Member Info for Moljen

Seriously Wolf whatever is said here does not affect the share price, it is what it is based on past performance and future expectations. You may think that after one long car crash we are suddenly going to pull off a blinder in which case we can progress and release some serious value out of some potential assets. We may but at this moment in time myself and the market are saying we won't manage it. It's up to the management of the company to convince the market otherwise. What I raise are the issues why I think the market isn't buying it and if it doesn't buy it we get poorer as we all have over the last five years. You can ignore them, insult people who raise them but it ain't going to make any difference to your wealth. Anyway have a good weekend.

Mal, also uncalled for. However as a shareholder since the information won't be provided here it'll be something to raise with the relevant parties as it's sort of against the rules to release price sensitive information in these circumstances to one party and not the general public. What a waste everybodies time.

See lots of name calling so for a change a piece of news recently out in last few hours regarding Zim $ Bonds, another currency crisis appears to be in the making. It was a bland RNS, better than nothing but in terms of a huge leap forward it isn't it and on a macro scale the gods have moved against us as there is now a problem with how any possible was going to be provided. "Zimbabwe moves to stabilise the bond note" for your google searches.

Thanks Mal, or forward it by email ... I've a throwaway dress at gmail start is d5nrwr8gt@

Well it's the the sort of purpose of a share chat board isn't it.? Find, opinion on, share with others, get more opinion on - sort of leads to more rationale decision making. Sorry if you're here for some other purpose.

You didn't invite me to a Friday wine and women evening once, I took it personally ... am still gutted

Wish I'd read this thread before watching the football - not a sports gambler but if I'd seen them odds I'd have put a bet on. Not begrudging anybody else's good fortune so well done Chilston, spend your gains disgracefully and enjoy

CF - so now it's not about money but skills. So by skills I assume you mean people and processes, pray tell how that ties up with their financial performance. £7K turnover and $160K loss hardly suggests lots of employees so exactly where are these skills.
Also if one assumes the $4M of assets are subject to depreciation (an accounting requirement) it would make up the bulk of $160K loss so means even less people.
The commercial logic is still not apparent to me and so far I think the numbers contradict the reasoning you have provided in that they don't indicate what you are suggesting. You back up values for resource with pages of calculations yet this time when we have only have 3 number being $4M assets, $7K turnover and $160K loss you seem to be bale to turn this into we'll be getting cheap rates, priority and know skills. It doesn't stack up!

prof, my apologies I assumed everybody knew the what behind theses deals I'm looking for answers as to the why we are diluting by 20% to en dup paying what we'll have to pay if we don't cos it's a shit market out there for what we need right now. Where's the cash coming from, are we getting double diluted down the line

prof, it's quite scary if you're invested here and don't know the answer to that. It's 6 exploration drill rigs. You must be so trusting ???

I see the sense in drilling i fail to see the logic in diluting by 50% in a buyers market when it would've been so simple to explain the £'s benefits of doing this deal rather than getting a good price. Yes we're going round in circles because I ask the same question and you don't answer it, pounds, shillings and once and shareholder value, what benefit do we as shareholders get by doing this than rather driving a hard bargain. The questions of where is the cash for our contributions to ongoing costs for both these acquisitions aren't answered, sounds like another soon to be placing, another 50%. I simply don't understand how based on past performance how you can be so certain without having some actual verifiable information which could be so very easily provided. Maybe I'm just more cynical / realistic than you depending upon where you sit. Just worries me when basic questions can't be answered. They tend to be the fundamental ones towards outcomes.

Napom, you may be right and the dilution effect won't be but that doesn't explain why we are acquiring 50% of a plant hire company doing SFA for near 20% dilution. You're like a politician avoiding the question IMO, I'm simply trying to garner a commercial logic as to what competitive advantage we get via this aspect of the transaction.

Thank you Jessell, I'm .46 by the way. Good choice, mines a rather nice organic Bianco. I actually don't mind giving up 20% of the Company if there was something which explained the Commercial Logic of it. Say for example, in return Prem Zulu and xyzzy other projects will receive at cost drilling or something we could quantify cost plus 5% instead of the usual market plus rate. At the minute the whole thing just says why, why, why and all I have to go on from past experience is Riverfort and our awesome Limestone project. One suggested wtf are you doing without hindsight (Riverfort) and one with hindsight has left a slightly sour taste in the mouth. Theres not really nay publicly available information available about any of the parties in all of this, not even basic stuff like 3 year financials, 3 year company history.I've researched and there's more available about me. How f**** sad is that about something we're supposedly passionate about? And yet we give up another 20% of our company without so much as a hard question asked.

Napom, okay your first statement is an obvious, it's why companies exist. The Zim govt putting up money would obviously be truly stunning but thats the problem even George in the Proactive interview was more or less "fuck knows". Yes on paper looks like there's options to acquire good rights. Circum, there's no evidence it will nor any evidence it won't so it's a 50/50. None of that changes my original question is what's the commercial logical of diluting by 20%, there is no priority gain, there is no cost advantage so why do it? Whose to say we're not doing another Riverfort with this proposal, I don't understand why you are so reluctant to consider that more information would be beneficial to all shareholders. At the end of the day your action group does what it wants, I struggle to see it's point though if you don't ask these fundamental questions about something you're passionate about. Does a $7K turnover and %160K loss for a fifth of our company not even make you go eh? what we doing here 'arry, I don't quite get this? No problem if it doesn't, I have no issues if my questions / concerns aren't yours.

Napom, I totally understand that but since this mining company is quite patently currently doing SFA why are we diluting ourselves by 20% when we could get a screwed down price and not dilute ourselves by 20%?

Jessell, not a pint but a glass of wine and quite happy to discuss Prem. Alluded to it in a response to CF earlier as I don't understand the logic behind the revised KMW deal. At $1.4M that's a near 20% dilution to us to own 50% of a plant company. CF tells me it's means we'll get priority and cheap rates, great in a booming market when equipment is scarce (see oil rig drilling rates over last 10 years, huge swings and roundabouts depending upon busyness) but dire when it's not not. So what did our proposed plant hire company achieve last year, $7,000 turnover generating a $160,000 loss. Sort of suggests a none existent market so priority and cheap rates aren't really a problem. So at the minute all I can see is we'll be adding $80,000 (50%) to our overhead as that's what it costs this company to do nothing so will always be there. At the end of your post you say right organ grinder, based on past decisions which were evidently bad for us at the time I'm not too sure we have. It doesn't really matter whether people think somebody is a ramper or a troll more information would be better for all of us. There's been far too much of this Prem, doesn't make sense / competency in the past to want it to happen again when we're looking at 50% dilution. Personally I'd like to see see a document close to an IPO listing requirement if we're going to be asked to vote on this package. Most long tremors here will be circa 40-80% down even after averaging down. Whether it'll happen I doubt but if there really is an action group with sufficient clout to enable that to happen that's what I do, “Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times, shame on both of us.”

? Stephen King, On Writing: A Memoir of the Craft

Care to discuss :-)

Devils advocate then has to be, whose this p****** on our turf and are they any good as to me it seems these land records and the border security applications were our go to areas. Nowt wrong with competition but they seem to grabbing few deals. Not a red flag but alongside with the never ending Round B I hope the next update has some reassuring news. Much prefer sitting above average than below, especially the longer it goes on

CF - responding to your 15:36.
Use of these assets at reduced cost - $7K turnover last year suggests there isn't a shortage of supply or over demand. They have assets that are costing money to do nothing (like our mine) - believe me you'd get a good rate to hire them.
Prioritise for our use - see above there is no demand so no trouble to hire at a lo cost and use as directed.
50% profits / revenue will be ours - mmm at the minute we'd be the only people using these and in either event as you say use at a reduced rate - I say screw them on price - both still low rate. What's the point of SFA of a low rate.
Sorry it's not making perfect sense to me - why dilute ourselves significantly to acquire 50% of plant whichever way is then going to marginally profitable (for it not to be we'd then have not to be reduced rates).

I really don't see how that makes perfect sense. If other people are understanding CF's position and can explain it differently to me please do so (or CF yourself by rephrasing) as it still makes no commercial sense to me. Why is this needed it just seems to be pointlessly adding to the dilution cost.
CF - the reason I'm harping on is we have history of GR making commercial deals (Riverfort being the numero uno example) which have cost us very dearly in terms of dilution. It was obvious that this would result from progressing with that deal if one took a cold hard look at the facts but GR was just allowed to do it. There really does seem no wise commercial sense for this aspect of the deal so I think is shareholders we need to be given a hell of a lot more detail.

M78 at the end they say using Florincoin so what makes you think they'd be using Factom? Am I missing something, thanks?

CF - I don't see your logic. We already own 100% of Zulu and are buying via huge dilution some drilling platforms, dumper trucks etc (plant) from a Company who from their turnover figures quite patently couldn't find a use for them last year. We will still have all the drilling costs etc to pay. It still begs the question why are we buying them? We have a degree of control whether we employ drilling contractors or have our own drills and pay someone to use them and in both cases still have 100% of Zulu. The purpose of this transaction has not been clearly or satisfactorily explained. After what shareholders here have had to endure over the last few years IMO the Company needs to explain this in more detail before I could vote in favour of it. By more explanation I specifically mean an undertaking that KME has absolutely no relationship with GR, family or Trust or Business Associates (remember TCT!) and that we are given sight of several years of KME Accounts so as we can make our own judgements as to whether these assets are really worth $4M plus.