Member Info for addicknt

Caldwell's hand has been forced and I suspect the choice of news outlet was made in order to address those who may have been most concerned i.e the government. He went as far as he could with the denial, but ultimately he was unable to state categorically that a sale is out of the question - he merely referred to 'speculation'.

I'm afraid to say that this strikes me as the inevitable result of the opacity which has existed ever since the SR was first announced. In fact the wording of the original announcement was guaranteed to cause confusion, and this article reflects that. I guess we'll only know the truth when a deal is unveiled.

Sire_frugalman has it right. Does the comment 'unfounded rumours and speculation' amount to a full-throated denial? Particularly when SC has been at pains to repeat that all options are being considered.

Who knows, we could end up with a jv. I won't be happy, but Q will be over the moon.

Good grief Rodney! Don't you know you're not allowed to point out the truth?

Of course there are, but lying is a completely different matter, particularly if a disgruntled shareholder decided to take legal action with an accusation of misleading statements. I guess you understand the difference?

As for your non-shareholding status, I find it incredibly strange that anyone would waste their time posting about a company in which they have no economic interest - in fact, it's bloody weird. Still, each to their own. And btw, please don't think you're engaged in some holy crusade to educate us holders - we really don't need it. In fact it's simply tedious in the extreme.

Tesla, so the company are lying? I would suggest you put that accusation to them at the AGM, but you're not a shareholder, are you?

Fort, you're quite right - curiosity got the better of me. He's back on filter now.

Nal, I've unfiltered you temporarily because I wanted to see what pearls of wisdom seeped from that mush between your ears.

"moved the goal posts" ?? What does that even refer to? You clearly have never been to an agm, nor are you familiar with the stats relating to how many people actually attend. Clue: As a percentage it's tiny. The same applies to to the numbers of people who ask questions. This is one of the excuses many companies are using in their efforts to do away with physical meetings. Their rationale is that because so few do attend, there's no point holding them. This is of course, merely a ruse to avoid having to answer to shareholders - a process very few chairman and CEOs enjoy, particularly when things are going badly.

The weirdest about your illiterate ramblings is that you spend hours every day ranting about how useless the management are, and yet when an idea is suggested to increase accountability you start ranting away like a deranged baboon with a firework up its backside.

And because I've unfiltered you I've just had a quick look at some of posts over the past few days. Hilariously one of them completed misunderstood what had been said earlier in the thread and in your follow-up post you contradicted yourself again. The fact is, you are incapable of following an argument; you are completely unaware of the meaning of people's posts and you contradict yourself continually. You may be proud of your ignorance, but it doesn't half make you look stupid.

I've just had a quick look at their accounts, which proved to be interesting.

For the year ended March 2022 they made a profit of £10m . This fell to £4m for y/e March 2023. All of the profits were distributed to the three members.

So, despite running a failed fund the managers pocketed 14m in the space of two years. If you ever needed proof that hedge funds win whatever happens, this is it. The same is true of private equity - the two and twenty formula is a guarantee of riches.

Eloro, major public companies have managed physical meetings which are attended by hundreds for years and a good chairman has no problems maintaining order (whether we have a good chairman is another matter - who will ever forget his shameful performance at the 2020 AGM?) As for timing, that's why I suggested only one question plus a follow-up for each investor.

If you look back at our recent online interactions, it's the case that relatively few people ask questions, so I'm not sure how many more would if the format was changed. It's also the case that AGMs only ever attract a minority of shareholders.

There's been much criticism on here about the handling of these meetings and if things don't change, I've no doubt those complaints will continue. We want greater management accountability and transparency, so why not request the company something to do about it? Whinging from the sidelines strikes me as being rather pathetic.

One of the problems with virtual AGMs and the various management presentations we've had is that the way the Q&A session is handled allows the board to escape effective scrutiny. The chairman can censor which questions they choose to answer and ignore anything which may be contentious. Similarly, the fact that once a question is answered there's no follow-up - if the answer is unsatisfactory, the team can simply move on. There's also the issue of the meetings being time limited - again this prevents many shareholders from asking the questions they have. To me, this is not shareholder democracy.

Given the various geographic locations it's not possible to have in-person meetings, so I would suggest the board should consider making the AGM 'interactive', in other words like a video conference. The chairman should have no forewarning of the question i.e we don't have to submit them first, and once it's been answered the shareholder should have to right to ask one follow-up question if she/he feels they've had an unsatisfactory reply.

I'm sure this must be technologically possible, but what do you people think? If there's a high level of support for this we should all contact the company and let them know. After all, they've been telling us how they want to improve shareholder communication.

mr, i imagine the $30m he received would compensate for the embarrassment of being put on his ****.

MR, simple - he hadn't bothered to get in shape and didn't take his opponent seriously.

Eloro, I share your disdain for the Aussie moron, but I'm afraid your third paragraph is particularly unpleasant and is beneath you. Not good.

SM, I think Mining.com said exactly the same thing the day after the RNS, so the company have had plenty of time to deny it, but it's not in our interests to do so.

Q, for years you argued vehemently that we would be taking this to production alone. You now seem to have accepted that isn't going to happen and you've shifted your position to going down the jv route. Given the track record, don't you have just have a scintilla of doubt?

Incidentally, I've never understood why you think a jv would be such a great idea - even if we could raise the ante.

Eloro, you're quite right. It was a clear indication that management had no control whatsoever over what was happening on the ground. Maybe they just didn't care?

It's also worth mentioning they appointed DC - a total disaster, which looks as if it's going to cost us a fair few bob in a legal settlement.

Kapil, that sounds pretty flimsy to me. Think of all the years of broken promises and opaque messaging. The alienation of shareholders, the hubris and misleading comments (1bn in funding comes to mind) The ludicrous pursuit of the dream that somehow we could take this to production on our own. The list is endless. If you believe that amounts to being in a better place than we are now, good luck.

MR, isn't it just. TW spotted the scam, but, as ever, he was ignored and reviled by the BBMs.

Kapil, you didn't answer my questions. When and how was the company in a better position? Clearly, you don't believe the company is telling the truth - why not raise this with them at the AGM?

In my opinion all the spinning took place in the past under Mather (to give him the benefit of the doubt I'd describe it as 'over-enthusiasm') and what we're seeing now is a far greater degree of realism.

Kapil, when was it in a better position? And why? If you're referring to the sp, that was a speculative bubble.

Eloro, yes, there are clear conflicts of interest.