Member Info for oldspursfan

Key counters

2.5 years of saying "unaffected by sanctions". Only now admitting actually yes they were.

Could have, should have and indeed said he was looking to appoint another CEO after JN. Executive Chairman is not a good Corporate Governance look. Having failed to do so he can't complain about the workload.

Everybody has contributed to the sale, and I'm sure they all made positive contributions, whatecer they were, but yet no sale has happened. He has to realise he is judged on outcomes, not his ability to say "progressing" and "NDAs". Poor outcomes? Poor opinion of him.

Nothing personal, just business.

"Air of suppressed panic"?? Wtf does that mean lmao?

The problem as I see it is whichever way you turn you end up with more questions. At the very least CS should explain what advice was taken when determining the size of the most recent subs loan, especially given where that would put the parent company's finances, and the feasibility of being able to reclaim any funds in the current environment.

I'd guess CS is just not used to being put under the microscope quite as much as he is now, justifying his decisions and stewardship of the Company, and explaining why he has been unable to deliver on his strategies.

It's getting like Star Trek now with his 5-year mission.

Offler I think CS needs placing authority now because he has absolutey zero intention of paying back the bridging loan with cash, only with shares.

Perhaps he can explain on the webinar why selling concentrate, as it can be done, isn't route 1 for cash as payments fall due? Then reclaiming the loan to subsidiaries, with dilution ideally sitting approximately last.

Very simply TCM, the problem is CS.

Q1 on my list is why should shareholders believe that CS (and if I'm being honest this entire board of CS cronies), will deliver on the one and only strategy he has put us on.

CS has only just confirmed in rns form, that sale options stopped when the war/SMO started. This despite him saying for the past 2 and a half years 'we aren't affected by sanctions' as if it was the same thing. We all knew sale went out the window along with the table and everyone still at it.

CS is in last ditch sales pitch mode imo. If AIM won't comply he will line up other exchanges to keep it going.

Still think the only reason for the webinar (correct they didn't have to hold one) is that CS desperately wants to place shares.

So be prepared for a rosy picture to be painted of a "better marketed" EUA in Kasakhstan, of investor interest and routes to sell asset, all subtley caveated with words like potentially, could and may.

Though placings, if granted, will definitely happen.

Morning all

Reading the comments yesterday, it doesn't seem plausible that dual listing in Kazak will suddenly make us exempt from exit-related haircuts or make getting sale proceeds out of russia sanction free.

Has anyone considered that dual listing could actually be a precursor to switching the stock exchange, and leaving AIM altogether?

It wouldn't affect shareholdings, more the ability to buy and sell. But could that be what CS has in mind?

Another one for the webinar.

Are you watching the England game on catchup Steve?

Link removed was to itvx?

Not enough spurs players imo, no creativity...

I said a while back I felt that the only thing CS was interested in right now, was securing enough support to pass the special resolution to place shares with whomsoever he chooses.

Has anything changed? And does anyone feel inclined to support the resolution when it comes?

For anyone saying yes, why should it be passed now when it hasn't for the last couple of years? What's changed?

2p in the LSE meter, back to the action...

Latest thinking is it has to be held by the 25th October, the last date to stay within 15 months after the last one (per Companies Act). This needs to be announced by end of next week.

Not sure an in-person AGM is top of CS's wishlist, fully expecting him to try another virtual one where questions seem to get lost over the WiFi somehow.

Morning LB

IIRC the 15 months maximum between AGMs is the Companies Act, rather than AIM Rules specifically (sure someone can confirm).

However we do have AIM Rules over the 6 month interims, within 3 months of period end. So these must come out by end of September for the period ending June.

2 regulatory requirements coming up in the next week or so. Should be interesting.

Hi EI

The only thing I think CS really wants right now is that special resolution passed at the AGM (the one bypassing existing shareholder preemption rights). Without it I'm not sure he can do any of the things that are being whispered about.

I'm not even sure how the convertible loan facility would work in practice if he doesnt have the authority to issue new shares directly to whomsoever he chooses. Perhaps this is a loophole, maybe someone else can clarify?

Everything being talked about currently, is all ifs, buts maybes and question marks towards a major development. This is in keeping with his previous form, and has usually resulted in not much actually happening, apart from dilution. I suspect this is another one of those, but would be more than happy to be proven wrong and something significant and sale related does happen shortly.

Indeed GrandQ I remember at the time there was a lot of debate about whether the parties could have flipped the placing shares, as the SP stayed around or just under 26p for months afterwards, and volumes were quiet and didn't suggest a dump of 50m+ shares.

Needless to say there were people who were adamant they had been flipped, but couldn't quite explain where those trade volumes had gone (the usual suspects were also contributing to the volume by topping up at every opportunity too).

Personally, I'm expecting a lot of noise from CS trying to sell a vision that can only be realised if (pretty please) he can place shares direct to institutions after the agm, whenever that's held. Maybe this is another potential jam tomorrow to add to that pitch. 2p to 26p is one heck of a gap to bridge in 3 months, especially as actual news seems in short supply.

It's certainly a strange rns. The BoD have never been shy about extending warrants, and for longer periods, and remember last year all the BoD members who had 0.42p warrants or thereabouts allowed them (finally) to lapse. Only CS put his hand in his pocket for a small portion of them. That was at 0.42p.

Why wouldn't the 26p warrants just lapse? And why only 3 months extension?

Downside? There's no guarantee the strike price will become a bargain in that time, so they will most likely end up lapsing in three months time, and we will all think "wtf was that about then?"

Don't forget the loan being offered is convertible, so (and correct me if I'm wrong) the only time CS's shares become at risk, is if EUA default on the cash repayment when it falls due AND Sanderson can't convert the payment into shares.

I won't say "choose not to" despite the RNS saying its their choice, as it seems highly unlikely they would sour relations by taking CS's shareholding instead of converting the payment.

If the 75% resolution gets passed this time, it effectively negates any risk that CS loses his shares, and pretty much guarantees dilution to pay the loan back.

Assuming no sale of course.

I think somebody needs to learn the difference between share-holding board members wanting a sale, and share-holding board members proving totally incapable of securing a sale.

Question 1 for CS's fabled webinar: why should other shareholders believe that you are the person to deliver on your one and only, 15 months and still counting, strategy?

"Because I hold shares too" is not a convincing answer.

Stretch sometimes it amazes me what you think the definition of poisonous is.

"AIM Rule 18 requires that AIM companies prepare half-yearly reports within three months of the period end." (30 June)

Not within 6 months of whenever they got around to publishing the last set of annuals. Also as has been pointed out AGMs cannot be more then 15 months apart, last one was held 26 July 23, but requires three weeks notice.

Meaning we have two imminent regulatory deadlines, yet CS now seems to have an incredibly lax attitude towards them. Failure to meet these may result in suspension again.

Pointing this out is not being "poisonous" - I'd argue telling potential investors to ignore it because the message and messenger isn't happy-clappy positive is more so.

OK Stretch but that begs the question how long do you give it?

How many more years before you start thinking maybe another reason why "the company has released virtually no information" is because they have nothing to say for all their efforts?

It also stands to reason if the company has nothing to say, they won't say anything. Certainly with this BoD, if they can't spin things positively they say nothing at all. We all have our opinions, and in some cases justifications, for us being in this situation, but really it's up to us individually to decide how much silence is enough. And anyone thinking that actually 4 years and still no sign of any sale news, isn't really being "poisonous" or a "neghead"

Gecko, so do I.

Unfortunately, when reasons for CS mentioning things are initially unclear, it does pay to look for the "worst case" reason. Then you can't really be disappointed.

Worst case as I can see it: they only want to place more shares to keep lights on, and these "new" developments like dual listings and convertible loan facilities (maybe) have nothing to do with closing a sale.

Prove me wrong CS.

Hey Gecko hope you're keeping well.

I'm expecting a big push from CS for "members" to approve that special resolution this time.

Problem is it will either be pushed on the grounds of preventing a doomsday scenario (so why sub loans and no mining then??) or all hints and maybes about what the future may potentially hold for their number 1 (of precisely 1) strategy.

All this if only they can PLEASE dilute our shareholdings by placing directly to institutions at discounts.

Maybe that's what the "webinar" is all about.