Member Info for oldspursfan

If they were mining MT then I agree the plan (and 1m is still year 3 levels) becomes more relevant and something to hold the BoD to account over.

But until that decision is made, any criticism over actual 2023 mining output is somewhat moot imo

a) most of the existing drilling data pre-dates jorc. So let's wait for the jorc, then we'll see.
b) i dont believe the jv areas will be sold yet, unless we get taken over completely. We're an explorer, that will likely continue post-sale with proving these up, and selling them on. Then we realise value.

Now can you answer my question about which test under Rule 15 will be met by the sale, and the Rule in gerneral triggered?

1st time. This is where you need to be a little bit careful. The "de-rampers" are being disingenuous, not for the 1st time, about both acf and rosgeo.

Acf - the report talks about Mt production but in the context of the board being 100% focused on development, activating the sinosteel contract and going hell for leather on actual mining. The c.1m oz production is for year 3 following that (2023, report having been first published in Feb 20). So given it's nearly 2022 and we are still focusing on the sale, rather than activate and mine, then no we won't be producing that amount from Mt in 2023. Doesn't mean it won't ever happen, but to rubbish the report based on us not yet starting the mining route, isn't a good look.

Rosgeo - stork never mentions value only cost. If cost was the only indicator of value, nothing would ever happen as by definition no profits can ever be made. Try offering the BoD £500k to take the JV off their hands, and see what they say.
GLA

Afternoon Stork. You're posting quite frequently demanding updates, are you getting worried?

Technically this sale has been in the pipeline for at least 6 years, given interest has been mentioned by the BoD since at least 2015. So one could argue the BoD aren't going to be rushed and it's taken this long for the BoD's interest to be piqued enough to allow them to say, OK prospective buyer, come take a look at the data. But of course that's slightly more positive than you would have everyone believe.

I'm actually interested in your opinion on something: the RNSs have included a statement that Rule 15 will apply, when the SP was at 27/28p. Assuming a sale does happen, which of the 6 >75% tests in your opinion will be surpassed, and would therefore trigger Rule 15? Thats a genuine question, what do you think the BoD were looking at when they said that...?

Is he still around? The man who said EUA's a scam, it won't come back from suspension, it's going to 0p etc etc.?

But when challenged on his short after it did come back and then rose significantly: I don't hold a position.

Slammed the prospects to his followers but lacked the courage of his convictions, to put his own money where his mouth went.

Joker.

Evening Ian_
Haven't had a guess for a while, could you add me to the list for this Thursday 2nd please? Feel an update may be coming.
Cheers

Neo - I'd argue that a statement outlining two possible but mutually exclusive future outcomes doesn't really qualify as a "fact". Not in the sense that historic drilling, counts as facts anyway.

What it does do is lay the ground for people to decide which of the outcomes they wish to place their money on: deal or not. And one fact you seem to ignore (level of shorts in play) is that hardly anyone seriously believes this will fail. You seem to, however.

Maybe you're contrarian, maybe you've been stung before so are in the same place as Stork - other BoDs of other unrelated companies (on AIM) screwed shareholders in the past and lost you money, so it will happen here because this is AIM. In which case I'm sorry for your previous yet nothing whatsoever to do with EUA loss, but it's hardly worth trying to drag other investors down into your gloom.

That's not very Christmassy is it?
GLA

Morning. So it seems the thread didn't go anywhere unless a load have been deleted (only after 10pm?)

Thinking about it and for context when it gets resurrected in a few days time.

Were being led to believe that one party shifted 41.5m shares to "us mug punters" in c.300m volume when we were above 30p? That "Mr 100k seller" that was mentioned would need to have popped up a whopping 415 times in those few days. Admit I personally wasn't close to it, but don't recall it being that prolific.

Still it won't stop, but hopefully some period of calm while we wait for news (good job it's Advent, 'tis the season for waiting)

GLA for today.

Pewee, if Mr_Wolfe chooses to join in then "full moon" may be your answer!

These negative arguments are just going around in circles, but with little hard/indisputable evidence to support them. I'm happy to listen to a bear case as it keeps me grounded but it's wearing thin!

Signing off now so happy arguing and if it isn't deleted I'll see where the thread goes in the morning.

Stork
"But even if that's true, all you're doing is suggesting that there are now *two* investors who willingly took giant paper losses after huge ramps *and* who magically managed to hide their 'investments' under the usual PI nominee accounts on the register."

Pick your angle please, forward selling was your line not mine. Plus it was you saying they somehow managed to do it for 10-20% and disguise it in piddly volume. If they have sold then to my mind a good portion must have been at break even or a loss because that is where we have sat for most of the time. And why? So they can make 3s 6d and hold 40m+ of warrants at 26p in a fraud which will be back below a penny if you had your way?? That makes no sense.

I don't pretend to know all the ins and outs of share registers and if an anonymous investor wished to remain so how that would work. Suggestions are that it is eminently possible, and slightly more plausible than the idea they know its a fraud, but are happy to bung in 15m for 10% (hoping said fraud isnt exposed yet) and forward sell all they had into a low volume market that as Tilly has said more resembled an Arizona Creek.

I disagree that, in 300m of total volume (buys and sells) over the few days it got to the 30s and beyond, it's possible to disguise or absorb one 41.55m seller in amongst the other stake builders, day/T traders, and any tracker funds. Not when Anders Murray struggled to sell 8m over several days without negatively impacting the SP at a time when volume was much greater.

I never said there was one US investor, think it was made clear they were different and as no warrants have yet been exercised their holdings will be 1.3% each.

Is it possible to disguise individuals on the share register? Wouldn't know, but who is listed around that level of holding currently (say the 25-45m range?)

Stork
You start off with a valid point regarding nominee holdings which of course should be disregarded and are not "institutions" in the sense that is being portrayed.

Then you go on to ruin it by moving onto no institutions buying in. Feels like we go around in circles:

You say no IIs have invested
We point to American investment at the last 2 raises.
You say they are spivs who forward sold.
We say that is nonsense because they would have turned over a loss, no way the price was high enough long enough and with enough volume to do that. Why would an investor spend $15m to turn over an immediate loss and hold as yet unexercised warrants at 26p in a company that is a fraud?
You go silent

A few days later it starts again.

For future reference try quitting while you had one point we actually agree with. May make the board a more useful and pleasant read. Thanks.

Hey Les
Yes a proposed sale to vote on doesn't count as a special resolution, I guess because it's part of business and not "re-writing the rules" between BoD and shareholder base, which is why the April GM resoltion was special. And if the BoD are backing it, it will struggle to fail!

I order to vote we would need details of what's going, to whom and for how much. I've always been of the opinion that the information for the divi will follow once the sale completes. The share price will rerate once we know how much cash is coming in, then the divi when that comes will be deducted from it.

I've mentioned before but I think Watchstone Group who did a rule 15 disposal in October 2020 is a good example of what i expect first up. GM details focused solely on the sale info, with a holding statement re use of proceeds.

https://investegate.co.uk/watchstone-group-plc--wtg-/rns/proposed-disposal-of-the-ingenie-business/202010080700044417B/

Noting the following in this:
"1.5 Use of Proceeds
The net cash proceeds of the Disposal will be kept on deposit and managed prudently until the Company's next distribution is effected. The precise amount of any distribution to shareholders has not yet been determined."

1sttimelucky
The theory that AC bought back the shares he sold to Veles in January, came from the tweet by gmf78 on 15 July, and was supported by a screenshot from Bloomberg showing Venus Garden Holdings/AC back up to 39m holding following a purchase of 27.4m shares in late April.

Feel free to research and let us know if that is incorrect, but it's where that assertion came from.

"#EUA - seen some doubting comments around so got approval for the following so according to Bloomberg as I said yesterday - Churakov adding 27.4m via his Venus Holdings.
He’s not an adviser now and 1% rule gone so don’t expect an rns - prob bought back from Veles off book https://t.co/wB2ZhxhLLg"

Can't seem to get a link from the twit app, but details are above.

Les
Once called, the GM may be an "extraordinary" meeting in old language, but the resolution would be an ordinary one.

50% the threshold.

Don't think you can blame the existence of the French on Brexit. They've been generally aloof/ brit-hating/ surrendering to Germany for ages.

RMR - good post, just one thing

"Can we also agree that if the 'buyer' has 'successfully completed DD' more than 4 weeks ago, and we have heard nothing more since then, that the DD was acceptable to the 'buyer' and they wish to proceed (we would surely have known by now if this were not the case)."

Not quite agreed there. That "successfully completed" line is third hand - EUA BoD telling us what the buyer has apparently told them. It wasn't in quotes in the RNS, so it's also likely it's EUA's own interpretation of what they were told. There is no actual difference between "successfully completed" and just "completed" - they both mean that the buyer didn't abort the DD process but it doesn't automatically lend itself to the buyer liking the outcome. Hopefully it does, though!

As for the BoD telling us if the buyer has pulled out? Not sure on that, it's something I mentioned when the RNS came out that linking in "other interest" has almost given the BoD a "get out of issuing bad news free, for as long as possible" card. The BoD havent made a habit of telling the markets when things haven't gone according to plan. Any bad RNS's in the last 18 months? No. Have we been sold yet? No. So something "bad" or at the very least "not as planned" must have happened (i.e. no binding offer), but we haven't told.

It points to EUA preferring to say nothing rather than saying something bad (my gran would be proud of them!)

I really hope the BoD do intend to give us a definitive conclusion on this buyer's interest - it's binary now: offer or not. I just dont want to be sat here in 3/4/6 months time still waiting to hear, yet still reading "any day now, executing final sale for contract....!"

GLA

Long
"So no one talk about this"
OK no problem.
Next

Interesting and plausible given who the event is pitched at. May be an excuse to get off Frankfurt, though, rather than LSE? Not sure what the frankfurt exchange adds.

Del yep I fully sympathise. I too called out "shortly" after that rns in the vein of "I hope this time it is". We're now up to it being at least the same as last time, but hopefully not much longer.

Of course the answer to my question is, if no rns tonight or Monday morning then yes it is a coincidence. Just watching and hoping like many others the signs point to something else.

GLA