Member Info for ocelot

whereas those who have since averaged down held back in reserve some of their fire-power.

Suspect some of the former rampers who've since become derampers put too large a percentage of their portfolios into ANGS, but that isn't ANGS's fault, that is the fault of the investor.

Not sure the old ramping crew who've now become derampers will appreciate your comment, Mirasol.

Personally, I've just taken them to be seriously disgruntled and somewhat obsessed, but I've not thought of them as being paid to post their messages.

nomlungu, yes, I wrote:

"I can't see any shareholder objecting to a £300k bonus if SS can put some 10s of millions of £s on the share cap.

The problem isn't the amount but the fact that it hasn't been linked to share price performance".

You believe I meant that SS should be rewarded for increasing the market cap by increasing the number of shares in issue, when I wrote specifically about share price performance.

Filtered.

5% of votes to call a General Meeting, much more than that to replace management ... with what? you do need to propose alternative management.

The share cap means little?

I'm lost for words.

Mirasol,

I thought all the old ramping crew had become derampers.

I can't see any shareholder objecting to a £300k bonus if SS can put some 10s of millions of £s on the share cap.

The problem isn't the amount but the fact that it hasn't been linked to share price performance.

The bonus is a useful topic with which to criticise the company for those that way inclined.

Beyond that, who cares? A one-off amount of £300k is not a significant sum in the wider picture.

I take comfort from all of the negativity on the board - it means it wouldn't take much positive news to have a major positive impact on the share price.

Can you imagine the quantity of negative comment that would be generated if the wheel was to be invented today?

There have also been issues with the lack of oil flow at Broadford Bridge and the flow of water at HH-2z, for which SS cannot be held entirely responsible.

Said it before, but think "huge" gold potential may well mean considerably more than the 500k ounces of the 2012 report.

500k was the top end of the range of the 2012 report, it was this top end that was reported in the Daily Telegraph article of 24/05.

For want of a more recent report, they couldn't go any higher.

"Our programme of works at Clogau-St David's is multi-faceted, so as well as drilling and bulk sampling we are pushing forward our plans to dewater the Llechfraith mine section, one of our most promising targets, to sample the historical waste tip for gold and to carry out surface trenching and sampling of the first of the many regional gold targets which have been identified by our team."

and you must be a lot less truly underwater now than a few months back!

To be truly underwater, you must have bought in on a spike years ago.

Alba's management have established a lengthy record of very careful management of shareholders' funds.

A lot of the detractors shuffled off to a rival site, where they had the very good idea of creating a new thread.

Because I had already filtered the creator of the thread, it is the whole thread that is filtered :-)

You've surprised me by your answer, HeadinTheSand, for which I thank you, I had failed to guess it.

For myself, at least, my question was a reasonable one. I do not put your question in the same category.

Are you a shareholder, HeadinTheSand?

Off 2.1% on the mid price.