Ryan Mee, CEO of Fulcrum Metals, reviews FY23 and progress on the Gold Tailings Hub in Canada. Watch the 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.
From a desperate X man, like many of us:
June 27th presentation titled Future Copper Giants & it infers Solgold conditions are met to be a giant.The Hannam & Partners presentation infers material news.This requires financing first 2 years as Caldwell mentioned in recent exchanges.We can only assume huge news to drop now
Good point nmm. Diluting 2.84bn to 3bn is worse than 3.14 to 3.3.
So when Scott said funding would not be dilutive, there were 3bn solg shares, of which only 2.84 were in circulation because 160m were in fact owned by shareholders as part of the company. If those 160m shares get sold, each existing holder at the time of Scott's statement owns a smaller proportion of the company (1 three-billionth rather than 1 two-point-eight-four-billionth at the time of the statement). Hence dilutive. I rest my case
It's really not that tricky, guys. You'll get there đź‘Ť
I'm still waiting to hear from your "solicitor" manchild...
Oh btw where did I directly call you a nonce only place i've mentioned it is here and it's on the solg site you 2wat, never mentioned your name never posted it on GST bb how do you stand now, you to me are all hot air and diarrhea, stop embarrassing yourself in front of adults
==================================================================================================
Novicehunter
Posted in: SOLG
Posts: 9,243
Price: 9.76
Strong Buy
RE: Strategic Review30 Apr 2024 08:20
Ok looks like it's going to be a quiet day regards any SOLG news ...
have a good day all and stay away for the sake of these nonces...
55p Someday soon !!!
================================================================================================
You really are an absolute Twunt with a guilty conscience and always looking for an argument 🤷‍♀️
you're great entertainment tiny, if nothing else
I'm not selling any of our 3.1 million. Or were you making a general comment?
Stackhigh.
I'm a bit confused where you've got the 3.15bn from.
Financial data (e.g. FT Tearsheet) and SOLG's own slides show the shares in issue to be c3bn.
Which is consistent with the May 2023 'Share Capital and Voting Rights' RNS. (I can't see an updated Voting Rights RNS).
Then Solgold Canada sub owns another 5%, i.e. 0.15bn, but I don't think these are in Treasury and not Issued or Outstanding shares?
I read those documents, add. Their intention to sell the shares doesn't change the simple fact you keep ignoring.
Shares in circulation when SC said non-dilutive= 3.15bn
Were we supposed to assume he meant non-dilutive from another, previous, unspecified time? Because compared to the situation we were in when he said non-dilutive, selling these shares would be dilutive. You can tie yourself in knots trying to deny this, or you can team up with slug and start another culture war, but you can't change the number of shares in circulation.
1984, you're right, he really doesn't understand the concept and thinks his arrogant dismissal of others is sufficient to win an argument.
Just for guidance, SH, the company spelt this all out in one of the documents relating to the merger.
Again, slug using the female sex in an effort to be patronising. What a charmer 🤢
The shares in circulation at the time SC made the comment were not the 3.3bn listed, because 160m of them were out of circulation, owned by solg. It was one of the few benefits of a merger that cost solg shareholders very dearly. If they get sold back into circulation, and there are 3.3bn shares dividing the company, that will be an act of dilution.
It's not that tricky add đź‘Ť
Add - I don’t think she gets that shares in circulation would not increase so it wouldn’t be classed as dilutive
You can of course argue ANY raising of funds is dilutive! An offtake or royalty affects future profits, a sale of an asset reduces owned assets
The name of the game is getting to the bid point with the most intact, that’s when our investment matures
Just block the twat, i did
And if you think a royalty deal, lessening the amount of the asset you own, isn't dilutive either, then I'm amazed you've got the brain power to type
Nice try, SM. No weaseling here. As you can see, I stand by my statement that there will be no non-dilutive raise, because we are not a charity. If we sell shares that increase the number in circulation, that's dilution. If you don't understand that, it's not my job to teach you.
See? Total absence of any weasel. But you lot are now bricking it about the giveaway that's coming...
Before shares are sold, you own a number of shares out of the 3.15bn in circulation. Ownership of all assets of the company are divided by this total. Then, owing to a sale of shares by the company, you own a number of shares out of 3.3bn in circulation. Yes, your company has some funding. But how was it achieved? By dilution.
At the time Scott said there would be no dilution, there were only 3.15bn shares in circulation because c. 150mn were owned by shareholders.
I'm not sure it's me who doesn't get this, add. If you think selling shares that were owned by the company is non-dilutive then I have a bridge you might be interested in
Who'd have thought SH was that thick hey Addick 🤣🤣🤣 no wonder some punters are just punters and will never get to the upper echelons that we mix with
I know Stackhigh would try (and fail) to weasel out of his "dilutive" statement. Next up he'll be trying to spin that placing the shares at 9p or whatever is "massively painful" for shareholders. This will likely precede him disappearing into the ether like a bad smell claiming he's managed to get a good entry for one of his "clients".
SH, not sure you get this. If the company sells the shares the cash proceeds go into our coffers and count as assets, which we as shareholders own. If you own 1% of the company now, you'll still own 1% of the company when the shares are sold and the assets will be the same. Does this help?
If we still own them at the point of exit and they are cancelled, shareholders will own a marginally higher percentage of the company.
Compared to when Scott said fundraising will be non-dilutive, will you own more, less or the same amount of solg's assets if these sell? Clue- it's not the same amount, and it's not more...
During the merger solg became the owner of these shares. It was whilst owning these shares, collectively, as shareholders of the company, that Scott said fundraising would be non-dilutive. Why wouldn't we think he meant 'non-dilutive from our current position (owning those shares)?
I knew you chumps would claim these shares could be sold and, because they are counted in the 3.3bn, that sale wouldn't be dilutive. But I also know that if your company sells something and as a result you own less as a percentage, that's dilutive.
'84, that's right. If the shares remain unsold at the point of exit and are cancelled, we'd own a higher percentage of the company.
OC, if they failed to complete the deal, it makes no sense that Chris Stackhouse got awarded options. Presumably he got options for getting some sort of deal in place.
But if they didn’t sell them then they’d be cancelled and become relutive.
So one could argue that placing them is technically dilutive. Splitting hairs I know
SH, the shares are already 'issued' and therefore if they are sold they are not dilutive.
There is absolutely Zero chance our management (or any for that matter) would have wanted to leave financing to the very last second… so it’s either a case of they failed to complete the deal they probably assumed they had and have been left trying to secure an alternative, last second solution…. Or there have been so many competing offers of financing, Solgold have been able to have providers one up each other before they choose the one to move forward with.
Given Solgold always underwhelm and disappoint… I’m expecting the former to be the case.
Time will tell.
Issuing these shares would be dilutive compared to the percentage of the company share holders owned when SC made his statement about non-dilutive. So it can't be that they are going to sell/place any of them- we were promised non-dilutive, right? đź‘Ť
Ben, yes, they do.
After going to the trouble and expense to acquire the CGP shares, why would they now sell them. I thought the idea of getting them was to combine to one attractive company. Do these shares even still exist?
Agree - anything less than 16p a share for the CGP shares will be a huge failure by Scott and Bob.
Lets hope we don't need to issue them at all.