Member Info for addicknt

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.

Ignoring the ever useful comments from our two Learned Friends, the question arises of how long can DGR continue without the realization of some cash from us?

The A$5m loan they took out from Choice, which bears interest of 20%, is due repayable at the end of November. They are also due to repay the £1.7m loan from Equities First at the end of December this year. They're also involved in costly litigation against the administrators of Armour Energy, so the cash pile will be diminishing rapidly.

One can only assume NM will be pushing Caldwell harder than most to deliver some form of realization here.

Interesting interpretation which, as ever, is wrong.

There's a useful word to describe your obsession with Caldwell - cathexis. It means the concentration of mental energy on one particular person, idea, or object (to an unhealthy degree). Seems to me this neatly sums up the situation.

Issued their quarterly report yesterday. There wasn't much of interest as it related to us, but one or two things caught the eye.

In the update relating to their investments, in which they describe the status of the various projects, they describe Solg as being at 'maturity'. I'm not sure what this implies, because it doesn't strike me that we are at a mature stage.

They tell their shareholders that we have successfully completed the CIPA. Have we? I thought we were yet to dot the i's?

At the end of the period they had A$4m available cash - this came from the Choice loan. Their staff and admin costs were A$1.2m, so they've got some headroom for the next few months, but one assumes they don't have an infinite ability to raise too much more cash. Mather must be itching to see some proceeds from us.

Nice try, but your meaning was crystal clear.