Member Info for oldspursfan

Crypto

You must mean Frankfurt, Germany

EUH.FRA

Sees bùgger all in terms of activity but I dont recall them delisting from it? Certainly it's still recognised, which implies tradeable.

Pwlx

Appreciate it's been months since the last update but the AR will only cover the period up to 31 December 23. it's unlikely that any sale of concentrate will make it into the numbers, as the primary strategy at the time was "waiting for a higher price" or something equally outwith the Boards control.

It's also unlikely, in principle, to make it into the significant post period events sectio , as selling what we mined should be part and parcel of normal mining activities. But who knows, maybe "we sold something lads!" will make the cut, if its true, as otherwise that section would be blank.

GLA

I think one of the key frustrations is that the Board's official reasons for doing, or not doing anything, seem counter intuitive, like why should continuing to develop a mine be mutually exclusive from potential sale of said mine?

Then we have diligent researchers on BBs like this, who find way more plausible reasons, but the Board refuse to confirm or deny those.

It's the same with sanctions, what sanctions, we're not impacted just waiting on the price to go up before we sell any concentrate (like we control it...).

The rationale CS comes up with in official statements is just laughably bad, followed by silence for months on end. Its like he has given up but can't bring himself to end his salary and shuffle off.

Crypto

"We could drawdown the Sinosteel facility as you say but this to me appears like it’s the boards last & unwanted route to take. CS has told us he wants to retire now, I can’t see him wanting to mine in any shape or form"

Whilst the above is correct, as shareholders we should be holding the Board's feet to the fire and demanding they do something that adds value, or explain why they can't. It is not up to CS to put his feet up (Mac style), claim his salary and clock watch until retirement. There has been no tangible evidence of progress against their stated strategy for far too long, and this cushy inertia has to stop.

Their reluctance to mine MT under any circumstances also has to be explained, and sadly the non publication of the DFS only adds fuel to the view our flagship asset (as was) isn't worth mining. If it is, they should prove it.

Ultimately if our Exective Chairman (also poor for corporate governance purposes) can't oversee a sale of our mining licenses, and doesn't want to develop them, he should step down now in favour of someone else.

I could maybe understand the "get your shìt in order" argument, however as the Russian State would be a directly interested party and potential shareholder f the court goes in their favour, doesn't that all sound a bit too blackmailey to be likely?

Stretch well done you've missed the point completely.

The BoD have stated one strategy now exists, a sale, but have also taken to hiding behind NDAs so no-one outside the company knows exactly where they are.

Therefore the main thing they could do to give confidence to the market a sale is on, it's close, and they are focused on delivering it, is to forego salaries until the sale concludes.

There is no need for them to drawing a regular wage, and hasn't been since they stopped either exploring or mining anything.

Right now we are paying them monthly, and seeing literally nothing happen (low visibility after 4 years). Ask and you get bland statements of nothingness back. That's not on in my books. They are accountable to shareholders, and should be on a truly success fee basis, deliver a sale or get nothing.

The same playing field as the rest of us.

"What ? Is not selling assets and work associated not value for shareholders ?"

I think you have confused yourself with how many negatives you've called out. But to answer your question

Correct. Where the BoD have stated that sale of assets is their only stretegy, then not selling assets, and the work associated with not selling assets, does not provide value for shareholders.

Hard to argue DO. My main gripe is that if the only strategy of our Directors is to secure a sale of assets, why are they being paid a salary?

Salary implies regular work and income generation. That isn't happening. Payment on results is all this strategy requires. Focus their minds accordingly.

"More than enough cash for the rest of this year"

Need to insert the phrase "...to continue our strategy..."

Remember this is meant to be a Company, paying Directors and staff, to do something value adding for shareholders. Judging by recent comments, some people appear have forgotten this, and are happy that EUA still (just) exists as a fair reason to pay CS et al their monthly wage.

Interesting, thank you LB!

Perhaps we will see the return of Toffers, and GFD on twatter, apologising for hysterical doom-mongering?

So it trundles on but with EUA as mere spectators rather than at fault.

Hi Mikey

"Let me get you straight, you think that if all negotiations cease and no sale is agreed then the BOD won't bother to RNS it?"

They certainly ought to, the only question being, within what timeframe? Sadly the BoD seem quite content with their current business plan of mine nothing, sell nothing, say nothing, and take paydays. Nice work if you can get it!

How long can that last? I'd say until the BoD are either changed and new people come in who can state exactly where we are, or it gets leaked there are no interested parties and the BoD are forced to address it.

There should be no reason for the AGM to be held off until the last possible minute again as they've done nothing to materially move the dial from last year, how hard is that to audit? Perhaps the difficulty is in getting every single BoD member to squeeze together and bask in the reflected glory of, er, court cases and not being wound up.

I agree with the sentiment that having CS as Chairman got us nowhere towards getting sold; having CS as Executive Chairman gets us doing just as much operationally as well. Time for him to shuffle off...

GLA

hi major

i would argue if the buyers are doing due diligence they don't need to trust the bod as much as us shareholders, they can see with their own eyes what we are not being told.

if the bod have refused formal yet lowball offers they should state they have done so, if they dropped a ******* by trying to hold out for a better sale price pre war, say so, its business and material. trouble is we can't tell whether its silence because they can't say, or silence because they have nothing to say.

it comes back to the same questions for me: if mt is as good as headline in the ground figures suggest, why hasn't it sold? if it hasn't sold, and the market/ geopolitics have gone adverse, why don't the bod start bringing it towards production?

there could be (and hopefully is) a sale being worked in the background and reaching its conclusion (shortly). however 4+ years later and we still haven't had conclusive evidence that says mt is economic to mine. the dfs was meant to do this and the bod won't release it.

put that together and you still get the other possibility - mt isn't worth mining and nobody wants to (the "water in outer space" argument, its there, in humongous quantities, but spread so thinly its as good as not being there).

As interesting as WK is, this has never been the jewel in the crown. The "flagship asset" was MT, which has been mothballed for fast approaching 10 years and still cannot be sold. Some flagship, obviously been taking lessons from the UK government in how to manage a Navy.

Not to mention the flanks license and "value adding" DFS which the BoD say adds value but simply will not release. Really surprised that's not falling foul of listing rules.

The reason why a sale of assets appears less likely is that nobody now trusts the BoD to deliver, least of all the market.

This is their sole strategy, yet they act like comms is governed by my dear late Nan: if you can't say anything positive, say nothing at all. And lo and behold, nothing has been said. It gives the impression either of a company run by amateurs, or gravy train spin merchants earning crust for doing nowt.

As much as CS will cling onto the salary for delivering fk all, the "NDAs, dear boy!" strategy won't work forever.

Hi MyIPA, what you say more reflects a problem with how the BoD write RNSs: if it raises more questions than it answers then it wasnt a very good effort.

What doesn't help is that the BoD have form for only stating things they can spin positively, sitting on "bad" info for as long as possible, and phrasing things in a deliberately vague way. Almost like they just don't want to be clear and upfront with shareholders.

It's no wonder people interpret no news as being bad news, as if anything happened that the BoD could tell us was "good", guaranteed we would hear about it.

*doesn't equate, lil

A fair few errors on that.

Alleged bid does equate to stated pence per share, 20th Dec 23 announcement from EUA? Nope.

The only thing ringing true is the board remaining silent since. Defo believe that part...!

Hi chimp

Yes, next AGM will no doubt be in July. That is month 7 of 2024, so is 7 months away.

As that seemed to confuse you, I hope it helps clarify the timescale it was *obvious* CS meant.

Just like I said 3 months ago.

GLA

19th September I said:

"On and for the sale hopefully "this year" I would take to mean the same as placing authority: said at AGM, runs until next AGM, so July 24"

Going by the shareholder calendar, if they announce a sale before the next AGM that is still "this year"

Relax folks, it was *obvious* CS meant that!

Happy New Year

Afternoon all

Mr Wolfe, you are forgetting the other option the BOD have, which is to get the authority to place shares they didnt secure at the last AGM.

Either by calling an EGM like they did a few years back (remember "strengthening their negotiating position"?) or getting the Annual Report and accounts out by the end of Q1 and calling an AGM.

To my mind there's no reason why they can't do the latter - how hard can it be to account for near zero activity?? However I'm more inclined that the BoD will go down the EGM route if they need funds to cover the period up to the usual "last minute" for the annual report.

Or they could issue the accounts earlier than last minute and call an AGM at Easter time. It would give them something to do at least.