Member Info for Longtermview24

IBAB - TORP - clue in the acronym - Take OR Pay.
Arze

SXX, once it has spent the $600M will have accessed it's resource and the high risk construction (such that it exists - not in AA's eyes) will have been overcome. That's why it'll be able to raise debt on regular commercial terms in two years time. A genius such as you IBAB knows that full well. Arze.

SXX does not own the ground the the mine covers it is not their asset even when they reach it they have to pay royalties to landowners or the crown if under the coastline/national waters.

----

Feck right off IBAB. Now you're getting desperate. Tool

Additionally they are goiung to have to inject circa 600m over the next year or so, and plenty more besides if the mine is to be completed.

-----

Another misleading post by IBAB - what a shyster.

Its 600M DOLLARS NOT POUNDS. BIG DIFFERENCE and its over the next TWO years not year or so.

And thereafter the rest of the cost ought to be raised as debt not equity.

IBAB. Liar, coward, fake, fraud. Turd.

Add to that the value of the TORPS and the resource itself, once accessed, never mind what has been actually spent to date - and AA are stealing this from under the noses of sholders and the BOD are complicit in this highway robbery, or it certainly appears that way because their on the record statements and presentations do not correlate with this asset/company being sold for 5.5p.

They need to come out of hiding and face the music.

For someone who knows everything, you'd know that he would need to disclose if he owned over 1% (unless it's held by a third party). Disingenuous again.

IBAB what is the point of that post. Jim doesn't have to justify himself to you or explain himself. Karma's coming for you...tick tock

Nice post Jimter. You can tell the genuine posts and posters from the shysters.

That statement on the website, as Achille and others have pointed out - was the position BEFORE the AAL offer. Now PI's know that the options are AA or admin or fundraise - that changes the circumstances greatly

I'm a shareholder and the BOD hasn't contacted me - or any other shareholder for that matter as far as I'm aware - to canvass opinion on a PI raise. So your statement - I have quite reasonably assumed that they would have already tried the 'better' options before pretty much recommending a proposed bid @ 5.5p.- is wrong and misleading.

Shove your form of logic and self proclaimed intelligence where the sun don't shine.

Bull-ish - that might be the real reason, but unless they have a legitimate reason that can be openly and clearly disclosed and explained, then they should be ready for a class action

Big green thumb and thanks for your proactive response to this debacle. I definitely want to know, from the horses mouth not IBAB's, what the company has or hasn't considered regarding a fund raise from PI's and others.

Bull-ish - as Achille eloquently states, we don't have to accept it. As for IBAB, he posts half truths at best. He's come late to the scene and certainly wasn't waving his red flag pre-planning, pre-stage 1 funding or pre stage 2 equity raise. His presence - and timing thereof - is questionable.

That price only exists because of a proposed bid. It would have little or no bearing on any professional decision with regards to an offer price.

---

Utter balls. I could say the 3p price only existed because shorters distorted the market price. 5.4p is the current market price. Any placing premium or discount, if it happened tomorrow, would be benchmarked against this price. Same as all the other placings.

Love to try and get the last word in IBAB, but the word is normally fake. You seem very concerned about a successful raise. It's like you want this to fail, so you can rub noses, like Yellow's in it.

Agenda or not, you're a sick disgusting individual.

Equity financing, well, given that the equity was trashed it would need to raise almost three times current equity (@3.5p), and still require a substantial discount and need underwriting.

They have no doubt taken advice on this, and do not appear to be moving forward with this as an option

---

Pure speculation at best IBAB and perhaps another disgusting cowardly lie.

Placing could be done at a discount to current price (5.5p). The BOD might be considering this. You don't know and cant say otherwise (even though you try to).

Does many inexperienced investors include the II's who have dived into this project? Let the investors have a chance to find the funds for this 600 million USD stage. Why just state something that has not been tested or proven. Or is 600 million USD not enough to finish the first stage and we are not being told the full story again?

-----

Well said Achille!

The money could be put in escrow, just like the last set of convertibles and if the raise isn't successful, it's returned. Simples.

You seem to have got very animated in trying to shout down a PI led raise (no doubt some II's would join in). Seems like you want to shout it down because you want existing holders wiped out/eliminated/relieved of their shares somehow some way.

Why shouldn't PI's be allowed to "double down" as you say. Again you put forward pure speculation as if it were fact. You don't know how many of the purported 85k sholders would chip in, nor do you know the amount they would chip in.

As for failure. the odds are significantly reduced once the next tranche of $600M is raised. And, as you like to remind us, EVERY investment comes with an element of risk.

Take you risk and your advice and shove it where the sun don't shine.

#getitraised #handsoffAAL

Tex, I don't disagree, but not all offers need to be underwritten. I'm not sure why this avenue wasn't explored long before we got deep into extra time. Makes you wonder. The whole thing is a screw up. There was never any need to end up in this position. If it isn't gross negligence, it's pretty close.

Not "choice' IBAB. Fact. Your pompous reply to Yellow was disgusting - referencing the IFA for effect. Rubbing in his predicament in a thinly disguised manner. Self inflated egotistical shyte. Karma is coming for ya.

This extract from the SXX website has been quoted by a couple of posters -

“Despite having a significant and very supportive retail shareholder base, the Company does not believe there is sufficient depth from this sector alone to secure the capital necessary to fund the balance of capital funding requirement. This has been demonstrated in previous Open Offers which proved that retail support exists but in a limited capacity. “

I suggest it is being taken out of context and, as another poster commented (and I STRONGLY agree) now that PI's know the alternative is having their shares stolen by AA, they would dig deep to save their investment.

Also, I don't agree with the statement entirely. PI's were only offered a small allocation in the previous raises (1 for 22 for example) and it was always oversubscribed, so I don't think the company can honestly or accurately state - or know - PI appetite for a raise, particularly in the current circumstances where we're in do or die territory.