Member Info for CF73

Wile.E.Coyote, many have argued that it is GR suppressing that value. Many have gone so far as to say that his departure would give us an immediate re-rate. Well Newco provides. One of the suppressants on the SP is that, to date, we have had no clear way forward. Newco presents a very real way of moving on - one, again, without GR. It gives the us means to do this, including to be able to make material progress across the portfolio.

Even with things as they stand, there is phenomenal value being unrealised. So just because this is where we are now doesn't that it remains fixed forever. It is up to the market to decide if it has appetite. From these ridiculous levels, I would say there is ample.

Agreed chris137, that is how I understand it.

Blscksheep, true we've pumped tens of millions, and it's the shareholders who've carried the burden. But it is what it is. Can't undo the past. Can only do better going forward.

RHA sign off, true we don't know when that will land. But I'm guessing we must be close by the '48 hours'??

Newco gives the opportunity to take GR out of that equation. And agree we need to make sure of that.

The proposed Newco deal is a good one, in my view

It’s a genuine plan providing the concrete means to develop and advance each respective projects, everyone one of them

- The KDNC deal proposed to give 30% of Zulu away, to take us to DFS
- On RHA, though no significant JV plans were presented, discussions on these BBs pointed to perhaps giving away between 30% to 40% to an incoming JV partner, if/ once we got RHA sign-off.
- Not sure what proportion of Katate would’ve been given away in any subsequent JV but the two above give some idea, that’s if in our current state we could’ve got anywhere near moving on this project

- The Newco listing sets an indicative market valuation of c.$20million for Newco (which would include RHA, Zulu and Katete, and KME assets and expertise, all bought inhouse; with PREM’s ringfenced Circum stake maturing and accruing its own value for holders over time). This while we presently sit on a market cap of just over $10million.
- The current market cap looks set to go nowhere without a plan to move projects forward, one showing any kind of vision. Newco will unlock immediate value in the assets and will have the means to make massive progress on respective projects, two of these – RHA and Zulu – having been given head starts (but unable to show any value to shareholders as things currently stand).
- If we vote through Newco and it is listed, I see rapid growth in the value of those assets, which will filter though to Newco’s SP and market cap.
- Newco is set to raise $6million. This money is designed to give us our operational costs for 18months. At some point in that time frame, we will see RHA come on line and pick up pace. We should, after all this time, finally have the revenue/profit to drive the assets forward further still
- As others have also said, KME taking shares for their assets is a massive sign of confidence.

- Finally, Newco offers folks the opportunity to remove GR from the helm of those assets, to disentangle him from Newco. We know many have wanted this.

Good luck all!

Blacksheep,

Let's start over again. I've been posting off my smart phone, so looking back, may have crossed wires and mis-communicated etc, Apologies!

The number of votes any shareholder has should be commensurate with their shareholding.

*Chippy is most certainly trolling this BB

chirpy is not most certainly trolling this BB

MalkyMalky, parroting what others say will give you Repetitive Brain Injury

Folks need to see what I said again,

It's not that I am opposed to '...one share, one vote'. If there was to be a vote, then it could only ever be a vote for every holder, rightly.

Rather, it's that I'm opposed such a vote on the basis of the potential abuse of the process, if such a vote were to be allowed. In the current climate, it would be highly likely.

There is a clear distinction (which may have been lost in translation).

chippy. OK, here it is,

Yes, shares carry voting rights,

But you did not address the issue I raised. That issue, put another way, is this:

If a vote on the BoD was formally agreed upon, following your 'one shareholder, one vote' suggestion, it enables anyone - and I mean ANYONE - to vote, including folks who have no prior meaningful history with the company, including traders who have shown themselves to be XXXXXXX's

In a situation where such a vote was opened up to any and every shareholder - given the market situation around the stock - it would open the process up to serious abuse i.e. numbers of folks prompted to sign with whatever level of holding in order to vote in a particular way.

I am opposed to that vote for the reason those who have longer standing holdings and, most likely, larger holdings, would be given comparable consideration to those arriving new, including those who I do not believe have any vested interest in the medium to long term prospects of the company. Remembering the below comments of one 'respected' poster:

"Still, I`m still in on a trade hoping you and your ramping buds push it upwards a little"

beengenius, the question I guess would be who would be prepared to loan the money to us on that basis?

Given there is little general public domain detail about Cirucm, including when it is to be IPO'd exactly, we would be asking the potential lender to loan us the money on the back very little information and detail. Not sure who would lend on that basis. Even if there was more information available, including a definitive timetable for IPO, not sure how usual it is for lending on that basis, particularly when it'd still be up in the air as to when we might be able to service that loan, and certainly in light of PREM's volatile history.

The only party who would be up for making that loan would, in my view, and ironically, be GR his self. And you could imagine the uproar if he provided a loan with Circum as security :D

FWIW.

chippy, you said

"Hmm CF your sounding like a totalitarian state.
Kim jong CF"

You said that after my response to your, "CF I'd like to have a vote of confidence or no confidence in the board or even just GR. All shareholders 1 share 1 vote."

You brushed my very valid point by trying to do a funny. I found this to be funny. I also found it to be a diversionary tactic. The point I made was perfectly reasonable enough, so I will post it again (along with your initial post):

--------------------------------------------------

You:

"CF I'd like to have a vote of confidence or no confidence in the board or even just GR. All shareholders 1 share 1 vote."

------

Me:

I disagree.

Without certain preconditions, that would open up the voting to all sorts of folks - traders like Malky who have had no prior long term history with the company and who have admitted they are here for the trade.

Going to need a better proposition than that chippy.

LOL chippy, I see what you did there - you did a funny.

More please.

beengenius, if there is a lock in period on IPO that prevents us from selling any shares for, for example, 6 months, then it's not a matter of waiting for few months but upwards 9 to 12 months.

There is the option of definitive news of Circum IPO and the IPO itself having a dramatic effect on PREM and then PREM being able to consider raising some of those funds via a equity from a much stronger SP. But we would never be able to raise the c.$10milloin ($4million for Newco and $6million operational/development costs) from that route. It'd be too much. But we certainly be able to raise some, enough to make a useful dent in the $6million required.

"CF I'd like to have a vote of confidence or no confidence in the board or even just GR. All shareholders 1 share 1 vote."

------

I disagree.

Without certain preconditions, that would open up the voting to all sorts of folks - traders like Malky who have had no prior long term history with the company and who have admitted they are here for the trade.

Going to need a better proposition than that chippy.

chippy. you said:

"CF I'm not angry. I'm just not deluding myself over GR either."

---------------------------------

Newco offers everyone the chance to disentangle GR from the assets. How do you not find this even remotely of value? Wasn't this what you and so many others wanted?

You intimated the other day that you were not supportive of Newco. So while you can't stand GR and want him out, you would seek to have him remain in place, at the helm of PREM, with PREM as the vehicle for those assets, by virtue of the fact you do not want to see happen a genuine proposal for developing those assets and for taking GR out of the picture?

Agreed 2857Mal.

On the matter of us 'apparently' giving away 50% of the project, folks looking at it like its a give away and not realising what we getting in return. Absolutely no acknowledgement of that at all.

chippy, you got a right to be angry. Have never said you don't. It is appropriate also, from time to time, to raise errors and incompetence. But if you are invested, I don't see what value it has to enabling us to move forward.

By the way, I do not see Newco as giving away any percentage of our assets in the way you describe. Let's just remember that Zulu JV with KDNC proposed to give away upwards of 30%, for that $51.million capital injection that was to take us to DFS.

On RHA, though we had nothing as concrete by way of proposed deal that was RNS's, there were discussions on these BBs of around 35% to 40% being given up, for a partner to come on board. In other words, we were always goign to have to give up some proportion of these projects

Just looking to the failed KDNC proposition, far as I could tell, there seemed to be fairly reasonable support for the KDNC deal. In my opinion, Newco presents a far better proposition. Folks may be thinking we giving up something and not realising that we are actually gaining something concrete --- that is, the means to undertake the work required. And not only that, once Newco subsumes KME, they become us, that equipment becomes ours. Newco, if it goes through, having RHA< Zulu and Katete, and all the mining equipment, tech and expertise, has the potential to becomes a significant player in Zimbabwe.

Yes, we need more information, more detail. Questions need to be put to GR and Prem. But am hopeful we can move forward with a proper plan and proper due care of the interests of shareholders.

chippy, thanks for your post.

I may not agree with you but I view that post as perhaps the most constructive you have posted in a long time.

Appreciated.

Is clear to me there is a concerted effort behind the scenes, with certain posters here trying to drive this into the ground.