Member Info for BlakeneyP

How can we put it behind us when we know that it's going to happen in the future unless changes are made?

It's the same as first appeared in The New York Times a few days ago but still great publicity for a UK readership. Not sure if it appeared in print today or yesterday.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/scotland-gold-rush-panning-prospecting-environment-b804292.html

Virus? Really? Cont'd.

Type in any three digit number followed by 'new cases' into Google and see what happens....so for example 247 new cases or 734 new cases or 114 new cases.

I know what I think but is there any explanation from someone who might understand how search engines and algorithms work?

....and the best of British in acquiring it.

On paper at least some might now be inclined to eye up a Steinway Grand.

It's the fact nothing seems to have changed that is the problem.

I make it 158p :-)

Is it the less than awful news from the FM's Covid briefing earlier or is there some more good news on its way from the site(S)?

A good question!

If it was before, why did he factor in a drop of 50%? Did he already know our 'trustworthy' business partners would do something that would wreck the share price?

If so, why do we have anything to do with them?

It's a waste of time and pointless if nothing changes, that's for sure.

If, however, UJO wields the axe on those responsible for halving the share price (a second time) and engaging with companies who don't engage in that kind of thing, then the shareholder disquiet will have been very worthwhile indeed.

It seems the market has difficulty moving on when these relationships are still in place.

What's going to happen next time for instance? How about the time after that?

Once trust is gone, it's gone.

It's as if no-one wants anything to do with the company, no matter how appealing its prospects might be, while it still apparently has dealings with other 'professional' companies and individuals whose actions caused our share price and our market capital to plummet......twice.

I'm very surprised by this.

lunus1.....yep, that's what I thought.

In terms of drawing conclusions I suspect dozens, hundreds or even thousands of investors have done just that.

In my opinion, severing all contact with those involved and establishing new business relationships with organisations who have sound credentials and track records would go a long was to restoring confidence and would have the same or even more positive effects on the share price as any drilling news.

My understanding is that he knew where the leak occurred last time.

Did we really use the same people and companies this time and expect a different result?

https://www.mining.com/scotlands-first-commercial-gold-mine-to-open-in-november/

Maybe some of the mass market Sundays will feature us too as get nearer the first POUR.

...and even that 5% retrace is being whittled away.

:-)

Presumably there will be an updated broker's note coming out shortly as a result of the information released in Monday's RNS.

Maybe we'll also get a Tweet today from the site with a nice photograph showing progress.

How about something along these lines?

"Given the feeling of betrayal amongst many shareholders for an unacceptable second time, UJO is delighted to announce that with immediate effect all matters relating to future placings and similar will now be dealt with by.........
All dealings with X and Y have now been severed."

That would do me.

You?

Hi Lunus,

Why will sentiment return if we deal with companies and people who have proved twice now that they are incompetent and/or should not be trusted?

Happy to be corrected.

Down we go again at the point where the real work on site is looking more promising than ever before.

UJO must wield the axe and heads must roll.

For us to have any association with companies or people whose actions have, for a second time, screwed us over is madness.

All imo.

Indeed Eck71 and long may it last.

To put the volume in perspective a number of long term holders will have squirrelled away more shares over the years than the total number traded yesterday and today added together. Just a wild guess mind ;-)

Not me alas.

We are mentioned in The Times which won't have done us any harm but you have to subscribe to read the whole thing.....so I haven't.

Today's flurry is all the more remarkable given what is still, in the grand scheme of things, a tiny volume.

Come on Scotgold!