Blencowe Resources: Aspiring to become one of the largest graphite producers in the world. Watch the video here.
I think the "new finance" discussions are already dead. Why qualify them as *highly* unlikely to bear fruit?
BP - Ofcom are certainly investigating the BBC based on representations made by our mutual friend.
The FCA Market Integrity Unit and AIM Regulation have acknowledged receipt of all the facts and may have already launched their investigations. Action Fraud (formerly Fraud Squad) have been given all the facts but are unlikely to investigate.
At least one of the prime suspects has fled the country of course - and there is every likelihood that the PLC will no longer exist if/when charges are brought. The directors can still be culpable of course and any indemnity clause they may have in their contract won't cover them for this kind of crime.
Perhaps for SGZ Cononish Ltd to continue as a going concern, BP. The chances of Scotgold Resources PLC ever emerging from suspension must be very slim indeed.
You are asking the right question BP as the answer points to the masterplan.
The key word is that this is an "unsecured" creditor. In other words, he doesn't get any preferential treatment or cash in the event of administration or liquidation. This leaves his owed cash plus other assets on the table for the benefit of other stakeholders in the likely scenario that Scotgold enters administration. In that event, only secured creditors will get paid (not necessarily in full) while the unsecured creditors, like the retail shareholders, get nothing.
So who are the unsecured creditors who are being paid interest? Some Scotgold directors have provided unsecured loans but they presumably are all singing from the same hymn sheet and therefore unlikely to force an administration, albeit this isn't guaranteed.
The most likely creditor to be causing trouble - and with good reason - is Fern Wealth whose clients provided £3m of loans to Scotgold secured on nothing more than a "parent company guarantee". Such guarantees can be difficult to enforce in cases like this where the lion's share of total company debt is secured on the assets and liquidation of those assets would not leave the parent company with spare funds to pay off the Free Wealth guarantee.
giving the PCG needs to have the requisite capacity to offer the guarantee or else the provisions of the contract will not come into effect and the guarantee will be void and unenforceable. So in these circumstances, a parent company guarantee wouldn't be worth the paper it was written on.
Another, less likely, scenario might be that someone is interested in buying the company but only if it comes with cash in the bank. If that were the case, Scotgold would cease all discretionary spending to get the deal done. But in this event, the suitor would probably not be interested in buying the PLC and its shareholder baggage so it would be a deal more easily done if Scotgold were to undergo a management buyout or some other form of delisting first.
Yes, NLR has prior form in delisting. Very likely that the unnamed consultants who allegedly carried out the mine review are actually administration/MBO specialists since any other credible consultancy would have been named.
It's an impossible ramp these days, which is presumably why the worst of the pumpers have fled the scene. But back in the day, I didn't notice you complaining about their one-sided posts. For a long time, the rampers conspired to get the negative posters banned leaving the coast clear for unadulterated ramping. Remind me when you complained about the lack of balance then.
There's plenty of balance if the majority of posters are ramping away 100% of the time. Why not criticise them for never commenting on the negatives (of which there have been plenty)?
They haven't been making enough Scottish gold to sell it more widely. That's because it costs them too much to produce it - so much that they can't make a decent profit on it.
Baz, Shylock was right. I don't think RH would say that. Here are some other reviews:
• GeorgeZibbos :
"What an absolute sham. Shylock was right all along."
• yayay :
"I'm now resigned to believing that Mr Shylock may have been right all along."
• Rosewall :
"[His] arguments are coherent. I might add that they are often more coherent than the "rampers."
• Sabzahmed :
"Shylock, you've been warning people about SGZ…My regret is I've been among the few that haven't listened and have topped up several times instead. And now I'm a lot poorer for it."
• malkie :
"much as it pains me I find it difficult to fault your posts."
• VincentVega :
"if you wanted to take somebody to war alongside you with a comprehensive understanding of the risks that you were getting into then shylock would be in the top 3."
• Bigbadbaz :
"Love him or loathe him he definitely does research." (2016)
"Love him or loathe him his predictions were way way more correct than TB's." (2023)
Baz, don't confuse me with wee Graham.
I loved him, baz.
AFAIK, Scotgold have never revealed how much silver they produce. Isn't that odd considering that it's far and away their biggest commercial product by volume?
They need to come clean on this. They weren't spending the cash on the development work they specified in the fundraising RNS's -- and the real picture is even worse because they had varying amounts of gold revenues throughout this period. Where did the money go? And how much is now left? Very reasonable questions, which unfortunately won't be answered by a mine visit or a one-to-one with any director because it's classified as inside information. The next RNS needs to spell it out and be honest (for once) about the likely need for more cash in the foreseeable future. On past form, they won't do this but if they want to rebuild trust, they've got to.
I hope they would throw PIs a bone if they had any to throw. Even one profitable week where they covered all operating and admin costs would be worth shouting about. OTOH, if they still can't get their head above water, the latest cash raise won't last for much longer and they may not be able to raise more unless at a very dilutive level.