Member Info for rustybucket

I won't go into accounts, I promised I wouldn't. I am not concerned, I am concerned that they do deals like agreeing to buy TEMI without putting it to shareholders first. Even the RNS says buy 25% of TEMI why doesn't it just say the part of TEMI we don't already own.

I am still concerned we do not know anything about the owners of the other 25% because if some of it is paid in shares we have a new shareholder, who might potentially be new supporters for the existing board, if not already connected.

Now let me get things straight I am not saying we shouldn't buy the other 25% of TEMI, It is like being married having joint finances and then going out and buying a Rolls Royce without knowing how you were actually going to pay for it.

As for tanking the SP, Sorry you have to be joking, The FTSE 100 last time I noticed was well down, also its Friday, not normally a good day fro dog, and as I have said numerous times, 7% swings in the olden days were regular. In fact I have seen a 20% swing in one day. POG has always been volatile.

Just as an extra for expenditure they did post that they expected $65 to 75m capex due to new flotation plant at Pioneer and further exploration work ) I would suggest the majority of that would be forward loaded as they are saying Pioneer might be operational later in the year.

My opinion for what its wirth AISC 1000 I think that is realistic although it could be lower with rouble and oil price,

Any other items, yes there is any purchases of third party concentrate, we have not got a clue how much they ave bought and how much they have paid, so I would suggest unless you are a fly in the boardroom, or the auditors looking at the figures impossible to forecast,

They always seem to be able to find a way to pay some fees possibly on the deal for TEMI, I.E Financial advisers.

So I think to speculate is futile. There are a number who have already made wild forecasts and it would be interesting to hear their thoughts. What about the money they "supposedly got back after lending it to IRC ???

As for auditors if they did need to visit the site, I wonder why they didn't use the afore mentioned helicopter.

deebo12 Seriously, you think this is shenanigans, this is nothing, I have posted about these for months only to be shot down, now all of a sudden people getting upset about the accounts being late,

If this is the only problem we have to address, full steam ahead.

Whosnext They have supposedly indicated that it would be funded through, either shares, cash and shares or maybe my a rights issue. I am sure if they did as you have indicated there would be a reasonable take up of that.

Personaly, I think if they were to do that they would appoint " book runners " to do this "at a cost to the company " and at a discounted rate. " Mates Rates " I am with you, and feel that it should be offered to existing shareholders first.

I dont blame the company on the price that was agreed though, because, at the time, it looked like a fair price based on SP AT THE TIME. Things have moved on though, so rightly it was withdrawn.

I do think the company should look at all options though and not rush this. And as I have posted previously, based on some of the bullish comments on here about potential cash resources, they should be able to purchase with loose change. I have never been as bullish about the cash resources, because we dont know what has been spent on third party concentrate. More dialogue needed, in my opinion, from the company.

And, just for the benefit of the board. I am not going to have another discussion on this, as I bothered to ask the questions from Investor relations, they replied within 5 minutes, and I was satisfied with their reply. If you are others are not happy with this take it up with Investor relation the company or the FCA. Not ME !!!!.

Mikese1 from your post. The FCA strongly requests all listed companies observe a moratorium on the publication of preliminary financial statements for at least two weeks. So they request it, the company does it. In my opinion not a big deal. I repeat MY OPINION. If you or others dont agree fine.

The reality is, if results were not going to be similar to what they have alluded to they have MANDATORY obligation to report this. It is called a " PROFIT WARNING " The have NOT done this.

So I am not concerned, if any of you are, theres always the sell button.

These are different times, No one knows where the stock market will go. If we eradicate corona virus we may get back to some sort of normailty. You say the stock market has risen quite a bit, The stock market also fel dramatically and is no where near where it was. Good luck.

2227, So Investor relations say, In light of the impact of COVID-19, the FCA has written to all London listed companies requesting that they observe a moratorium on the publication of financial statements for a period of at least two weeks. Last year, Petropavlovsk reported its FY financials on 24 April.

So you are saying, either, investor relations, the FCA, or both, are lying or you know more than them both.

Somehow, I believe investor relations rather than you. Its a fortnight or so. In my opinion no big deal. The only thing I would say, is if this is the case, a simple RNS to say the same should have allayed any fears people had.

PVX233 Its no issue at all when they have been told thats what they have to do. Onwards and upwards.

Yes Freddie, I knew that but some people read what they want.

I just wanted to put a more positive spin on this because I did not believe there was anything untoward and I know from past experience they are good at replying at Investor Relations.

Reply with 5 minutes.

Viktoriya Kim
Thu 30/04/2020 15:33
Dear Investor,
Thank you for your email. In light of the impact of COVID-19, the FCA has written to all London listed companies requesting that they observe a moratorium on the publication of financial statements for a period of at least two weeks. Last year, Petropavlovsk reported its FY financials on 24 April.

As such, moving our results by two weeks to mid-May is the likely scenario and I would encourage you to check the Financial Calendar page of the company's website, which we will update shortly, once a final publication date has been agreed with our auditors. https://www.petropavlovsk.net/investors/financial-calendar/
Kind regards,
Viktoriya Kim
Investor Relations Officer
PETROPAVLOVSK PLC 11 Grosvenor Place, London, SW1X 7HH Direct: +44 20 7201 8921 Switchboard: +44 20 7201 8900

If people are concerned, rather than whingeing on a bulletin board why dont they either, E Mail or ring investor relations. This one part of the company that normally works well. They are normally quite quick to respond.

I have never said I have no faith in management, I have some faith, but, I am still not convinced that Pavel puts shareholders and other stakeholders on the same footing as that of his own.

I would also suggest that major financial institutions have had the same doubts as they have been voted down a number of times. I know it will never happen, but I would love to have either a 1 to 1 conversation with him, or a question and answer session. All I ask for is transparency. Now, on the question of the rights issue, it could well have been that they did have positive conversations then the bondholders realised the strength they had and forced there hand. I would like to know why he left previously I believe, take up a position in Russian government, and then why he came back. The shareholdings of both Peter and Pavel have been a cloak and dagger exercise often underpinned by Put and Call options. I remember Peter Hombres lapsed. I also remember he also put his shares up for security and gambled and lost on the price of gold, thereby losing his shares.

I also remember them advising they were going to underwrite the rights issue. After this time there was all the things with the put and call options, and a number of different RNS relating to large shareholdings and voting rights changing hands. Then there was the TEMI Purchase. Should this have not been put to a vote, BEFORE they agreed to the transaction. And why is it so difficult to trace who we are dealing with, and why is it classed as an "at arms transaction" The results always need to be dissected and the production forecast is made up as they go along. Again I remember one year we were short of the production target but were able " to ramp up production" to nearly reach the target. Well, if they are able to ramp up production then, why can't they now. So on that basis, why am I invested. Well, you said it yourself, this company was near the FTSE100 Supposedly doing well, making money, and paying dividends. With the POX hub I believe we are in an even better position now and there is no reason they can not get back to or above the level they were before. But, I have said it many times. This is POG, expect the unexpected, and there are always companies like Sapinda waiting in the wings to try and derail us. Again I said at the time, and I will say again, I never wanted Sapinda in charge and believe that they would have virtually wiped shareholders out. Pavel has a bit of skin in the game. So hopefully we can get back to where we were ( at a minimum ) Sorry for long post.

The bod of M and s would be transparent. ( I hope ) The problem with this board ( and that probably isnt correct as a lot of the board have not been there all the time ) is that they talk in riddles. They are very selective with the whole truth. Why oh why do we not know who we are dealing with. Why did they make he deal without sharehoder approval anyway. ???

I believe if there had been more communication about the possible benefactors or exactly how they proposed to fund it, it might have been looked at more favourably. We should not have to rely on a communication with Pavel and Reuters.
We should be able to deal in facts.

PVZ123, How long have you been a shareholder ??? Long termers know the phraseology of the board. It is not always the way they say it.

A prime example is share price not that much below £1, comments from board, discussions with te bondholders are " going well" only for the bondholders to hold us to ransom, and the company having to rescued in a 15.7 for 1 rights issue @ 5p. They then advise they are underwriting the rights issue , then a number of RNS relating to put and call options and different banks I believe Pacific something, which it later transpired Peter Hambro had some sort of influence over. I also remember some fundraising, where the new board, after Peter and pavel were ousted, advised that Pavel was proposing a bonds issue yet either he was going to receive money from it or it was going to cost extra millions to the company. Cant remember the exact scenario. I also remember Pavel reduced the output predictions before he was ousted, then when he managed to oust the new board he came out and advised production would be increased and it was all down to him. There have been many others.

I have always said, and I repeat as long as this company is run properly, for the benefit of ALL stakeholders, it will be run fine. But there seems to me to be another hurdle around every corner. Wwhy are they not just transparent on how much cash they have rather than people having to play guessy games ???

And some of the wild forecasts about how much cash they do actually have are purely guesswork. I will give you a prime example. We lent IRC the money. They repaid us when IRC was refinanced. What happened to that money. I remember us buying a helicopter from IRC not too long ago. I am sure the helicopter is being well used ( not )

In my opinion very good news. I agree and have said this from the outset, they need to be more transparent about the potential beneficiary of new shares. They cant just say its an arms length deal. I dont blame them for the price agreed, as KenJ has already stated this was agreed beforehand. But this has changed massively since them, and hopefully in another year we will be able to pay it al in cash. If gold price stays high, they should be very cash generative. Time wilL tell. This is POG.

Retired Banker, surely that depends on how they fund the deal. There are supposed to be a number of options and one thing that was supposed to be said by Pavel was 50% being paid in Cash. I still can't see why if Gazprobank can't supply the money, based on forward purchases of gold secured against the fields of gold supposed to be with TEMI, like when they lent us the money to give to IRC, ". Why they can't buy some forward priced gold in order for us just to buy TEMI in cash.

Surely a plot of land paved with gold is better than lending money to what you call : " The basket case ) your words, IRC.

And if some of the forecasters on here were correct, from the cash resources they have built up/ If only it was so simple. This is POG, Nothing is ever simple.

Hey, whats the matter with Newcastle United Lol.

PVX123, I am glad you did start the discussion on CEY, As there are a lot of good comparisons. I think the main one, is we have the pox hub. It cost a fortune to build over a long period of time, fast forward 5 years, hopefully we will be in a position where we have cash reserves and a lot of the borrowing will be repaid.

I would say the big difference is the way the results are presented. I have been a shareholder in POG for many years, POG has a history of changing the goalposts. But before the pox hub, we were profitable and paid a dividend.. With the resources we have now we should be in a position to amass cash quickly. You would assume that Pavel sees more benefit in buying 25% of TEMI rather than just buying concentrate. They will know the figures.

As always I just hope that this is been done for the benefit of all shareholders rather than at "mates rate" to his chums.