Member Info for oldspursfan

Speaking of EGMs, the Board would need to call one anyway if they want to issue new shares in a placing this side of June. They didn't get the authority to do this at the last AGM.

I think Rossy you still need to read between the lines, they've stated their current operations do not breach existing sanctions. Their current operations involve not mining and not selling concentrate, which has been the case all year, so its unsurprising it doesn't breach anything.

I still object to their suggestion its all their decision, plainly it isn't, as no sensible company would halt all means of getting cash in, whilst pursuing a sale strategy where there is low visibility and no heads of terms agreement. Unless their means of getting cash in falls foul of sanctions.

Anyway it seems like there is no alternative means of generating shareholder value for the foreseeable, and cash runs out after q1. Still think the board should forego their salaries until a sale is agreed or sanctions lifted, as they arent doing anything to justify claiming a regular wage. Maybe only once they have spaffed whatever cash remains by lining their own pockets, will they then consider that.

Initial market reaction speaks volumes sadly.

Hate to say it Mr Wolfe, but 20 years ago is still 21st century, not 1980s...

Exactly, should be interesting, and best to go in with no expectations. Picturing the game being played 95% in the middle third and breaking the record for the number of offsides.

That's if our backup defenders are good enough. GL and may the best (or least worst) team win!

Evening Icarus!

We've lost (literally) a couple of our key players, so you're effectively playing our C team.

Every chance, mate but I'll settle for predicting whatever the opposite of a defensive masterclass is...!

Is this a new competition Toffers?

Guess the next item from the list that Toffers will latch onto as potentially company-destroying, and spam about relentlessly?

So far as I recall, I'm the only one (so far) who suggested that when CS said he was hopeful of a sale "this year" at the last AGM, he most likely meant in the 12 months before the 2024 AGM, i.e. similar to the resolutions up for voting.

I don't call that "hanging on CS words" more a recognition he says things with a heavily positive spin, and it helps to think about what else it could mean.

They are defo not the words I woudl use toffers, but the proposal is from a buyer, so not sure where your analogy is going?

Also, refer to subsequent RNSs mentioning this in the context of triggering Rule 15 and potential significant dividend, and something more than just 'wishy washy' would have to have been discussed, albeit subject to DD (probably).

The devil is in the semantics, as was ever thus with CS.

A proposal for an acquisition, to me, is an offer. A proposal for a POTENTIAL acquisition, however bad the phraseology is, suggests a step earlier e.g. subject to due diligence for instance. DD that was announced as completed and....?

MrYFronts

Technically the offer you refer to wasn't an "offer" but instead a "... proposal from a credible party for the potential acquisition of substantially all of Company's assets." CS is far more woolly than you give him credit for!

Also CS has stated in the aftermath of that that there were "no material offers" - though I strongly suspect he pulled the word material out of his backside just before that AGM to make it sound better than "no offers". No evidence since then to suggest any formal offers have come in, material or otherwise.

Toffers the main argument of the Q&M case was that EUA were in breach of their own Articles. Tomlin is a no fault/no judgement contract order, so no, this Order does not mean the "main argument" has been won, as no judgement has been made to that effect.

Tiffintip

It's positive in the sense that a way forward is now in place. This dispute may well look unprofessional, how tf did it get this far etc. But I never saw it as the existential threat others (well, one poster) did.

And it's not so much I don't see a sale happening. Right now it's all at a stalemate, we don't want to mine the MT license area, seem reluctant to further prove up anything, yet nobody appears willing to offer anything to take it off our hands.

Whether the eventual end of the war helps or not is one thing, but the above situation precedes the war by some way. I for one would like the DFS published to see if there is anything explaining it (depths grades economics to mine etc.)

Ultimately, if we couldn't sell a pgm-rich plot of mineable land in the middle of a PGM boom, and we don't want to mine it ourselves, what exactly is the way forward??

Moreover, Toffers whats worrying is you said that:

> bankrupting a company for a procedural dispute over a share certificate with a major shareholder,

> wiping out the claimants shareholding in the process, and

> issuing a winding up order for a debt that has been publicly stated as being in dispute and hasn't appeared in the Gazette (now 14 working days later)

..are all things you would do, and suggested others would do the same. Personally, with that level of impartiality and integrity, I'm rather glad you decided the legal profession wasn't for you. Please stop besmirching the characters of those that are still there.

No he doesn't have discretionary power to issue the WUP order as due process is not complete.

"Essentially, the WUP is issued, served, advertised seven working days later in The Gazette, and is then heard at court, where it is either dismissed or approved." - from the Gazette itself.

As it has not been advertised to date, 13 working days after 25 October, and EUA have stated publicly in RNS form it is in dispute, by what authority will the order be issued?

There's discretionary authority, then there is riding roughshod over due process, the latter of which you are (seriously?) suggesting he will do, when hearing another case.

Toffers I have read the particulars and disagree with your interpretation for the reasons I have set out. If the judge at their own discretion wants to create a lose-lose outcome and grant Q&M a worthless piece of paper, that could be a risk, but not one I see happening.

The BoD have enough questions to answer to justify their wages for the last couple of years, without your incessant and increasingly hysterical "musings" clogging up the BB and distracting from it. Sadly by posting hundreds of times you are inviting ridicule and, worse of all, giving credibility to those who do not deserve it: Welchers like IKN, and DR with his fantasies of insider knowledge.

We all know your views, now until something happens, please, dial it tf down.

Toffers, we've been through this ffs.

So given the damages sought are spelt out in the particulars, and relate solely to extra costs of securing any additional indemnity (to be assessed), you are basically hanging your hat on this "further or other relief" to include a hypothetical sale scenario that was neither suggested nor asked for?

Can you explain on what planet it makes sense for a judge to decide in Q&Ms favour, then say "you will get your share certificate, and depite not asking for it, I will now bankrupt that company, to make those shares worthless. You're welcome."

This is why I do not see this case as existential threat, as it makes no sense, except for lawyer fees which you care about, but nobody else does.

Oh, and its now WD13 since the 25 October. Maybe tomorrow then...?

Toffers you've read the particulars of claim for the QM case and could easily dismiss Ti Boy's concerns as being complete rubbish.

Indeed you could have spelled out that QM claim they were offered a transfer arrangement similar to AC, but declined it (and complain in their particulars that this was pressure from EUA to sell when they didn't want to).

Moreover, you could acknowledge that this should prevent any judge awarding a "hypothetical sale situation" as part of any potential damages, when this is explicitly not being claimed.

But no, instead we get your "musings" again.

Maybe tomorrow...

Ok, fair enough we don't have an exact date to work with, but (for it to be in the Gazette tomorrow) doesn't 6 working days to issue and waiting until the last moment to publish seem a little slow? You admit Gowlings are being a lot slower than you would be, especially with the WUP announcement being publisiced with a date of 25 October.

At some point, Gowlings will "time out", proving that something has happened behind the scenes. That something would not be company-destroying granted, so you may not want to admit it, but will you make this week the last one you keeping banging this drum? Or will these "7 working days" in your mind extend until Christmas and beyond?

Out of curiosity Toffers, as Friday just gone was the 12th working day following Weds 25 October, which is the only WUP-based date we have been given, how do you make it that the "7 working days" aren't up until Monday or Tuesday coming?

If it doesn't appear, will you just keep with your "Maybe tomorrow..." mantra? How long for?

It's like The Littlest Hobo, only less entertaining...

It's not (necessarily) that the BoD are clowns. This is just symptomatic of them staying silent rather than saying anything bad.

It's been like this for years, every RNS has to be spun positively, or they say nowt. Nothing bad has ever happened according to the RNSs, and this is just another case of something negative that has to be dragged out of them, and dressed up as "speculation" despite it a) being true, and b) being in the public domain already.

Its the lack of openness that's killing sentiment - what else is going on, that they have not (yet) said?