Member Info for Crazytowner

Yes, the BOD votes would have have been very powerful, but of the 22m they hold, Adam has 5m plus however many his wife has so it wouldn't be quite so cut and dry.

If there was good reason that the other board members wanted him out then I am OK with that, although the decisions have all been sanctioned by them (NRR Etc).

If not, then something very unusual is occurring

Morning GB33,
We don't know where those 300m shares ended up, a lot most likely with PIs, but based upon the EGM voting numbers of about 30m, an entity could hold less than the 3% disclosure and control the vote.
I know it sounds like a conspiracy theory, but with a $30 billion deposit and growing, perhaps somebody didn't want Glencore partnering with us and them securing the offtake.

Have been thinking about the events yesterday.

I keep coming back to the fact that run of the mill PIs would have voted to keep Adam and were most likely to have rejected the new share issue authority.

From the posts across the boards it seems we were all quite accepting that there would be no problem with him getting reelected and were therefore very lazy with our voting.

If the BOD wanted him out then I trust there was good reason, if they didn't then we have an entity looking to unsettle and damage the business going forward for which a temporary drop in their holding is acceptable for whatever they are hoping to achieve.

If he's gone due to the boards voting, so be it.
If the board want him to stay they will find a away.

Ultimately it we have lost him through our own relaxed approach to this AGMs voting then we only have ourselves to blame.

Business will continue, but we should remember that there will be a lot of eyes on Kun Manie and whilst Adam added some financial security with the income generating NRR deal people will be looking for as big as piece for as little as possible.

Henners,

If we assume directors voted in favour along with some PIs, there would need to be say 20m votes against the reappointment. That's quite a number.

Somebody with 30m shares could control the vote, stay below the 3% threshold, mop up a load at the current price and even more so later having suuppered AMCs financing plans.

There was a real plan beneficial to us shareholders going forward, perhaps not in the interest of somebody who wamts to buy us cheaper, later

Got to be honest, am kicking myself at the moment.

Have felt very comfortable with AMC going forward and haven't felt the need to post much or make a big deal about voting yes to the resolutions.
I didn't even remind colleagues to get their votes in and there is a chance mine didn't make it as left it late.

The only contentious resolution I thought there would be was the additional 200m share issue authority, I never imagined today's outcome.

The TEO is important so is a BFS.

To maximise the return for shareholders AMC need to keep all parties interested until sale negotiations kick off.

We will not get a good price if we are only marketable to a single Russian company.

The BFS is not wasting millions, it would be debt financed and once completed the sizeable unpaid balance would be rolled up into the main construction financing, at which point a major would step in.

Non binding offtake most likely with Glencore, progressing towards binding.
An immediate income stream which debt would be obtainable for the BFS.
A strategic investment designed to provide the equity portion of Kun Manies Capex.
A plan to not dilute shareholders any further.

Those are all sizeable progressions designed to make AMC a grown up self sustaining company which were all approved by the other board members also.

Well said Henners,
A very disappointing day if it's PIs that voted him out.
Hard to believe though as over the past few weeks don't recall a single poster suggesting voting against his reappointment

Adams sale of the shares would have been approved by the Nomad and company secretary.
There are multiple reasons that permit a director to sell in a close period.

AH brought Glencore to the table and brought in an investment that provides immediate income and a realistic chance of no further dilution to us PIs, all in a few months.
He was obviously leading project and BFS financing where the other Directors did not have the skill set.
Need clarity around this.

On a positive note, IG is now showing 100% long

GB33,
I did leave getting my votes in quite late but received confirmation from ii that they had been submitted.
Am trying to get confirmation from the Nomad as to whether they made it in time.
I can't believe that shareholders would vote against reappointing Adam, anybody that thought it was a good idea to do so can clearly see the markets reaction.

Glandore.
My point is the directors used there voting rights to vote against.
We know that very few actually vote as we saw at the EGM. Why no release of the numbers this time?
I submitted my votes this week, in favour of all the resolutions, that should have gone a long way to securing his reappointment

I can't see PIs voting him out yet approving 200m shares. All I can think is that the other directors did

Hey BobTpt,

Its not really something that I hope but expect.
In my 10+ years invested here there has at no time been any problem with the Russian authorities, quite the opposite in fact.
We were granted 100% rights when we expected a JV and we are part of the Far East development programme along with various other initiatives to develop the Far East.

If it was somehow AMCs fault or lack of care to the process, or reflect Russia in a poor light then I would be concerned, but it clearly is not and they haven't.
Furthermore, I would expect AMC to have been talking to the relevant authorities throughout.

Not feeling anything of the sort.

An extension was submitted in case it was needed, of which I suspect hundreds of mining companies did similar.

It has now become necessary to use the extension and AMC and the appropriate agencies will work through the process together which will be governed by the Subsoil Law / Legislation

OTL, My original value was a very quick calc that I did in my head and made some future resource assumptions which I have now removed, hence mentioning it on here initially for others views.

Shadowless,
Correct, the secondary metals highlighted in the RNS are what the non binding terms must have stated they would pay for.
However, this is an improvement where previously it was anticipated nothing would be receiveable.
So presently items such as Rhodium, Cobalt, Silver etc. remain a benefit to the offtaker / smelter, but to an aquirer looking to keep everything in house it would have value.
Redid my calcs and it looks to me that the Rhodium in the concentrate could be worth about $500m (although the price is very volatile)

I don't know MD which is why I put it out there for others to respond as am having difficulty tying the secondary metals between slides 7 and 8 together and we need to bear in mind that presented in this way and completeness is new to us

I guess it depends whether you think the 0.084 g/t is based on per tonne of Nickel or DMT of concentrate that is expanded upon in the next slide.

JoeBass,
I think you need to check your calculations