Member Info for shychap

They have to pay the going rate when they bring in experienced miners but many of the personnel are trained on site with no prior experience so they earn a lot less. The lack of experience in the workforce has allegedly been a major contributor to their downfall.

Bad timing given today's RNS. Insiders obviously knew long before we did.

No surprise there. This has been a box-ticking exercise leading to a pre-planned administration – which will surely be confirmed this week.

There hasn't been enough selling to warrant the share slide so it looks as though the MMs are trying a tree shake to pick some shrapnel up for their satchel. So I too added 10,000 shares today and in the absence of any change in the company's guidance, I'm ready to buy more if the SP drops further. I also happen to think that Nexus is a standout acquisition for a predator - for around double today's market cap.

I don't think it's necessary or kind for the lucky few who sold at the right time to remind everyone else at this moment.

Failing to meet targets/forecasts isn't a crime, even if it happens repeatedly. Intentionally misrepresenting key facts to investors and lenders would be fraudulent but first you need to prove it. Some of the misdemeanours which *can* be proven are:

1. Fake new gold vein discovery news;

2. Fake first gold pour;

3. Misleading Edinburgh investor presentation;

4. Mining outside the Cononish permit area;

5. Discrepancies between reported and actual production numbers.

Too vague. Which "facts and figures" are you citing?

And while the chairman's AGM comment looks dodgy - especially in hindsight - it's not a crime. There are many legitimate reasons why the BoD might not want to reveal some information to shareholders.

To mount a credible challenge, you need proof of misdemeanours. I believe that SGZ have scammed shareholders, lenders and suppliers left right and centre by making promises they knew they couldn't deliver. But a judge will need to be convinced that SGZ set out to deceive and were not simply (and repeatedly) incompetent, error-prone and/or unlucky. I think there is enough evidence to persuade a court that the fake news spike was an intentional scam so I would go for the low-hanging fruit.

But if you can list some proven misdemeanours which can't be excused by incompetence, etc, let's build a case.

Waste of time without proof of misdemeanours…but anyone who bought shares between 40-66p on the fake news spike earlier this year does have a case against the company since there is evidence from the BBC that the fake news was delivered to them by the former CEO who was preparing for another fund raise. By the time any claim for damages gets to court, the PLC will probably have long ceased to exist but its former directors should still be liable.

Https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd-1i0bFEv4

BP - this is a pre-administration ritual. They need to show that they have explored all the options in order to pre-empt creditor and shareholder activism when the guillotine falls. Basically, this ritual gives them a defence against daylight robbery when the mine thrives under new (private) owners.

Not much new in there other than a plan to transition to top-down open stoping - and a hint that they may be looking for a scapegoat in their review of last year's mine power upgrade (which they trumpeted as a success at the time). Their lifeline funding negotiations are still described as "highly uncertain" - but imho retail shareholders will be shafted even if they secure funding.

"• Cash position at 30 June 2023: £7.8 million (30 June 2022: £6.68 million)

• Cash position as at 31 August 2023: £9.36 million which includes $4 million upfront milestone payment from Haleon plc"

----------------

Forget the $4m milestone - the bad news is that cash fell from £7.8m to £6.3m in two months (July and August) so they appear to be burning £0.75m per month.

"This man put a lot of cash into the company.I ask myself,was he as thick as mince and led by the directors or was he complicit in the end game."

=====

Baz, I can see various possibilities:

1. He was as thick as mince and fell for the spiel.

2. He was paid to ramp the stock.

3. He was paid for other building/on-site services.

4. He was paid for organising site visits.

Hard to say for sure but he was unnaturally keen to recruit mug punters to visit the mine and he did appear to have access to all areas so I would favour 2, 3 or 4. He also seemed to have insider knowledge which led to him erasing his social media accounts and abandoning the forums so it looks like he was running scared of something.

BP - directors' shares, like yours, will be worthless. But in the event of, say, a pre-pack administration, the directors could all be granted shares in a new 'Phoenix' ScotgoldCo - unlike you.

Take your pick from the likely options but I think pre-pack administration looks favourite:

https://www.phoenix-business.co.uk/?gclid=CjwKCAjwu4WoBhBkEiwAojNdXrm9FAhidgJTQqMUImLr4PA1HQk_9iAEvrwBcdzW-MgxZDtcMsJfAxoCpyMQAvD_BwE

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.