Member Info for oldspursfan

Morning Brookers.
Thanks that's interesting, bit more digging required then!

Morning GFD, sorry if that made no sense. I'll try again.

Check the RNS announcements from Nov 17 to Jan 18 and you will see Alexei Churakov/ Venus Garden Holdings buying their way in to the tune of 29m shares and 7% stake in WK (Kosvinsky Kamen subsidiary).

DR mentioned ownership last night, and I had done some digging a while back to see if I could trace who owned what. I'd assumed that when AC/VGH sold their shares to Veles the beneficiary interest went with it. TBH I was more interested in tracking down who owned the remaining 25%, thinking equity buyout of that stake was on the cards.

I reposted what I had discovered then, but thought actually, those 29m shares went, but dont recall the 7% stake was mentioned. Looking back, it isnt. Question therefore is was I mistaken, and does AC still own his 7% of WK?

I think he still does, so my analysis needs tweaking a bit.

Just to add re WK, I'm not actually sure now if the 7% AC ownership transferred. The shares did, obviously, and they were originally awarded to AC alongside and at the same time as the 7%. Does anyone know for definite if AC still has his ownership share of WK?

Evening DR
I did some digging a while back and found the following in terms of ownership

MT - license is held with the Terskaya Mining Company. Ownership is split: 80% us (via subsidiary) 20% was awarded to Luncroft Holdings Ltd per 14/10/2014 RNS. They've been a long-standing shareholder sitting around the 0.5% ownership level for several years.

WK - license owned by Kosvinsky Kamen Mining Company, ownership split: 68% us via our Kosvinsky subsidiary; 7% bught by Alexei Churakov via Venus Garden Holdings (24/01/18 RNS), sold to Veles via direct sale Jan 21. Remaining 25% is stated as being owned by "Yuzhno-Zaozersky Priisk, a local mining company" per the RNS of 16/06/2010. I've found nothing since to suggest that has changed.

When did Luncroft transfer their 20% of MT to UAP, as not seen that?
Cheers

Afternoon all
Just catching up on the posts from last night - jeez that was a few minutes wasted! I see bystander Insert coins is back - love the moniker which is a phrase you only see when you are either not invested or lost all you had!

Have to say it does raise a wry smile all this talk about II holdings and how investors generally think it's a good thing to have them. Then you get weeks of shorting and manipulation like we have had to put with, which means any positive news still turns us red, suck all the positivity out of proceedings, and yet those same IIs still make money!

Perhaps a case of be careful what you wish for, especially with potentially twice the authority limit up for grabs next year and a penchant for going straight to IIs to raise cash if needed.

Still trusting sale news isnt far off so should kick any thought of II placings into the very long grass, but have to admit I'm generally unimpressed with the calibre and behaviour of the institutions we have attracted!

Looking forward to some good games today. Eyes down and GLA

Sorry Dancesca!
Have to say - that Kalvin Phillips, I do like the cut of his jib. Makes even "Tournament Sterling" look good, which is no mean feat!

HI GFD
With Board support, 6 will pass as even though they don't have a majority holding between them, it would take a humongous effort of "noes" to overtake them. Abstains don't count so no real danger there. So they will be able to allot shares to the tune of 500k nominal value.

8 is more interesting as it's 75% so requires a more positive effort. If it fails now, and they have cause to need it in the next 12 months, they will have to have another EGM and explain more around why it is necessary .

I did put forward a possible alternative use last night, which involves a sale, dividend, but lots of shareholders opting to "reinvest" and have shares instead of cash - they can allot new shares to cover it if the free float available isn't sufficient. Received absolutely diddly squat by way of response, so may just be my overactive imagination, but would be a "better" reason for the larger authority...!

After Leeds v Spurs are we cheering on the same team tonight (and hoping they link up?)
GLA

In an earlier post I suggested in the event of a substantial dividend we may be barred from taking the divi as shares (reinvesting) as if this were taken up by everyone who implied they would there wouldn’t be enough shares currently in issue to cover it, as nobody loses any of their shareholding when dividends are paid, so there is no incentive to sell.

What if this resolution is a kind of war chest to cover (or partially cover) people who want their dividend immediately reinvested, or effectively paid to them in additional shares? Means it could be very close.

Anyone see that as a possible route? If so would you vote to give them that authority?

Stork yes you can as an overhead, and anyway it is not covered anywhere else in the P&L, if you care to look. You can't arbitrarily write down the value of a mining asset and not take it to the P&L somewhere. Not all the cost of sales are direct variable costs. Again, you know this.

Stork - give over
Are you still peddling the lie that WK is not profitable, when if you actually look at the numbers every £1 of production generated 50p net contribution to the bottom line?

The cost of sales included the £650k accounting charge for the reduction in carrying value, as you well know. You also pointed out the reduction but failed - deliberately I suspect - to connect the two. Production was limited to c.1500oz, but had it been about 2200oz it would have turned a gross profit.

Triple the production, triple the loss - that was you yes? You know better than that.

HI Roger
I share a lot of your sentiment. I think it also lends fuel to the fire about the extra authority to place as it is now evident whoever they place with will just d!ck around with the share price and prevent positive developments from increasing the share price. So we lose both ways (dilution and manipulation)!

That said, I've come to the conclusion that despite the mixed messages and the inference that the sale may be pushed out longer than near term, I will vote for it and trust it doesn't end up being needed as a funding source. It doesn't look like the BoD are going to address the "why double?" question before we have to vote on it, so it's another leap of faith...

GLA

Mike you've put "New Company" as the headline. Why if you don't like it?

Are you talking about the new subsidiary (we own it), or the debate around future direction?

You wont get a timeframe but I do agree with the sentiment that the BoD do need to pull their finger out and promote the company more. The drip of positive but still breadcrumb trail updates just aren't convincing the market it's going to go boom anytime soon.

In fact Zak Mir suggested the market seems to have forgotten there's a sale happening. Hard to disagree.

Moreover, from the other side, if the market values the whole company at about 600m, a buyer would struggle to get support for paying multiple billions for just part of it. At no point has any valuation work pitched the company here, at this level, but it needs a huge push to get out of this incessant slide.

So yes I think there is stuff the board can and should do. I have raised this as a question for the AGM. Now we're out of the FSP they should have more leeway to explain more about what we actually have (Christ knows they didnt tell us much in the FSP!). The market should then react.

Cheers Mac, admit I'm not sure of the detailed differences myself between the two, but as you say we've had AP sniffing around for quite some time now, their tech has got to be helping bridge the gap somehow!

Hopefully once the license is received and paid for we get more details on what the plan for the area entails.

Apologies Roger didn't see your post and asked literally the same question to Mac, who seems to think it IS one of the four.

Hopefully once the license transfer happens we will get a more detailed plan for the area: where is it up to with how much currently booked, and plans to develop. In the meantime, converting Russian to JORC remain an open question hopefully someone with direct mining experience can oblige...!

Thanks Mac - so if we are saying that Nyud is one of the four already at Russian FS level reserves, how much effort is needed to get it to JORC compliant reserves?

...and market couldn't give a stuff.

Almost as if today's price action has already been scripted.

Think the option to buy out the remaining 25% was mentioned in the original Rosgeo rns. Dont think it falls within 2 year timeframe though. Any license they want to develop is set up as 75-25 in first instance.

Morning! When you least expect it, less than 2 weeks before the AGM, up pops another piece of the puzzle!

Okay so a bit legalise and technical, but shows they are at least pushing on with the JV like they said they would at the last placement.

Seems like MT is fast entering "We just dont talk about that" territory, notable by its absence again. Must point to sale, surely?

Personally I struggle to see how EUA have the resources to develop many of the licenses without a cash injection from sale of something like MT, so hopefully the dots are joining up nicely in that direction.

Think a fee will be payable on license transfer, and we will hear how much when it happens.

Nobody down for today? Poor SL...

GLA let's see what the market wants to do...

Recall a world cup probably about 20 years ago now when there was trouble being attributed to English fans. Turned out the group being filmed were diehard Welshies (as in known to police, stick your effin chariots up your wotsit type). They had just put on an england shirt, caused trouble and got filmed shouting Ingerlund, trying to get England thrown out the tournament.

Got to love your neighbours eh?