Member Info for oldspursfan

Thanks KoC think my phone got ahead of me! Lots for the BoD to explain. Have a happy Christmas and a prosperous new year

Since I'm already in Macs bad books, let me put something out there. This isn't great. Anyone saying uber-positive things remind me of the joke: My mate bought me an elephant for my room. "Wow! Thanks!" I said. 'Don't mention it.." he said.

The main thing I want from the DFS if/once approved is the reason why nobody wants MT.

We don't want it: we have finance we arent activating, we are trying to sell instead. Its our primary strategy. We DESPERATELY don't want it, even after 5 years of no sale. But, we're an explorer yes, so thats fine?

However, every single interested party who has looked at MT since 2015 do not want to buy it. Every single time: interest, they look at it in detail (including "successful" due diligence) and their interest.... cools.

This is an asset that as shareholders we have a financial stake in. What is it about MT that means nobody in the entire world seems to want to mine it? We have sinosteel until 2027 so up to 5 more years of fk all while the BoD try to "execute their primary strategy" .

£100m now would trigger a Rule 15 vote, has been for months. Offers? Nope...

What have the board failed in? Converting interest into formal offers. Accurate as at close of play 21st Dec 2022, nearly 2 and half years after FSP was activated. The market is as usual way ahead of me, but I will give it until the board issue the DFS, before deciding on whether to continue trusting them is worth it.

Since I'm already in Macs bad books, let me put something out there. This isn't great. Anyone saying positive things remind of the joke: My mate bought me an elephant for my room. "Wow! Thanks!" I said. 'Don't mention it.." he said.

The main thing I want from the DFS if/once approved is the reason why nobody wants MT. We don't want it, we have finance we arent activating, we are trying to sell instead. We DESPERATELY don't want it. But, we're an explorer yes?

However, every single interested party who has looked at MT since 2015 do not want to buy it. Every single time: interest, they look at it in detail (including "successful" due diligence) and their interest.... cools.

This is an asset that as shareholders we have a financial stake in. What us it about MT that nobody in the entire world seems to want to mine it?

Wouldn't be surprised to see an extension on the general rosgeo agreement come end of March, when it's currently due to expire. The current circumstances and need to resubmit stuff would no doubt allow it.

Woo I'm a thread title! Yay me!!
So Mac has binned me for saying something he agrees with? That does say a lot, but not about me.

And this beauty must be a contender for most ironic post of the year.

"I repeat, all anyone has to do is check his posting history, a charlatans history is always right there for anyone to take a look at on good old LSE!"

KoC, thanks for the reminder of THAT game...!

Mac never posts dates of when he first copied the extracts he floods the board with. I've asked him to, but he won't. It's up to us to work out what he quotes was from x number of weeks, months or even years ago.

At least Del provides this rather important context, so we can see just how long it's been since the last meaningful update on that topic.

Interesting theory MaB, just one point of correction. The BoD never said they have received non-material offers, CS when asked (not volunteered) said they have received "no material offers". There is a difference.

Personally, and as said at the time, I've never understood where "materiality" fits into a M&A process. Offers are either formal or not, accepted or not. From the RNS we have:

Received a number of informal offers and interest during the FSP (Jan 21)
A proposal from this credible party (May-Oct 21)
Other interest we are also pursuing alongside the credible party (same Oct 21 RNS).

At no stage have we been told that the BoD have received any formal offers that they have unilaterally rejected. You can either take the word "material" as meaning the have rejected "immaterial" formal offers, but have forgotten to advise anybody, or its a euphemism for "No offers". Sadly CS does have form for including extra words to give a bit of gloss ("successfully complete" vs just "complete") but as usual time passes and nothing more seems to happen.

Evening all. I think Mac, bless, has become a bit of a laughing stock with his feet up sipping Koka Kola waffle, quoting RNSs from months ago if not years ago as if they were just said last week. That said he is positive because he is long, like the vast majority, and has very little recent to go on, so what else is there to be?

I too wish the BoD would make a fkn decision on whether they are selling or mining, as somebody, somewhere is taking the absolute pss, either inside or outside the company (not sure who).

This has been a year to forget as we entered it with such optimism that has been allowed to wither and die. I've said before that I see the role of the BoD as providing ongoing evidence that the faith and money invested in them wasn't misplaced. On that they have failed miserably in 2022.

Forget too the "its obvious the war impacted" ******, as that is only apparent with hindsight, we are still "unaffected by sanctions" and with "No impact on our ability to execute our M&A strategy" as the formal position. That time proves that to be a load of cobblers says more about BoD comms than any blind faith by us PIs.

We're left with the hope that the DFS is the last stage before formal offer. Have no clue as to whether that will be the case, or we have to search for next "last stage". Really hope next year is a damn sight better than this.

Paul (Seasick) hope you get better soon and don't have too rough a time with Covid!

GLA and if i dont post beforehand, have a lovely Christmas.

Hey BoB
If the BoD were providing regular operational updates then I would agree this wouldn't necessarily warrant an RNS as it hasn't been approved.

However this is literally the only thing the BoD have stated they intended doing this year, have signposted November as the month for ages, and have stuck resolutely by their internal commitment to maintaining absolute radio silence about anything else.

In this instance, the very least they could do is confirm if they have done this. And it really is the least they could do.

I take no pleasure in having low expectations of BoD comms, in particular the sneaky way they move goalposts (on schedule OR end of year??). I take even less pleasure that these low expectations are being continually met.

GLA we sure as hell deserve it!

So from reading the thread am I right in thinking literally nobody thinks the rise is because the BoD have successfully submitted the DFS?

After all, 18 months ago they did budget to do that this month!

What would be really nice if when the BoD inform us what happens to these options they also explain the underlying thinking behind the decision to take them up, let them lapse, extend them or renew them.

Rather than just a bland one-liner that only helps us by removing possible routes, but doesnt help in terms of whether it's a good or bad sign.

Chances of the BoD giving us more than the bare minimum, though? On current form, not much. GLA

So in essence are we saying that the options could extend be taken up, lapse or extended?

Is there anything that stops the third option? And we're expecting the BoD to tell us what has happened in a timely fashion after 2nd November (neither of those three scenarios can be kept quiet)?

Not sure that's worked. It's the meme of a bunch of skeletons sat around a desk. Google-able but humour wears off after multiple attempts!!

https://imgflip.com/memetemplate/573940

Unless, of course, this is what they meant by everyone is still at the table...

https://bit.ly/3VLQD8j

Evening Wand. This is the contradiction that I struggle with. If sale negotiations aren't progressing then activate Sinosteel and get cracking on MT. That's what it is there for ffs.

But they haven't activated it, so ipso facto sale discussions must be progressing.

But where are we with discussions, given we're now almost reaching the anniversary of the "successfully completed" due diligence from this credible party, who havent submitted a formal offer yet, but who are still at the table, but who didn't even even warrant a passing mention in the annual report for 2021.

It is all very confusing, no matter how obvious things are to certain other posters.

Morning Bobby, that is as good a guess as any
On your second point I did submit that as a question for this year's AGM (how dependent are the future expansion plans on a cash injection from a sale/ would a failure to sell jeopardise them?).

Sadly they didn't answer it directly, other than say it would be added to the list, and it appears someone forgot to bring the list with them to the AGM so the meeting concluded after 10 minutes. Hey ho, I guess they must have a Plan B funding source, should they end up activating Sinosteel and taking the 2 years needed to bring MT to meaningful production.

Re salaries I'm less concerned about JN, as he took on CEO responsibilities in late 2020, so his '21 salary being notably higher than 20 isn't much of a surprise, and in fairness operationally things seem to be moving at pace.

Right, Mac you're stretching my words too far now.

I believe the mining plan from 2021 was indeed what they planned. But it is only a plan.

Note also that was BEFORE the war. How is it that you are happy to accept the war as reasons why things haven't progressed all that quickly this year, but a plan for year 2, that they would have started some 9 months or so before russia invaded Ukraine, and published 6 months before it, would be completely unaffected??

All they have said definitively in the most recent rns is before the end of the year. That is a change from just "November" whether you wish to accept it or not. Btw that is exactly how this BoD would inform everyone they are experiencing some slippage (subtly move the goalposts, and trust Mac to ignore it/shout anyone down who spots it).

All thats happened is its gone from November, to November/December (currently). It may happen in November but is not nailed on for that month. If at the interims they still meant Nov, then whoever reviewed the "carefully worded" rns should be sacked for promoting ambiguity and inconsistency from earlier comms.

Or you can just ignore it, entirely your choice. But anyone who is looking at this extending into December, right now is not wrong.

Hahahaha! You are a funny one Mac!
I'm not attacking anything, you're the one treating a 5 year plan from however many months ago as being absolute gospel. I prefer to see what they actually do, not what they intend, and their most recent carefully chosen words on the subject suggested we shouldn't look solely at November for it.

If anything you're the one attacking anyone who says the BoD have said no different from November, and doing an advent style countdown to the 1st.

I dont much care when it lands. As no-one knows exactly what else is needed before someone finally sticks a formal offer on deck, its all conjecture anyway.

As I said we'll see, but please don't be too disappointed if like the dividend policy, what you have been cheerleading doesn't materialise quite when you say it will.

Not really mac, I'd have expected if everything was bang on track for November, having said November at least twice before, then the interims would also have said "November", but it didn't.

I also wouldn't set too much stall on a 5 year mining plabln, 2020 to 2025, which budgets for this to happen in month 23. Any experience of company 5 year plans knows they tend to go out the window by about week 2...