Member Info for Metalhead25

Thanks Tharisa, it’s brilliant that you take the time to communicate on these boards. I often think that the uncertainty and anxiety evident on these boards is out of all proportion to the tiny amount of effort it would take the company in question to clarify the matter. Despite that, you are virtually the only company I know of that bothers to post. It’s really excellent.

Thanks Starbright. I agree with your caveat here.

I look at it this way:

1. Prior to the transaction by which UFO acquires a larger interest in Hammersly (“the 90% Transaction”), Windfield and UFO own interests in Hammersly and Windfield owns shares in UFO.

2. The structure of the 90% Transaction is that UFO acquires an interest in Windfield from the owners of Windfield (“Owners”). The intention is to give UFO an additional indirect interest in Hammersly.

3. However, it is not part of the intention to give UFO an indirect interest in the UFO shares already held by Windfield. Therefore, those shares needed to be gotten out of Windfield. This will be what the TR1 was about - a preparatory step to enable the completion of the 90% Transaction. Presumably the transferee of the shares either is or ultimately will be a vehicle of Owners.

4. When the 90% Transaction completes, Owners will acquire further shares and interests in UFO.

5. The resulting structure is that Hammersly is owned by UFO and Windfield; Windfield is owned by UFO and Owners; and Owners hold shares in UFO separately from Windfield.

Therefore I view the TR1 as indicative of steps being taken to facilitate completion of the 90% Transaction.

I accept there are uncertainties and we can’t be sure of the above, but isn’t it the most likely interpretation?

From a value perspective, the bad news today is nowhere near as significant as all the recent good news on Hammersly. As compared with a month or two ago, the company is worth more yet the price is lower. The market is not rational and this is a good opportunity to buy.

Wow, someone has spent £200k on SRB shares today. Wonder if they know something

It shouldn’t really require much more patience for a substantial improvement in the SP. When the gold price was around this level in January the SP was around 90. Since then we’ve had the accounts issue but that should be resolved soon. That aside, news has been positive since January. Should be moving in the right direction again soon

I think it’s just that after 6 months or so of the SP being at or below 1.2 (mostly below) there are quite a few investors who are either underwater or just impatient and who are looking for any opportunity to cash in at an acceptable level. I don’t think that’s a merits-based judgment from those people; it’s more a personal sentiment thing or specific to what they’re looking to achieve on what timescale.

Today we’ve had some buying interest but the upward volume is too low to overcome the downward pressure from those just looking to sell into news.

What I think is to be expected is that upward volume should increase as more data comes in and particularly if we get a JORC estimate. Meanwhile the “just want out” group should reduce in numbers. That is the balance we are contending with and the underlying dynamics of it are moving in our favour all the time. The upshot is that it’s wrong to expect a big spike on news days, but what is happening is that our ability to move up is improving, and the move itself will come

Hi everyone else. I’m not responding to him again. You can find the answer to his point about Rule 19 in my previous posts. He’s not approaching this in good faith but rather with a fixed agenda. Therefore, ignore

You might of course turn out to be right about the company, but in one day yesterday we had from you:

- we’re about to be compulsorily suspended (not true and when confronted with the rules and official announcements you don’t respond but just move on);
- the SP has hit a “new low” (also not true);
- other shareholders are not happy (maybe so but not a very forensic point)

Meanwhile the company has avoided being too badly affected by Covid despite Brazil being appallingly badly hit, has beaten its forecast for Q1 production and is turning out promising exploration results. The issue with money being taken by managers is worrying but actually any company can suffer from employee fraud and the failure to pick it up is a control/audit issue, not something the Chief Exec should have been attending to personally.

My last message to you, since your negative agenda is clearly driving your arguments, rather than the other way round, which is of no interest to me

Had a quick look at Advfn. Most of the negative posts are from Trader536, which is clearly you. A small handful of others annoyed that the board hasn’t fully resolved the accounting issue yet, which is fair enough, although hardly the apocalyptic issue you’re making it out to be

Having looked into this in a bit more detail, I’m pretty sure it’s you who’s mistaken. The relevant AIM requirement is in Rule 19. That Rule does not itself state a sanction for breach. Accordingly, the sanctions are provided by Rules 40 and 42, both of which are discretionary and do not provide for automatic suspension.

The guidance notes accompanying the Rules do say that the Exchange “will” suspend companies who are late in filing accounts, but that is only guidance and clearly qualified by the recent specific announcements that extensions of time are available. Here is the latest such announcement (as far as I can see): https://docs.londonstockexchange.com/sites/default/files/documents/Inside%20AIM%20-%20Covid%2019%20financial%20reporting%20deadlines.pdf

So… I have provided plenty of material to back up my view of this. You are currently relying on mere assertion. Can you back up your stance with something concrete?

Hi all

As far as I can tell, all this scaremongering about the accounts is unnecessary, and BushyTailed is wrong to treat 30 June as a hard deadline.

If you look Serabi up on Companies House, you can see that we already have an extra 3 months to file accounts (30 September 2021) as far as they are concerned.

The AIM requirement to file within 6 months of financial year end is separate, but it seems there is currently an extra 3 months available for that as well: https://www.iasplus.com/en-gb/news/2021/01/joint-regulators-statement-for-companies-auditors-and-users-of-financial-accounts-on-reporting-timetables

I agree that a lag would be expected. I also think in this case it didn’t help that the results came out just as rhodium took a mad dive. Rhodium now recovering and when the dust settles THS should rise

Hi all

Can I suggest a reset of the tone and content on this board? It was quite a friendly and constructive place until a few days ago but has now turned a bit sour.

I don’t know whether Torreguas’s rumour was true and I don’t much care because it seems to me (and the company has confirmed) it doesn’t matter all that much either way. In any case, I think it’s wrong to pin the SP movement of the last few days on that rumour. And finally, if the rumour has moved the SP, and it’s wrong or irrelevant, the SP will move back up again won’t it.

So why don’t you all stop sniping and make this board a nice to be again for existing investors, and a welcoming place to join for potential new investors?

If (a) the lease was on track before 5 May, and (b) it was only on 5 May that a sale of the land was mentioned, with Corcel then hoping to sign a lease with the buyer, and (c) the landowner is now not selling, that would all seem to imply that the arrangement with the existing landowner referred to in (a) can simply be resurrected and that, if anything, the path forward is more straightforward than before the prospect of a land sale intervened. What am I missing?

That might only apply to full year results?

No, 100% of the grid connection rights

Sorry, was only trying to explain the current low SP. Why it popped so high in 2017 I don’t know

Two possible explanations:

1. After a long bad run, the market needs to see the finance in the bag before believing the turnaround is on.

2. The fortunes of shares like this are heavily dependent on sentiment and momentum and this one just hasn’t captured people’s imagination yet.

I think both are true to some extent. Certainly, in relation to 2, it’s very rare to see people talking up KZG on other message boards, whereas the boards of other small cap miners are full of mentions of the likes or Corcel and Rockfire. That could change at any time.

I see today’s update as broadly positive. It was pretty clear already that there was some sort of delay or issue with the new equity investment so to have it clarified that the investment is still on track albeit delayed is encouraging. Great news that work is continuing in the meantime. And encouraging noises on diamonds and HMS.