SP from 24p to 9p
Scott had to pay 11.5p for 790,000 when the Offer was 10p...
But surely the biggest motivation is Sangha...he has 153 million shares and has lost £15 MILLION on paper since he was handed the job of selling SOLG.
Mather personally has lost £9 million, but neither they nor the CGP investors have sold a single share.
What does that tell you?
They cant trade in and out to average down like we can.
And finally, if you want a clear message that a takeover is coming, reference Scott's statement of a 'creeping takeover'.
Anyone rocking the boat now is inviting their long running worst nightmare...
That BHP get this for a song...
I have expressed my protest by voting against the Remuneration
We need to vote because BHP, Newmont and Jiangxi can conjure 26% between them.
Any PI not voting or voting against the Board deserves what may befall
What was the purpose of that post redknight? Is it to push former posts off page 1...
Hi Guys
Sadly I cannot agree with Aquinaga because I cannot think what else Scott could have communicated.
The merger process was a shambles led by people no longer with the company, until Scott stepped in.
It took so long and the then staff didn't realise that after Dec 31, it not being completed, a Prospectus had to be produced. So a 2 month max project took 5 months to complete!
Once he got rid of the dead wood, he was able to start cutting out waste and slashing costs. Operational casburn averaged $2.8 million a month...its now down to $1 million.
There has been virtually no drilling because there is no point advancing fringe projects when any or all of the company is up for sale. In any case the three latest updates barely rippled the SP.
And my own view is that Scott is doing a solid job with measured RNSs, which are crystal clear until people try to over interpret them.
One clear indication of progress is today's statement.
"Expected to be released EARLY in the first quarter of 2024".
That changed statement is an indication of Scott's urgency and commitment.
An important point is never to communicate if theres nothing to say.
What else could Scott have said?
Have we all forgotten Nick's last days of overpromising and under delivering...especially the massively delayed PFS...
And what about dumb Darryl...'the next cab off the block.." and then he trashed the SP with a disastrous funding debacle which led to TWO Exec Directors leaving, including the one whose prime role was to finance Cascabel...thwarted...
Eloro, because at the time landing two big names on the register was a massive win for what was then a junior explorer. They wouldn't have taken large stakes in the company without those rights.
Lol 😍
Way to go Aquinaga!
If disapplication of pre-emption rights is tying the hands of the BOD, why did they grant such rights to the select shareholders in the first place? Surely they should have anticipated the ramifications. Perhaps greed clouded their perspectives at the time those rights were bestowed.
Have emailed the company to register my disgruntled opinion of the company.
If I get a reply worth posting I’ll put it up.
Never written an email like it in years of investing .
How dare they beg for votes after keeping us in the dark!!
Hahah ship. gold
We don't need a creeping takeover after the reverse takeover