Acker - the previous debt to Goddard is 2.5 million so that’s 1 billion shares. Then there’s the current accumulated debt from Jan to March for the mining. 50k/day that’s another 4.5 million to Goddard. At a share price of .20 or lower that’s 2 billion shares. Then George’s loan and the law suit. So that’s another billion shares. So that’s 4 billion on April 9th there. On April 10th George uses the last .5 billion to raise a million to use as working capital. And then in June there’s an egm for another 5 billion shares
That’s the beauty of George. He did give Goddard 2.5 million worth of shares, but then George ran out of share issuance space so asked Goddard back for those shares, did a placing and spent it on equipment. Now he owes Goddard the shares but doesn’t have the cap space so needs to increase the cap to issue the shares back to Goddard. And that my friends is how George plays the punters. What George conveniently omitted in the AGM notice is that this is the payback for Goddard from the December shares. He also owns them now for January to March. That’s another 3.5 million usd worth of shares. This is according to George’s own breakdown of costs for the mining. And with that and the lawsuit settlement prem will burn through the 4 billion shares in the next few months
Hasiba - towards the end when mark asks if the plant is running 24/7, George says ‘of course not’. That confirms it is not running continuously.
A ceo with mining expertise would be a welcome change. GR doesn’t want to bring one in cause it would showcase all his mistakes
Hasiba - I realise the last interview was long but you should really watch it. George says the xrt sorters don’t work and the uv sorters are not doing a good enough job to remove all the waste material. So Goddard have to extra careful what they put on the ROM pad because the sorters don’t work
Mugwump - the plant needs new sorters. No one knows how long that will be to source and transport to Zulu. 3-4 months minimum. And in that time, the plant is unable to produce anything it can sell. Also, George clearly said the plant is not running continuously so not sure where you got that from
Hasiba - voting no will not result in administration. Voting no will result in an EGM to replace George with a ceo with mining expertise and then that person can determine what the best course of action is. And if it’s to increase the sharecap, then sure. But at least there will be a chance of getting Zulu into production.
Acker - I totally agree with the statement of focus on the business and not George. That’s why shareholders should vote no, that is a focus on the business. And have George replaced for the good of the business. This was the same argument used last year to get shareholders to vote yes. And what was the result. 5 billion shares dumped and zero production. A different ceo with mining experience can bring Zulu into production
Hasiba - everyone knows getting an egm is difficult to organise. But this time if you vote no, George would have to call an EGM. Just like last year. And shareholders can require additions to the EGM resolutions. Vote yes, and get 4 billion shares dumped in the next few months as George tries to fix the plant while have very little idea of how to fix it
Acker - George just wrote that alternative to scare shareholders to vote yes. Look what happened last year. Voted no and soon after an EGM was called. This time around it would be the same thing. Vote no, and an EGM will need to be called and then shareholders can require a vote to replace George with a ceo with mining expertise
Acker - I’m not sure. They have lost a of money dropping from 1p to barely holding .2. George will dump billions of shares to pay for new sorters, new equipment. Stark won’t pay for any of it. Remember last year when George said stark were going to pay for all the remedies and then they didn’t. And George spent 14 million to buy new equipment. That’s good to happen again
George can’t just issue more shares. If shareholders vote no, he would have to do a conditional open offer and have to call an egm. And shareholders should demand that an experienced mining ceo be appointed as a condition to support the egm
Acker - that’s not really true. You just need a few hundred million shares to vote no, and the resolution will not pass with the 75%. Then an egm will need to called and shareholders can add the appointment of a new ceo as a condition. I think there are enough disgruntled shareholders hearing the same hot air from George to vote no
Acker - why all this aversion to getting a new ceo who has mining experience? It’s like shareholders are happy with having a ceo with very limited mining experience trying to build a mine. Soon I’m sure we will see a very concentrated effort like last year to get shareholders to support the share increase. Last year they said it was critical to getting the mine to produce. Well the plant is not producing and George has spent all the money. Why take the risk again. A new ceo with mining experience is the right way to go. And that requires a no vote