Member Info for Shedulike

Well I'll agree with that if we can manage to cut out the pointless grandstanding, everybody has had a lot say positive and negative over the years. I do think that given the limited funds raised, the wages have to be addressed urgently and I include the Non-Exec's in that.

Highside what you are describing there is something of a Pyrrhic victory. I'm not certain where the madness lies, in some posters having similar feelings now to the ones you have expressed for years (in whatever guise) or the fact that you didn't listen to what you were telling yourself.

Okay Prop's no problem - I think we'll have a clearer picture good or bad by the end of the month.

On a serious point Prop's I don't think the cr*pness of the situation corporately and in the SP negates anyones right to point out a positive where they see it. Personally I'm looking at our rock that hasn't gone away and the fact that successful field work has meant that Toral has never been closer to being proven a viable mine. I'm worried that having engaged outside help we still couldn't execute a transaction, there were doubts about AH at the time of his appointment, I didn't know anything about him but didn't like the 'advisory' role and non-disclosed rem from the outset, how were we to be confident that our interests were aligned? Not making any allegations about what happened because I don't know but I always worried that any deal would be lucrative for an advisor. Ideally I'd like to see a Non Exec come in, maybe from these new investors if they come with a proven track record of mining transactions with the remit to focus solely on finding value generating funding. They could be given options and remunerated by trimming the rewards to the rest of the Board, perhaps with EK vacating.

Blimey you're really on a roll now Prop's, geddit?

Bricks my best guess is that DB wanted less than 5p. They have supported the company three times now and only de-risked after the first time they came on board, logically they are as unhappy as us and have clout. Just guesswork but I think the 5p level could have been worse and the clue is in the options given to Bennelong Corporate. Just my thoughts not trying to gloss anything.

Add BZT to that list re. CB. I have to agree CHRI5P whatever the rights and wrongs I'm certain the big players get the answers they want before essentially propping the company up. Looking at the accounts I think we need to acknowledge that the cash balance in the June accounts wasn't healthy and by October we were looking at another quarter of cash burn so personally without a corp deal or elusive grant something was needed. I will never defend our Exec's floating the 'value event' before delivering it, how many investors moved on that before getting stuffed while they draw healthy salaries + benefits so I'm as annoyed as anyone here.

Half time, Eng look a bit flaky to me, think there's more to come from Oz and contrary to what 'Flat's' says I don't like these grinning internationals. Never saw a Gloucester pack in the 80's grin until they were in the bar with a win ground out (don't talk to me about nowadays). Brickz I think I said a week or so ago that the voting will be interesting. I think if the big boys want LR gone then he's toast but I'm guessing if that's what they wanted then his resignation would have been a condition of supporting the placing.

Mfm I have to concede there is a possibility that it is BS but I've made my own personal judgement call based on my own instincts, I could be wrong but if I thought it was indeed BS I'd be out of here. Mm's I've been careful not to say anything that LR hasn't said publicly, the late in the day failure of one particular potential transaction was mentioned in the last interview. My feelings about the use of certain advisors is my own speculation as is my belief that the corporate strategy is likely to be linked to the new investors. Going back to mfm's comment it isn't unusual to be in multiple discussions, they have always said there are multiple NDA's, nobody has exclusivity. Before I go back to the rugby I'm not privy to anything relevant that isn't in the public domain just reporting my own thoughts based on what we all know and a judgement call on integrity that I've made after going to the company for answers. As I said earlier I don't want to influence anyone as there is no golden scenario about to unfold that I know about for certain so if I was going to give advice it would be to go with your own instincts. Based on the history of the company they have completely failed to deliver a value accretive funding solution to date so I admit it is a leap of faith to think they're going to do it in the future. All I can say is I genuinely think it is their intention and I still believe it is possible.

As I understand it the transaction that fell through isn't the only discussion being advanced hence the strategy of seeking a deal that would, if successful, represent a value event is still ongoing. I don't know exactly why it fell through just that they sound extremely frustrated by what happened. I'm not making any allegations, and this is only my opinion, but if they were happy with the work delivered by advisors wouldn't they be continuing with that approach? I understand your feelings Bricks, I'm far from happy also, I just don't see a practical alternative, perhaps the rugby result has given you something to smile about? Watching Tuilagi on the wing for England might give the Aussies a laugh to! If CJ is looking in I'd also like the question put as to what the 'fees' were that completely transformed their remuneration way, way above their salaries. That reminds me I had been wondering if there is a way in which we can cover CJ's expenses as a group. I'm sure if everyone who has asked him to table a question chucked in a tenner we'd be able to at least not leave him out of pocket for the train, taxi, subsistence, poison-tipped umbrella - dam I've blown the plan!

Teaye, good to see some level headedness amidst all the fury (which I completely understand by the way). Having made my enquiries I am satisfied that there was a transaction on the brink of agreement before it bit the dust. I also believe that LR & MC didn't want to dilute and don't follow the logic of the placing being done cynically for the benefit of the new investors. Teaye, I would be interested after your own questioning if you feel the same way or if you detect anything that suggests to you that the above doesn't add up. For me, if you look at it the other way round ie. There never was a potential deal and everything has been orchestrated to line the pockets of this new bunch it doesn't look credible given the scrutiny applied to RNS's by the Nomad who have allowed 'that' strategy statement to be reiterated. I'm not without cynicism as to how rigorously the rules are applied on AIM but I do believe Strand Hanson have a reputation to protect, and don't see their motivation for allowing it through unless they were satisfied. All that doesn't mean that this it isn't a cr*p situation for shareholders but I haven't seen a credible alternative put forward, there just has to be a plan proposed, if for example the larger holders had a proposition for change I'd be happy to consider it but voting LR out without a strategy for change just looks like retribution and desperation. I wouldn't be against CB returning as CH, I always saw him as the deal maker and who knows could the transaction have been successful with his experience? It might be worth remembering however that when the mistakes were initially made in the SS (which put the SP on the back foot ever since IMO) CB was a Director and so part of that failure. There is also this possible issue of having foreign Directorships and eligibility for EU grants but I'm not certain about that. So am I happy? No obviously not but I haven't lost trust in the intentions of the Board though I am thoroughly disappointed in their performance on the corporate front. So all in all it does feel a bit like last chance saloon which is not a great situation but if I had lost hope that this can be turned around I would retrieve my now depleted investment instantly and move it to better performing stocks. Obviously I accept that there is still high risk but given the upside case of Toral the asset, the balance of risk / reward remains compelling. I do plan to top up but have set a target below 5p, if there's no positive news before the AGM I expect to get that if not then hopefully we can begin the recovery without me maintaining my % holding. Finally I haven't posted this to try and influence anyone either in their voting or investment decisions I just thought I'd put my head above the parapet having done my research and thought things over.

Grappa - didn't someone find something about Directors holding additional non-EU Directorships making the company ineligible for EU grants? May have been Bricks, but it was posited as a possible reason for CB's departure. The CDTI grant/loan did land a couple of months after CB left.

Interesting post Mailgirl, hope the 'life issues' aren't too serious, unless I've missed it that's the first post to suggest that it's all very well having hot headed plans for retribution against the current board but without a plan for an alternative it's a dangerous game. For the record I'm outraged that a 'value event' was hinted at before we got the worst placing yet, but I also haven't lost sight of good operational progress and strong in-country relationships diligently nurtured. So despite my anger I can still see the foundations on which value might finally be returned to shareholders and am concerned at the complete absence of any strategy other than hitting back at LR. I realise that many PI's are that PO'd that they're happy to attempt to take revenge and create a vacuum in which anything could happen but for me that feels like making my high risk investment even more vulnerable. So think it through, what happens if we do remove LR? There isn't an orderly shareholder group to forward a replacement. If anyone has a coherent plan I'd be interested to hear it but nothing I've read so far suggests that there is a plan other than tipping all our high risk /reward investments into even greater uncertainty.

Newbie I think that was Lloydy, I wouldn't be seen dead in Eastleigh :) Funnily enough I was thinking about that the other day and meant to ask LR about it. Naturally I am down about events generally but the funding shortfall to deliver the PFS has been staring us in the face all year so while the 5p price is desperate, the raise was hardly a surprise once hope around the 'value event' fizzled out. I'm keeping an open mind on couple of matters that I find encouraging but given the situation I don't feel inclined to express any positive opinion with everyone bar these new investors underwater.

I very much doubt that WAI will release any information. From their point of view their client is Europa Metals who they report to, who then report to us (eventually) I'm afraid. Certainly there is a lot of metallurgy due but as ever it won't rerate us until we know what's happening corporately.

"Stage 2 work will see Toral continue to be used as a live testing environment by the partnership as the University of Salamanca continues its analysis and any future commercial benefit from an eventual product will be shared by the partners. On completion of the Stage 2 work, currently estimated to occur during 2022, a third, and final, tranche of €144,792.37 will then be available for draw down subject to a review by the CDTI confirming that the requisite criteria of the innovation programme have been met'. I agree that a deep drilling campaign is unrealistic without a third party agreement of some kind, I remember MC stating this publicly so no bombshell.

They haven't finished drilling at Toral. Next up is a geotechnical survey "To assess key areas for future plant location and potential tailings storage facilities". I also think if they do achieve some form of third-party agreement they will go straight into a deep campaign to extend where the high grade area is closed off and also explore the copper.

It does look like the ask should be 6p with a mid of 5.75p rather than the SP being shown as 6p. Still interesting that it is holding about the placing price so far, I notice UFO did the traditional thing and promptly drop below their placing level. I was expecting an opportunity below 5p here to be honest. Perhaps if we get a good operational RNS with a round of interviews I'll get my sub 5p :)

Maybe WHI first coverage? No price target but they note the low capex and obvious potential for LOM extension.

Would be interesting to know if the three parties with a stake in this potential corrective drilling software have any idea what it might be worth should it prove effective. Probably not worth adding to CJ's list as there are more pressing concerns.