Member Info for CityOfDelight

Even if you're 99% sure EMH will end up being bought out, if the company or its shareholders are relying on an eventual buyout that would inevitably cause downwards pressure on the share price. So it's much better to run the company as if it will go all the way to production. And if it's really a good viable resource you don't necessarily need to sell ever because you can rely on the dividends.

Never underestimate the value of voting and making your opinion heard.

And for a similar reason CEZ could theoretically offer to buy part of EMH's stake in Geomet without completely eliminating the existence of the minority partner.

Again, I'm not saying it would be great for CEZ or for EMH shareholders. Just pointing out it could happen.

You guys are assuming it's all or none. But CEZ could also offer a partial buyout of EMH to whichever shareholders want to accept, in order to buy the shares now while their cheap and maybe even take over control of the minority company, while allowing the remaining shareholders to keep their stake for now.

Not saying that would realistically happen but it's not impossible.

It goes both ways though. Both positive and negative news is possibly being hidden before the AGM.

Observation:

Of the last 25 posts on this forum https://www.lse.co.uk/ShareChat.html?ShareTicker=EMH&share=European-Metals-Holdings

14/25 posts were written by Skelly, and all of them making the same exact argument again and again. There is a word for this and it starts with an s.

Https://www.facebook.com/deputygomez/posts/dont-feed-the-trolls-as-this-page-keeps-growing-you-may-have-noticed-an-increase/1180615284209498/

Skelly, it seems your mind is too small to comprehend the long term ramifications of the tin and tungsten.

Just because it is not viable to extract today, does not automatically mean it has no value today.

Https://www.reuters.com/world/china/eu-shortlists-tungsten-rare-earths-first-stockpile-curb-china-reliance-2026-05-20/

It's true that tungsten is not currently part of the DFS. But that doesn't mean it will never be extracted or processed, and on the contrary, it increases the strategic value of Cinovec.

"If Keith makes millions, shareholders will have made many multiples of today’s valuation. "

This is simply false. According to resolution 6, KC would be awarded with millions of shares if the SP reaches 60c AUD, which not only is less than double today's share price, but would also leave many long time holders at a loss.

And the worst part of this is, the share price could double on a general change of sentiment in the market for precious metals, without KC needing to do any work at all.

We need more oversight, not less.

Voting against resolution 3 and/or 8 is not hindering anything, because management can still bring any specific proposals for a vote. Blanket permission to hand out shares to unspecified recipients at an unspecified price is just unacceptable.

Threatening that the company will stall without further funding, but without saying what the funds are going to be spent on, is just blackmail.

Explain to me why you think resolutions 3, 6, 7 and 8 are justified.

I do not want a generic answer for all of them. Each one has dilution for different reasons, so each one needs its own justification.

You might not be wrong, but that would seem a little corrupt in my view if that is what they're waiting for

I fail to follow your train of thought. So because you think dilution is under control, therefore you will vote to make more dilution easier?

Are you really fine with a cash raise significantly below the current share price? And even if you are, why pre-approve it now without seeing the terms?

Similar thing happened on the ASX a couple days ago.

Even if you bought Nvidia or bitcoin you would have probably sold it way too early.

There seems to be a need to respond to anything anyone says with a long-winded AI-generated response that often doesn't even address their concerns, whether you agree with them or not, for the sheer purpose of flooding the zone.

The reason I am opposed to giving management free rein to raise capital is not that I have a problem with further dilution.

Rather I have a problem with dilution at a low price without shareholder consent.

I have no problem with a cash raise or a buyout at why I would consider fair value.

Obviously everyone has different opinions what fair value is.

Ironically, the increasing opposition to new critical mineral and precious metal projects around the world could potential increase profitability for those that already exist or do get built without or despite opposition.

Yeah, it's looking good