Member Info for Glib

I have read the TSR presentation and remain unconvinced by it. They were going to do an IPO to raise funds, but now it seems they have changed their minds. 2015 saw a loss of $4.5m and the Group is dependent on the financial support from its controlling shareholders to continue as a going concern. I couldn't find the 2016 accounts. I believe it will take about 8 years before they are ready to start mining. The amount of income they will need until then is not something that Stratex would be able to sustain even to just keep our existing 30% holding. All I can see from this is massive dilution of our holding. I don't know what will happen to Crusader but I believe we will get our money back as it is a secured loan. Crusader will probably need to find an alternate funding source but the suspension would have been for the same reason that Stratex were suspended.

I was just being pedantic. I haven't looked too much at what he has actually done for the company so can't say if it is good or not that he remains. I think it will take another week or so before we are any clearer on the path the BOD intend to take as they will need to think of a new way to move the company forward. We may also need to wait a bit longer before we know TSR's intentions.

No idea Kulab. I was never enamoured with the Crusader deal and said my best case scenario was we didn't go ahead with either the deal or give the reins to Hall and Foord. So far that's what we have but will wait to see where we go from here. If a merger is proposed it will require another vote but they will need to make it worthwhile. The BOD rejected the idea of the merger initially but if a formal proposal is made then they will need to put this to shareholders.

Technically the shareholders expressed wishes are that he stays as he was not voted out. We do need leadership and direction though. Not sure if Hall and Foord will be invited to the BOD, but they will also need to put together a proposal for the merger if they have not done it already. The only saving grace for Stratex right now is that they have money in the bank and no debt.

Never thought of that. What would a company pay for 30% of TSR and about �5.5m cash ? We don't have any other assets now do we?

Are they not supposed to get the RNS' checked by the Nomad first? Seems like they don't bother checking basic data.

Snowball has started. 1.4 paid

Tadtech on the advfn board posted the results Tadtech1 Nov '17 - 11:31 - 16081 of 16082 1 0 The vote has concluded By a small majority the CAS deal will not proceed By a small majority Marcus has been removed Peter Addison remains Due to a miswording Paul Foord and David Hall are not elected

I have asked the Nomad to comment on the fact that even just the handful of shareholders who have posted in the past 2 days voted against with almost double the published amount. Don't think it will do much, but would be good to hear some kind of explanation as to wtf is going on here.

Exactly what I was wondering Winston. Only way I can see those figures making sense is if they had already awarded the 78% to the new owners. I had 120,962 against. The only way this is going to fly IF it relists is if there's a blood great trampoline at the bottom for us to bounce off after the SP drops to 0.07.

I've never been convinced on the electric car - something else will need to be alongside it. The national grid couldn't cope with the demand. Maybe we should start SO on some EST?

Chaz - probably your regional or language settings are set to English (US). That is usually their keyboard layout.

1. To receive and consider the Company's annual accounts for the financial year ended 31 December 2016, together with the directors' and auditors' reports on the annual accounts 2. To appoint Moore Stephens LLP as auditors to the Company to hold office from the conclusion of the meeting until the conclusion of the next meeting at which accounts are laid before the Company and to authorise the directors to fix their remuneration 3. To elect Mr Simon Charles as a director of the Company 4. To elect Mr John Treacy as a director of the Company 5. To elect Mr James Normand as a director of the Company 6. To approve the Directors Remuneration Report for the financial year ended 31 December 2016 EXTRAORDINARY RESOLUTION 7. To disapply pre-emption rights and empower the directors to allot equity securities wholly for cash Was the last annual report that was riddled with errors unaudited? Many people were misled by this fiction and took part in the subsequent placing as the company seemed to have turned that corner. What happens if we vote against part 7? It would mean delisting, but would the company be declared bankrupt or continue trading? Would the assets be put in a firesale or would the BOD be free to do whatever they liked? So little information coming from the BOD. I get that PI's have effectively lost everything but a little clarity would not have taken much effort. I will probably be voting against.

At a guess I'd say to clear existing contracts and for the extra December payment. Possibly also to retain legal advisors for PUNO. It will probably cost a bit in fees to set up the cash shell so maybe this also. Strange how they didn't actually specify what the bottom line for shareholders is. Maybe they are keeping it a surprise until after the vote. So what are the odds of a few $20m+ MOU's coming in to pick up a cheap world class gold mine with some damp problems?

https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&nv=1&rurl=translate.google.co.uk&sp=nmt4&tl=en&u=https://www.logistra.de/news-nachrichten/nfz-fuhrpark-lagerlogistik-intralogistik/9259/test-amp-technik/elektromobilitaet-brennstoffzelle-als-range-exte&usg=ALkJrhgfqg-xE8H6QWKgNUeuXylGQsU-DA A little light on details such as range but at least Proton Motor are getting their name in the press. Interesting that the battery will do the heavy lifting before being recharged when the fuel cell takes over. Keep 'em coming please.

Has ISS produced or published anything relating to Stratex? I have seen the proactive article but can't see what they actually said.

So what's the point in putting this to a vote if they have already done it? Looks like the sale price is going to be the company liabilities - doesn't look like PI's will get anything. The shell company - is this going to be in place to collect on the PUNO dispute? Nothing in that for shareholders either after dilution.

I haven't thrown in the towel yet. I'm still looking for the damn thing. We don't know what the flooded mine may be valued at. We don't know what the value would be if it was partially flooded. We have no information of what they would use the money for if the 1000% dilution was accepted. How would the business be managed differently? We don't know the current production and finances of the company. The last lot of financial information seems to have been so full of errors that if we thought the situation was improving - that could be based on incorrect data (like the water levels) Can't make a decision without more data, but doubt I'd put more money into this. How would we be a cash shell - that would imply we had cash left over after paying off our debts. Would the sale value cover that and if so, what is the envisaged Market Cap? Why would the company want to retain its listing? Unless of course it's to get the money from PUNO?

It looks like they are trying to set CRND up as a cash shell. Will there be any cash after debts and costs though? What is the saleable value of the mine in its present state? What is the benefit in retaining our listing? 88.5% of the company is owned by people with more than a 3% shareholding. They could just save money and ask them if they are interested in a 10-fold increase in the number of shares (1000% dilution). One of the recent RNS' mentioned the Jan to June figures. "The Company's production for the period 1 January 2017 to 30 June 2017 was 2 320 Troy Ounces."

The had said on or about the 13th. I am hoping for today some time, but not holding my breath.