Member Info for 0308966

Ha- they must read this! Removed the 9:42:05 1.55p trade that really was a buy at 1.65p and after reporting that as a buy they cancel the dud 1.55p trade but change the 1.65p to a sell lol

For those wanting to check its the tradesat 9:42. At this time there were more buys than sells (reported) but our friendly MMs dropped the bid/ask....

Misreported the price of a buy at 1.55p then put the right price through at 1.65p but not bothered to cancel the 1.55p 'trade'- typical MM move. Looking good here!

Ludeck this is where it gets confising but the takeover panel has got a section on safegaurds after failed bids.... Right now its just a vote if this fails by all means sandstorm could buy on market to get 50%+- but would have to pay alot more (have to pay highest amount they paid in last 12 months) by the time they got 50% this will be well beyond the offer price. GL getting to bottom it as it confused me when i looked into it a year or so ago (and still does!)

Its certainly wont be an average buddy.

Ludeck im off on holiday now for 2 weeks (at airport) but this might help. http://whoswholegal.com/news/features/article/29552/public-takeover-offers-versus-schemes-arrangement Abit dated but key aspect here is that this offer is under a scheme and not a takeover. Id be lying if I said I was 100% certain that its 75% but 2 companies i have been in and better informed posters have also always quoted 75%. Hopefully we get some clarity soon. Also the company need to release an independant report of current assets with the independant entity either approving or dissaproving the approach. Hopefully we can get to the bottom of this

Ludeck your incorrect there- they require 75% for a takeover and if they fall short there are safegaurds to prevent other unwelcome bids- see the takeover code rules.

Ludeck good job you asked and its highlighted my error- my apologies. If you read the RNS on the 27th April the wording before the mention of options is diabolical. However having reread it doesnt state the options were taken. Apologies and thanks for highlighting my error

Think he still holds: http://www.kitco.com/news/2017-01-06/What-Five-Companies-Does-Brent-Cook-Like-In-2017.html?sitetype=fullsite .........."Disclosures: Brent and Joe own shares of Nevsun Resources, Ivanhoe Mines, Mariana Resources, Cordoba Minerals, Amani Gold, Nighthawk Gold, Mirasol Resources, Continental Gold, Sabina Gold & Silver and Richmont Mines.)"

Both Roth and Parsons have excercised options at 1.2gbp and 1.00gbp whilst the sp was 10% below the latter and 25% below the former. Others on the board also had a wholsale conversion of options into shares and its just to get more votes behind the yes camp. If it was such a good offer these f****s wouldnt have had to convert the options at 1.2gbp as they will be making a notional loss. No prizes for guessing why the took these options! Every share vote will help them to get nearer the 75% mark. Have a good long think about why you should vote yes is my plea to anyone thinking of voting yes- ok you might be very happy with the multibag you are sitting on but wouldnt another bag be welcome? If the TO doesnt go through mark my words that Sand will be back with a higher offer as Glen is in bed with them now and they wont leave him out to dry (along with Roth!). If Sand want HM they can have that at 1.10gbp but seems Glen wanted a job (well paid ofcourse for this favour) with them so offered them the full cake for the same price- crooks colours are out.

Before I call jarvis stockbrokers on Tuesday has anyone else contacted them to see if they allow customers to hold US stock either within or outwith an ISA? I currently have my shares in an ISA and should they say 'no' with it being the new tax year it will be simple to set up a new ISA and transfer MARL across- better being safe than sorry - I will still be voting a resounding NO. Up the offer and I may reconsider!

I smell a rat in this. Yes im in a handsome profit but this offer stinks and I will certainly be voting no. Anything less than 1.50gbp shouldnt have even been considered. But guess GP and Co will be rewarded by means that us PIs wont so ofcourse they want this to go though. Kick backs for them (in terms of further employment and incentives) but a kick in the teeth for PIs.

Bought in here quite some time ago before the area near condors proved to be a mini dud and the sp dropped conceded this to the bottom drawer- boy am i glad I did as now nearly tripled my investment. Well done to all still holding.

I said this before open of play today: "To me it implies that MMs have got wind of something (positive and are fishing for shares)" And think I was spot on- lets see what gets released after Panda v CRV case - to those just visiting you would be forgiven for asking what is this case?! For some reason CRV feel the market shouldnt know for some odd reason..... How the NOMAD has allowed this is beyond me.

Rusty its AIM after all but i would hold back on your thoughts there buddy- this drop without a doubt is unwarranted when you correlate it to the low volume and sells yesterday (or atleast try to). To me it implies that MMs have got wind of something (positive and are fishing for shares). We will all soon know. If it was a scam do you think the chairman of BATS Mr Burrows would join them?! Would he and his daughter buy shares? Not in a million years!

Rusty I have stayed away from this over the last few months as looking at the bb and for an adequate rns and anticipating something positive was driving me into sheer frustration- as you have said I wont sell out at this level either. Has anyone emailed SPARK? Think they need reminded of their responsibility- i was told recently copying in AIM regulation is what gets the NOMADS to act. As the panda case is in the public domain (thanks to the brilliant heads on here) SPARK and CRV can in no way defend why the market has not been informed. They cannot use a binding confidentiality clause as the agreement with Panda was torn up by Panda months ago!

Apologies for the few spelling mistakes in that post.

For the update folks. I think its fair to say that news flow from the company has become even more sparse since the RB took on his role. The sp is now getting ridiculously low. Might be time to consider a top up for me. One lesson iv learnt over the last few years is that investment timescales on AIM rarely (if ever!) turn out to be what you thought is a fair duration. Think its now over 3.5 years since iv been in here. Im sure others have been here longer but my 'vision' was this would come good within 1-2 years. Only thing to note is had a traded at peaks and troughs (impossible to predict unless with hindsight) I would have had multiples if my current holding..... Resetting the 'expectation' clock to another 2-3 years now and in this goes to the safety of the bottom drawer! Hope everyone is well. GLA

Notaclu its due to CRV being traded in dollars and not pounds. If you call your broker they will be able to advise you further

15% drop on diddly squat shares and then a similar rise on similar volume of shares since the AGM. No wonder mark wanted away from this joke of a market called AIM!