Member Info for RuudDawg

I don't see why not.

Am I (and subst in his 6.39 post) reading this right, that even though you prev said Bonnar told you Millenium was terminated as a result of adverse BB comments/links re Minmet/Tucumcari etc he still thinks Millenium will rise in price? So instead of reporting the suspicion of a scam he's prepared to go along with it so as to get a better price for his shares? Pls correct me if I'm reading your post incorrectly!

The registrar for the new exchange will go by the registered holdings on AIM and will allocate shares pro-rata in much the same way as happens with share consolidations and dividend payouts. No need to worry about that particular aspect IMHO.

re his Millenium shares if they've got his address as I think this needs answering ASAP? (They're not answering mails sent to enquiries@snrplc.com address on their web site - I asked them about the 90 days repayment period FWIW, although it was b4 no new Nomad RNS).

Thanks for your reply and tip. Funnily enough, I only saw your reply when it showed 2 posts on thread. It seems LSE has decided for me that you're worth ''filtering'' .....a case of your reputation preceding you? LOL

Some posts seem to have gone missing for me as I can't see why ''Wanderlust 1'' is being referred to. Would someone pls be kind enough to do a copy and paste for last 2 days for discussion involving him. TIA

Still thinking of Mav2's 5.34 post, and realising that ''beggars can't be choosers'', do others agree that we should either make an all-out effort to get finance/people in place and run the mine properly or, alternatively, sell it and diversify (but not into another Millenium). I can't help feeling we should only concentrate on 1 project, particularly when trying to do just that has been so problematic. Talk of doing both seems fraught with problems IMHO.

So whilst he may have been duped, he clearly had his eyes elsewhere when he should have been DDing the transaction. Does he now have to return these shares or is he free to profit from them - if someone's intending to phone him, I think we'd like to know the answer!

Mav2, thanks for your update, I presume after a chat with Gavin Bonnar? So it was BOD rather than Nomad who insisted on unwinding of the deal? Are they confident of getting the £660k back, and why did they give 90 days grace for it to happen? Did we try for a Nomad or was it deemed futile / a case of trying to save £ whilst putting the management team in place? TIA

I realise that our BODs never did us any favours , to put it mildly, by appointing those involved in Millenium fiasco or being an integral part of it, but do we have a legit complaint against a Nomad seeing as they've probably ruined any change of us getting anything back by not even giving us a chance to put things right (which we seemed to be in process of doing!) We were, after all, still a going concern with £660K due to come in. Can we do anything re above point?

This whole fiasco should be looked into, but probably won't be knowing AIM - something, I guess, certain individuals are 'banking on'.

Totally stunned by today's news. Clearly the Millenium deal did for us, and I guess having 2 Target men still on board hardly helped our cause re new Nomad. Did Millenium refuse to rescind trade and repay £ for too long when potential Nomad may have asked for early termination of it, only doing so when Nomad wouldn't budge and too late in the proceedings? Similarly, were the 3 months BOD gave them to repay too long for new Nomad? Did new Nomad ask for all Target men to resign? Only hope in getting anything back is with Gavin Bonnar - it's in his interests too with his substantial holding.

I suspect we'll get an after-hours RNS today, with resumption of trading tomorrow, so as much info as poss is out in the open in an effort to create an orderly market. I can't believe there is no provision for an extension to the deadline if permission is sought, eg for above reason, if something material may occur shortly after it elapses.

Great news, and almost-certainly a re-listing b4 deadline.

True....but does it mean that they can automatically ask to undo transactions that they and Allenby wouldn't have permitted had they been asked? Will they want everyone involved in the fiasco replaced or is the MacDonald resignation sufficient? (assuming it's at their request rather than result of adverse publicity!) Do they or Allenby have an obligation to refer Millenium issue to Stock Exchange? Does anybody have power to rescind deal under threat of legal action should £ not be returned? Or will they simply ignore previous shenanigans, save for 1 resignation prev mentioned, and start with a 'clean' sheet?

Your point being?

Mav2, based on what you've heard, will Millenium transaction be allowed to stand?

They're certainly updating the web site re recent departures so still hope, as you suggest. As a 'spotlight' has recently been shone on Co., thanks to recent shenanigans, does it mean a greater chance of undoing of Millenium deal, possibly at request of a new nomad? Might we get back the £400K just as we got back the £260K, esp if possibility of an investigation? Does anyone have power to get back the £400k if Aronson refuses? Any precedents here?

That's strange.....I must admit that I thought Bonnar was appointed just b4 1st July, this being date I 1st became aware of him becoming a director :- http://www.lse.co.uk/share-regulatory-news.asp?shareprice=SNRP&ArticleCode=g897gyd3&ArticleHeadline=Update It's surprising we're only now being told that it was effective 14th May - good spot BTW Substp. ( I'm not discounting fact that I've missed something else re the above too!) I'm still glad we've got a non-Target man on board (literally) even if he perhaps has acted naively, as you suggest.

While we've got Gavin Bonnar there's still hope IMHO - unlike everyone else involved, he's got a sizeable holding in SNRP, and therefore vested interest, and he's not responsible for where we are now.