Member Info for addicknt

If you're quoting from stockopedia you're right to ignore it. It's nothing more than computer generated rubbish.

RK, thanks, but I don't use Twitter. This thread has been both amusing and revelatory.

Gawd blimey! Talk about pushing water uphill!

For the final time: We currently have 3.01bn shares in issue. If we sell the 155m, we will still have 3.01bn shares in issue.

If we reach exit point and the shares haven't been sold, they will be cancelled. Therefore we'll all own a marginally higher percentage of the company. Please note, it's not just SC who'll own a bit more, we all will. This is why he doesn't want to sell, as he's previously made clear.

Given that you refer to people who disagree with you as f**ktards, clowns, idiots etc, etc, I'm not sure you're in any position to lecture anyone about personal insults.

SM, agreed. Very odd choice. I suspect you recall this topic was debated ad nauseam a while back. We went round the houses and eventually reached the right conclusion - as SH likes to say, the science was settled. So it's strange it's arisen again, particularly as SC will do whatever possible not to sell the shares.

SH, you won't change mine of any one else's mind because we are right and you are not. And just to help you a bit, we were free to sell the shares from day 1. And what does 'if they are sold, we've sold shares that were not available for money' actually mean?

You are very clearly out of your depth here, so I suggest you return to your habitual topic of extolling your own genius, which given this recent exchange, is looking distinctly frayed around the edges.

Yes, they were. They've been 'available' ever since we merged with CGP.

Jerry, you're missing a treat.

SH, you state that 'when a company issues more stock, the existing shareholders 'own the cash', but a smaller share of the company'. Putting to one side the question of a Rights Issue, which allows existing holders to avoid dilution, you are right.

However, there's one fatal flaw in your argument - if we sell the 155m we are NOT issuing any more shares. They have already been issued.

You'll get there in the end.

There's another interesting article about copper in today's paper.

The headline is "The world's on the edge of a copper supercycle" and is written by Tom Stevenson who is an investment director at Fidelity - in other words, he's not a know-nothing journalist.

We're all familiar with the argument, but I'd still recommend a read.

As I explained to you yesterday, the company and by definition us, currently own those shares. If we sell them we will then own the cash. In other words, we simply swap one thing for another and there's no dilution involved. Not complicated, is it?

There would be another movement on the p&l and balance sheet and that relates to any profit or loss which is made on the share disposal. This would impact the net asset figure.

You've tied yourself in knots on this, perhaps it's time to retire gracefully?

Incidentally, yesterday you said of me that my character would never allow me to accept that I'm wrong. In the light of this discussion the irony of your comment has not escaped me. Pots and kettles etc.

"ain't nothing free in this world..." indeed, SH. But the shares held by Solg Canada were paid for at the time of the merger, so they aren't 'free'.

Prior to the merger there were 2,476,051,501 Shares in Issue. We then issued a further 525,954,360 shares as part of the deal.

This then gave a total of 3,002,005, 861 Shares in Issue, which includes the Solg shares which had been owned by CGP. Not long after approx 900,000 shares were cancelled (I don't recall the company explaining this), so the current number of issued shares is 3,001,106,975, which, just to repeat, includes the CGP shares held by Solg Canada.

The problem you've got is that you don't understand the difference between the concept of Issued Shares and those which you describe as "in circulation", by which I assume you mean those traded each day. They are not the same thing and for the purposes of calculation of any individual holding expressed as a percentage of the total, it's only Issued Shares which matter.

I'm surprised that someone like you doesn't understand one of the most basic facts of corporate structure. Similarly, as became apparent yesterday, you appear not to understand the movements which occur on a balance sheet when shares are sold for cash.

You're wrong on this question and the sale of the 155m shares will not be dilutive, no matter how much you wish they were.

SH, sorry, you've got this completely wrong. The fact they are held by Solgold Canada is not the point. They qualify as issued shares and as such are included in the total issued shares number. As I said previously, this was clearly explained by the company last year.

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.

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.

'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.

SH, the shares are already 'issued' and therefore if they are sold they are not dilutive.

Ben, yes, they do.

I should add that I was very critical of his 23p gaffe and his occasionally contradictory messaging. However, as it stands that doesn't amount to sufficient justification for constant vilification.

Eloro, that's not actually true as there have been a number of occasions when I've criticised him, corporate comms is one issue which comes to mind.

As for the question of what he's achieved, I think the answer is contained in the various announcements.

As far as your comment about the '24 agm, you may recall that in a previous response to this question I told you that if nothing had changed by then I would probably have a re-think. But that's eight months away and much will have happened by then.

I am not a slavish devotee of Caldwell, but I do believe he's on our side and is our pursuing matters in our interest.