Member Info for gorsuch

Interesting view from Yahoo finance.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/chaarat-gold-holdings-lon-cgh-124726646.html

It's just a thought!! but when people are in financial trouble they usually sell the family silver first, so as they haven't really found anything yet and they can't afford to drill it, I wouldn't be surprised if they don't sell Hans camp.

We have lost the one thing that this company had above other Aim companies, our BOD we're held in high esteem and trusted completely, unfortunately they have managed to lose credibility and a great deal of trust, that is not something you can buy back, it is going to take them a long time to earn it back.

As stated they don't have to give us any information from the review, but if they did decide to share the information, how would we know if it was all the information they had good and bad, they could just give out the good bits, it all comes back to trust, hence I think the bottom will be around the 0.60 mark.

people state we have 4 assets, but we don't own Cobre and Redmoor isn't really ours until we have paid for it.

I've stopped being amazed by the naivety, how supposedly intelligent people still believe what's written on these types of boards can actually move a share price up or down, if a person can't read all the posts and make up their own mind, then they shouldn't be dealing in shares.

This Cobre situation reminds me of bad tenants, they start off paying rent money every month without fail, but one month they can't pay on time so you give them some slack, same thing next month so you give them a bit more slack, that's because they were good payers and you can't really afford to lose them, eventually they stop paying all together but you can't get rid because they have a contract, so you threaten to take them to court and evict them, hence they plead with you to not take them to court for two weeks, we’ve got loads of money coming so we “promise” to pay you more bond money and pay up all our arrears.

I think the BOD gave the major client far too much slack in the early days, which has left them looking extremely gullible (easily deceived or tricked, and too willing to believe everything that other people say ), hence when people say it wasn’t the BOD’s fault it was that nasty major client, I think they are all equally to blame.

Placing supported by the Company's largest existing shareholder, the Manners family (That states "supported" not participated) SML needed Manners support because as the biggest shareholders their holding would be diluted, even though it was only a very small dilution you would want their blessing to do it, so obviously they gave their support for the raising.

I may be wrong but that's how I read it.

troutisout, The RNS stated that "participation by three directors, two employees and a consultant" obviously that is the order in which they were offered, directors would have had 1st refusal and so on down the line, so the only person that could possibly fit your cornerstone description would be the consultant?

troutisout, " It is quite clear the cornerstone investor took a large lump of the placing"

Who in your view is the "cornerstone investor"

dvh, it would appear they did actually have a plan A, they were just going to pay for Redmoor in cash, hence it answers my question as to what happened to all the money between 13th and 29th May, apparently 900k was unexpectedly soaked up by LCCM, I say unexpectedly because if it were know about in advance, they wouldn't have agreed to pay NAE at the end of May.

The major client is obviously part of a much bigger entity than SML, so trying to take them through the courts in a foreign country will be both time consuming and very expensive, I think the reason they haven't issued court proceedings as yet is they can't actually afford to do it, so I am still of the belief we will never see the 4mil.

I’ve gone over the time-lapse of RNS’s that “earningacrust” kindly put on the board, but all I’ve done is summarise the relevant points.

RNS dated 18th March. We have sufficient cash to fund the acquisition of Redmoor.
RNS dated 13th May. Contracts signed with an agreed settlement date of 30 May 2019.
RNS dated 24th May. Potential receipt of US $4,065,000 within two weeks.
RNS dated 29th May. Defer payment to NAE until 27 June to allow funds from Cobre client.

It clearly states March 18th we had the cash to buy out NAE’s 50%, group cash balance was US$1.240m as at 31 March 2019, still no cash problem on the 13th May when we sign the purchase contract, so what happened to all the cash in the two weeks between May 13th and 29th??.

The potential receipt of US $4,065,000 was price sensitive information, so they shouldn’t have even known about it on the 13th May when they signed the contract, if they did then they would have had to tell us about it, so to defer the purchase payment because the client didn’t pay the $4,065,000, just doesn’t make sense.

Probably because as the biggest shareholders their holding would be diluted' even though it was only a very small dilution you would want their blessing, so obviously they gave their support for the raising.

I may be wrong but that's how I read it.

Not a problem Toze.

Everything I put in my post I got from the RNS see below.

Highlights
· Placing supported by the Company's largest existing shareholder, the Manners family (That states "supported" not participated)
· Participation by three directors, two employees and a consultant. (Obviously that is the order in which they were offered, directors would have had 1st refusal.)

Alan Broome, Chairman of Strategic Minerals, commented:
"This modest placing has been undertaken as we await the anticipated receipt of over US$4 million

Alan Broome refereed to the raise as "This modest placing" and yet the Manners family didn't want to participate even at 1.40, only 3 directors put money in but obviously not enough, so then ask 2 employees to chip in but still not enough, so ask a consultant who isn't even an employee to chip in.

If it was only a "modest" raise at such a good discount, why does it smack of desperation looking at the people they eventually got to buy in.

To be honest that RNS sounded more like a script for the TV program, send in the bailiffs. I don't believe sml will ever see that money, but no doubt the major client got a good price for buying the quantities outlined in the initial contract, so they could actually take what they have already paid for and sell it to some of sml's current customers, that way they get back their money and the customers probably get it cheaper than from sml.

I thought the deal to buy the other 50% share of the tin mine was sorted before the 4ml reared it's ugly head, so how were they going to pay for it?

I lost a bit of faith in JP over how the initial information about the major client was dealt with, also in how this money raise has been dealt with, don't they realise that it's not what you do that counts, but the way that you do it.

Slurm, "Companies don't write letters of intent to buy time"

"anticipates having significant funds very shortly and has asked SMG to refrain from progressing legal action for two weeks"

That sounds like buying time to me!

dv, I just feel that the RNS 24 May 2019 has too many if's and but's, plus it's full of good intentions made by the client.

The major client has informed SMG that it "ANTICIPATES" having significant funds very shortly

The major client has "INDICATED" that it wishes to negotiate the balance of the contract

SMG has now received written confirmation of the major client's "INTENT" to make payment

At the end of all these three statements from the RNS, you could actually put the words "They might or They might not"

I suppose it's just a case of lets wait and see what happens.

I sold out of SML at the begging of March and put it all into CGH, last week I sold out of CGH with roughly a 19% profit and looking to put it all back into SML. My theory is (rightly or wrongly) that if!! the money is paid then the share price won't move, purely because it's been stated and expected to be paid, but!! if it's not paid when they expect it to be paid, then the share price will take a hit.

This big customer has already defaulted in the past so can't trust them 100%, so it's not a done deal until they actually cough up the cash, hence I won't be buying back in until the cash hits the bank, just airing on the side of caution.

Whatever it's described as and regardless of who buys the shares and at what price, in the end it's a dilution so I can't see why the shares would go up.

To be honest DT there's not a lot to write home about at the moment is there, in fact it was about this exciting when we were suspended a year ago.