Member Info for Crazytowner

Nice top up ??

Amur Tigers, QQR, Tad something or other.
Many names, still a fool

This is my final post on the subject as i think clarifies my point.
The below is from an old poster on iii who spoke to Brian Savage directly just after the Crede deal was entered into.

Company Call
Market Discussions
lse:amc
Back

Psyclops
Dec '15
Morning All,

I haven’t read the board much after the news as I am away on business and had a team night out last night but have got a gist of the vibe and comments.

I had a chat with one of the Directors in NY last night, Brian Savage, kind enough to call me on Skype after a few messages back and forth and thought there are some points that should be shared.

Firstly about Wachs, the guy made a mistake 20 years ago and did time and has been barred for life from ever acting as a broker or banker.
The background of the 20M was he was in debt to 6 Casinos for 30m and getting squeezed.
Think about that - in debt to casinos for 30M and he is still breathing.

In any event, he had a problem (gambling) in his 30s, made full repayment and did time for it and moved on.

Crede are not in this for short term profit - they expect to keep the majority of their holding and want to profit from it in the long run and for that to happen, the SP has to go upnot down so there is no benefit to them shorting it down prior to any placing - certainly not this one as the placing was at recent highs rather than lows.

There is one caveat though that according to Russian legislation they cannot own 25% of a strategic resource so at any time as it gets close the will need to reduce.

They will notify their holdings and are also required to notify any changes.

This funding and securing it now means they have 90% of the DFS funding requirements already secured and they do not need to spend time or resources on securing more finance - the balance they expect will come from the Far East Development Fund.

This last part is a big deal, especially in the current climate.

Lanstead were available and willing but they didn’t want a credit line that would feed equity into the market constantly as happened last time, they wanted a major shareholder to come on board which is what this is.

TDT,

If the BOD thought a Lanstead deal had been better than the Crede deal they would have gone lanstead, regardless of what anybody posted here.

They decided upon Crede because they thought they were getting a "long term institutional investor" as per the RNS and not the usual rinsing into the market that Lanstead had performed previously.

The BOD chose what they believed was the best option but got it wrong in the understanding of the agreement and intentions of Crede.

Thankfully myself and others had the foresight to campaign and vote against it continuing.

TDT,

The lanstead agreement only worked out so well as they were able to capitalise on the licence approval.
I don't recall anything being said by AMC and lanstead that they wanted a new deal but didn't because of LSE BB postings.

I disagree that going with Crede was because there were not other options available, it was perfectly clear that the BOD thought they had a "long term institutional investor" but ended up with the exact opposite.
It was therefore perfectly reasonable to think they declined better deals as they thought they had finally gained institutional support.

So i don't accept that the PIs twho wanted an alternative to Lanstead take responsibility for the BOD messing up the due diligence and not understanding the contract mechanisms of what they signed up for.

Thankfully most PIs saw sense and voted to end an agreement which would have pretty much wiped out all holders

Yes, he is representing AMC at NRR in the same way Rob Marsden is and reporting into AMCs BOD. A big difference in being a decision maker as opposed to following instructions.

I can't remember the exact terminology from the rns last year but it was something like amc now being an exploration and resource development company.
As i said, this appears to be in conflict to what Lorenzo Investments is as well as his other consultancy role.
Only way i can see this being acceptable by amc is if he is on the outside now (obviously with the exception of NRR)

OTL, something obviously occurred at the AGM which is being concealed with the votes not being released and lack of any solid update of legal consultations.
The role of president for us is pretty irrelevant as directors carry the responsibility and as this new roles and company would appear to be a conflict of interest.
Id say he is now out of the loop with AMC and there in name only.

It does appear that AH has served his purpose at AMC and is moving onto the next thing.

Keep up the posting TDT, gently calling it right for the last 6 years.

Although totally disagree with the recent discussion you had with RL as why Tom was brought on board

Astar,
It is clear to everyone that you post under the moniker "Amjad" in the telegram group. I suspect that you
have a few others across the boards too.

But we have also been told that they were looking at multiple investments and made about a million from the warrants.

Working capital is not going go be anywhere near that level as we are no longer exploring and the likes of RYs salary can be classified within any BFS funding.

As to what we can can get for our money, we certainly got a lot for out money with NRR.

The fact is that a company has been set up in the same format by which we acquired NRR and there was obviously a reason the CFO felt comfortable resigning having just taken circa years salary in shares.

Looks like another company has been incorporated for a new AMC investment.

Courtesy of Robert in the telegram group

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/13058272/filing-history

You know what will appear on AMCs balance sheet Geng,
their income producing investment in NRR

Geng,
Why would I include equity dilution as debt when I know they are such different things?

Geng,
AMC is debt free

It could quite simply be that he can't afford to do another year of reduced salary or receiving shares in lieu of salary.

Outsourcing the function rather than employing a new CFO indicates to me that this role is not required medium to long term.

It seems to me that any submittal deadlines to the end of this year have been suspended and it is up to AMC to set the date within the next 2 years.

The below link is a bit clearer
https://www.rosnedra.gov.ru/page/437.html?mm=686&ml=271

Yes, it's very reassuring to see Russian agencies making changes to law & government decrees specifically to deal with issues caused by Covid 19.
I'd imagine pretty much all 2020 deadlines have been suspended.

Was doing a bit of digging to see if Rosnedra have issued any guidance on 2020 deadlines and found the below.
I have always believed an extension would be granted and judging by the below feel there is no risk.

https://www.eversheds-sutherland.com/global/en/what/articles/index.page?ArticleID=en/coronavirus/Coronavirus_Changes_in_legislation_in_the_field_of_subsoil_use_and_energy_Russia