Member Info for Bannor

I don't think so TC I think they just quietly expire & are removed from the fully diluted position & statements of outstanding warrants & options.

That's not to say you would find them listed as expired somewhere if you looked for then of course... kinda indicative of how much we've achieved in the last 2 years huh!!

LoL .... how true is that .... but then we're all guessing, supposing, surmising, assuming & basing our gambles on the results of that.

How's your £5 BCN target holding up?

Is that because you have evidence or proof it isn't Addicknt, because you don't want it to be or just what you think?

Obs - I've had enough of this conversation to be honest & want to get out in garden .. you have your views & thoughts & that's OK ... I have mine ..... who's to say that one way or the other either or both ways could ultimately end up getting us out of the awful place we're at right now - different roads to the same destination is not uncommon one might be quicker or rockier than the other but they both COULD get there ..

I can't see anything but further debt & dilution at the moment regardless of whether resolutions 4 & 5 are passed or not ... but I would prefer the remaining CLN gone completely however that is achieved preferably without a hugely discounted placing with more effin warrants which is what I fear most currently.... we should NOT be trading down here & the fact we are is entirely at this BoD's doorstep....

TC likewise I'd live to see BCN source the remaining funding outside of AIM & without the need for a placing - nothing would please me more except us selling our entire interest in Sonora & BCN for a minimum SP value of 1p a share so I can get out of this race to see who can get to the ****ter first.

Trust me TC I'm not holding hoping for a placing in any way shape or form... if one comes along though I will have to consider if & how I participate....

http://www.thezimbabwean.co/2018/08/mnangagwas-inauguration-postponed-after-court-challenge/

Let's just say it's closer to £3M I think over you think under... it'd be a shame to disagree on something wouldn't it?

... value increases in BCN/EMH are much closer in my opinion than in any other co's we have an interest in so we should sell these after CLY/AOU/MMS in that order

.... that is assuming of course we as PI's don't authorise a well considered & appropriately positioned placing (if resolution 4 is voted down) to enable retention of them OR alternatively we have the option of participating in a placing (if resolution 4 is passed & 5 is voted down) ... TC I would see this as an opportunity to increase my holding not sell what I had especially if the discount wasn't ridiculously heavy... don't forget a placing can be caveated, controlled with dates, holdings & suspensions........ withdraw from the ZULU deal (if possible) ... hope the San Luis licences remain an issue at least until we have funds in the bank or can raise at significantly higher SP & Bob's your uncle.

This for me is about exercising greater control over the BoD's fund raising not blocking or disallowing altogether...

@TC LoL...

@Obs current outstanding of the $3.9M is £3.05M at today's RoE then the final pay off & interest payable I'd say it's probably closer to £3.3M & why sell BCN (well more than we possibly have already!) we've got plenty of Lenigas related &,equally poor performing assets we could sell first in preference... :-)

... & of course if the discount needs to be larger or the SP is lower it could well be less than £5M for 3 Billion extra shares ...

3 Billion shares TC @ say .175 so as to accommodate a small discount that's only just over £5M !! How much potential debt & commitment have we potentially got on the horizon ...

Here we are busy posting on a Saturday .. I've got a football match to watch & an overgrown garden that needs attention ... maybe later...maybe tomorrow ... probably Monday ... :-)

..... that should read of course be removing the BoD's ability to raise funds without our specific agreement & considerations ... because voting no to resolution 4 doesn't deny the right they have to seperately request permission of us during the year to raise funds .. it would just mean they may need to tell us why in advance for a change...

Crikey Obs - with all my chatting with Dallas & TC I nearly missed your response...

Funny - yes I like funny .....if that's me it's me !

Motives - absolutely you & anyone else can question mine, primarily it's to make money investing here, at the moment it's trying to restrict the amount of debt & dilution potential we gift to the BoD & try to address what I consider the mistakes of the past.

"Think what I think" - "change my opinion" - following your considered responses of course I no longer believe you have ulterior motives .... after all why would you on an anonymous BB!!

You want the company to succeed - well this may surprise you but so do I we just have very different opinions on the best way forward from here.

Happy - with you / your responses of course why wouldn't I be? ..... With the SP though a resounding NO however if we can back to a penny so I can get out with a good profit I very much will be, your way my way I don't give a toss to be honest & would happily be proven & accept I was wrong.... which one of us has the better or correct view forward I don't know to be honest but they've made a right pigs ear of it so far with the handcuffs off in my opinion... we have had enough debt & dilution at the BoD's unfettered instance..... which of our investments are we currently showing a profit on? .. they're no better at picking shares to invest in than I am from what I can see!!

San Luis & ZULU may be ultimately good but do we have the money in the bank now to fund either ... NO ... hence a need for further debt or selling holdings is broadcast for anyone to exploit who is without yours or my own desires at the forefront of their desires or interest .... we (as in you & me) will have greater control & say over future debt & fundraises by voting no to resolutions 4 &/or 5 & removing both the BoD's ability to raise funds & the brokers ability to abuse one...

exactly TC ... everyone knows my thoughts & position on the original CLN but this dragging it out & renegotiating it by maintaining a high level of dilution based on a significantly reduced debt value is not good business for us as PI's & why I want it PAID off this time & not renegotiated.

@Dallas ... that was the whole point for YAGM though ....make a quick short term % on the rise ... they were never in for the long term... it was just another way to get money out of PI's who were always going to take the pain of drop ... don't forget under the equity swap element the bigger the YAGM profit the larger the cash back to REM - of course if it went down ....

@Obs .....you've gone strangely quiet since my post of yesterday at 10:26 (reposted below) with all this talk of naked shorting ...

1) come on tell us who you work for ... is it directly or indirectly for a broker(s)?
2) Why were you so against joining the bunker ... did you want the widest audience?
3) Are you in collusion with anyone here?

Pray respond so I can get these evil sinful thoughts out of my head ...

Remains to be seen whether we're not part of the problem BCN currently have by selling down our holding further.... on a more negative spin (assuming we accept the way the sale at 70p was reported) the value of the £4.5M we spent buying 4.5M shares is now worth £2.5M that's a not insignificant loss of £2M currently ... can you paint a rosy picture over that?...

Although I think I've sussed you out Obs ... I reckon if I wanted to short &/or see a company fail one way of achieving that might be:

1) praise the BoD continuously for dubious decisions & statements resulting in price failure.
2) praise the BoD for re-negotiations that extend debt timeframes & maintain potential dilution levels.
3) praise the BoD for directional changes that create further debt & dilution whilst increasing risk & uncertainty.
4) advocate the BoD's ability to issue more shares at the drop of a hat excluding existing PI participation.
5) Rank the stock continuously as a strong buy until the end goal feels near then change it to a no opinion so you can say you were ultimately neutral & suddenly warning people of the risks you now perceive.

Is that your game Obs - is it a modus operandi you've used before with success?

@ DAZ ... indeed but then REM looked like they might be a good bet .... we didn't have all the debt & commitment with insufficient money in the bank to cover it back then ... on the back of Sonora Lenigas would do a YAGM deal to fund /take a bigger slice of Sonora & BCN .....the market liked it the price rose so YAGM & REM did well out of it ... tables have turned somewhat eh!!

Now the 'money' sees the method of making money from PI's here is to go naked instead due to the position we're now in...

That's my current thinking anyways.

... indeed .... & it was announced & therefore known a fair lump would be via equity - presents an ideal opportunity to go naked... & since then what's happened to BCN's SP.... placing getting cheaper to maintain a discount & any forward sold shares getting more & more rosy..... Lord I hope Secker gets the remaining funding sorted with Hanwa or any other finance co & if anyone is Naked they get their bare butts well & truly burnt ... if brokers were upset at the book build being pulled might that go some way to explaining why?

If there was ever 2 companies ripe for it eh!!

BCN who need money to finance a mine..... hopefully Secker will get funding elsewhere & burn them

KDNC who need money to service debts & upcoming commitments - can't change that except reduce/control the ability to place or more specifically who too ... voting against resolutions 4 &/or 5 will do that let them come to us for funds instead of any Naked shorts being settled & pocketing the difference.

Was that then........ Jesus H ... schoolboy stuff !!

https://mobile.twitter.com/CadenceMinerals/status/1027876124452446208