Member Info for SocialistB

@Gogol

It is true that when you do a JV, you give up a portion of your asset.

How much you have to give up, depends on the principles of demand and supply and position of strength.

How much does someone want what you got. And how many are willing to put in an offer.

And are you in a position of strength, where you can you say NO. NO. NO. (in the best Thatcher style possible) if the terms are not to your liking.

A few years from now we will have an income stream. Having plenty of money would allow us to say NO, to bad propositions.

We could have chosen to let the tenements lie dormant until then. I am sure not much, if anything will be mined out of the ground for the next 10-15 years by Newcrest anyway.
They will be to busy at Havieron.

So it raises the question. Why make this deal now, if we are not going to get an income from it for the next 10-15 anyway.

And years from now we would be in a position of financial strength to negotiate a higher percentage to our advantage.

Financial the shareholders of Greatland Gold would be better of receiving 50% of the income from Goliath compared to just 25%.

We could literally could have chosen to just wait, but the BOD has decided that they want Newcrest to have it. And it has to be formalized now.

From a financial point of view, we DO NOT NEED to do right now. We could just let it lie dormant.

We could attempt to get an offer you cannot refuse from another bidder, either now or later. (Newcrest would then have first right of refusal)

But waiting and sitting on huge assets also opens us up for a potential hostile take over offer.

@AmBasteir has already indicated he would be happy with pound 1.50

And there would be many like him.

And if there is enough, the bidder will get it their way.

That would mean someone could take over Greatland Gold for a mere 6 Billion or so.

Rather cheap, if you ask me.

So if this move is designed to guard us against that.

Then I tip my hat to to the master mind, while choking on the bitter pill it is to give 75% away

@GGPThruandtru

Thanks for the correction regarding the 5%

If this is a hedge strategy, then the question has to be, is it worth it?

Is it worth giving 75% of several potential Tier 1 targets away?

From yesterday’s RNS:

RNS Number : 8437G
Greatland Gold PLC
30 November 2020

“Newcrest immediately receives a 25% interest in both licences and has the right to earn up to a 75% interest in the licences by spending up to A$20m as part of a two-stage Farm-in over five years, including an A$3m minimum commitment for Stage 1.
Greatland has previously identified a number of high-priority targets across the two licences, many of which display similar geophysical characteristics to the Havieron gold-copper deposit.”
Newcrest can choose to take 5 years to earn the 75%. (but might do it faster) And when they got that percentage they probably also have the power to decide when to start mining the tenements. They could wait a decade, and it might be worth doing so, because there is no advantage to open up a mine in between Goldcycles or right towards the end of a Goldcycle.
So is there an advantage to us holding only 25% of gold in the ground for the next decade or two versus owning it 100%.
Yes and no.
First of, we are loosing a lot of equity this way. Less will be returned to us shareholders from our targets in Paterson Range East and Black Hills.
From that point of view, no it is not worth it.
But over the last 12 month’s there have been many on this board that have expressed their intention / desire to sell at 10-20-30-50-68-80 pence.
For several different reasons:
They have met their target.
They are not getting any younger.
Buy a house, pay of a mortgage.
Rather 1 pound now then 3 pounds in 5 years time.
Would prefer a buyout, so they do not have to, make the choice of when to sell. (exit strategy)

With that in mind. If someone showed up and offered 50 pence next week or 1 pound the following week to take over Greatland Gold, I fear way to many would be happy to oblige.
Giving away this much equity, may actually make it possible for the board to keep Greatland Gold an independent company and drive us towards my desired 3 pounds + dividends for years to come.

But is still hurts like hell, to see 75% being given away.

Was yesterday’s RNS the first revelation of a strategic master stroke?

I hope so.

Yesterday, my first response was utter dismay of giving away 75% of potential several Tier 1 targets, for nothing.
And I do mean nothing. Because the maximal 20 million Newcrest might spend is on proving, that one or more targets, are viable for mining sometime in the future.

So what have we gained by giving 75% away?

1.
It looks like we are going to keep 30% of Havieron. That Newcrest have relinquished their legal right to obtain a further 5% at a fair market price.

On a negotiating strength vs strength analysis, who has the upper hand: Greatland Gold

Calculating the fair value of Havieron, just seem impossible at this stage. As it keeps on giving. Newcrest have an interest in Havieron progressing fast. (okay, so do we as well)
If they had agreed to a fair price, for the 5%, based on 2 or 3 million oz of gold for now, then it would have cost Newcrest hundreds of millions + more in the future should Havieron prove to be bigger then that.
So it is a clear advantage for Newcrest to save the money and offer a loan instead.

2.
A loan of 50 million at an interest rate of 8%.

On a negotiating strength vs strength analysis, who has the upper hand: It’s a draw.

Greatland Gold avoids further dilution should they have chosen to issue more shares or potential sticky rules from a lender, should they have chosen to go elsewhere.
But the same goes for Newcrest, they are avoiding that their partner have to accept terms that could become a problem for Newcrest, should something happen to Greatland Gold.
And they can reclaim the loan from the ore produced at an 8% accumulating rate.

So, if Greatland Gold had the upper hand, why accept giving up 75% of Paterson Range East and Black Hills? Which contains a number of high-priority targets, many of which display similar geophysical characteristics to the Havieron gold-copper deposit

This could be where I made the first mistake. What if that was not even a demand from Newcrest’s side?

What if that was not a condition for the loan of 50 million? Or for Greatland Gold to maintaining 30% of Havieron?

What if the BOD offered it freely and willingly.

Why.

To act as a hedge against a hostile takeover.

@TakingMyTime

I really appreciate your posts. They tend to be decent, constructive, informative and thoughtful like the one you have just delivered above.

So your voice will be missed.

I wish you a full and speedy recovery.

And may the treatment be with minimal discomfort.

Going through the worthy replies to my posts today, and post’s on other threads, I find the following argument compelling in regard to why this might not be such a bad deal as I feel it is.

IT’S A HEDGE AGAINST A HOSTILE TAKEOVER.

If that is the main reason, behind the design of this deal, then I believe they will have achieved their objective.

For the financial benefit of my shares, when the area gets mined, I would by far have preferred that the split had been reversed and we would maintain the 75%.

But if Goliath really is similar to Havieron, just much bigger, or if other players convinced themselves thereof, then they might bid for the whole of GGP and there is no guarantee, we would reach optimal value. (although bidding wars can be interesting)

Is this a strategic master stroke?

Maybe yes. What we do not want is a replica of what is going on over at Solgold, so if this is designed to prevent that from happening, and succeeding in dong so. Then I take my hat of for the architect behind the plan.

So yes, the above could potentially totally justify the move announced today.

But I am still dumbfounded by the lack of aspirations. Why are people so intend on being happy with just 25% of everything we got.

Am I the real Gecko here, among self described capitalists. Where is the greed gone, where are the aspirations. Who stole the desires for wanting more.

Yes, under our stewardship many prospects will not be mined for years to come, but nor will they under Newcrest.

If we really got the assets we have been talking about for so long, no single mining company have the resources to prove them up, and start mining them all, and benefit from them all, before this 10 year gold cycle we have just entered, is over and we will enter the meagre years.

And I strongly believe that Newcrest will be happy to sit on the various tenements for decades to come, before they are mining them.

Why go hell for leather in the Paterson region and mine it all out in 30 years or less, if you can have fields that can sustain you for 100 years or more.

Today’s attempt on a constructive debate has truly shown that there are plenty of knuckleheads around with thick skull’s, who are impervious to listening or learning.
And cannot stand when people analyse the same issue from a different angle, then their own or otherwise preferred point of view.

Why this deal now and then on these terms.

I would have thought that we would be in a much stronger position of strength this time around.

3 years ago, GGP sold some 166 millions of shares for less then 0.5 penny and raised around 750000 pounds.

You sell the same amount of shares on the open market at today’s price, in a tactical manner and we are getting close to the 50 million we need or that we have now chosen to borrow.

That Newcrest demands 75% of our potential huge assets is an abysmal treatment of us, and shows that were are not in the position of strength, that I thought we would be in at this stage.

But then why make the deal? Why accept these terms? The terms should have been better. Why not wait? Why the rush?

As it stands, with the explanations that has been given so far. I do not see the news to be fantastic.

So, do I think that the BOD have set out to make a bad deal, for the company, for us shareholders and themselves?
No.

But I certainly think the waters have become muddled.

I cannot see a clear path how to reach 3 pounds per share at the moment.

I cannot see the logic behind the strategy.

If Goliath turns out to be so huge that a new plant has to be build anyway, then there is no advantage to Newcrest being the buyer.

It could have been another major or minor miner for that matter, if there really is no faith that the BOD of GGP can hire competent people and outsource the work just like Newcrest is doing.

Goliath is still a long long way away from becoming a producing mine. Especially if a plant has to be build there.

And why on earth would Newcrest give us a good deal on Scallywag, they just got 75% of what we think and hope are fantastic assets, for pebbles.

They wont need Scallywag anymore. They got 70% of Havieron and 75% of Goliath that could be 4 times the size of Havieron, based on the anomalies.

So if Newcrest do not need Scallywag, they might only offer us a Peppercorn for it.

Or

We will have to go into a JV with another Major and build a plant to process the ore.

Or

Do the above on our own.

Either way, I cannot see why a deal had to be negotiated and accepted by us on these terms.

For what. A 50 million loan at 8%.

We would have been better of selling 2-300 million shares in a strategic way.

Start mining our assets in Tasmania, they have been proving them up for the better part of 15 years and use the income from that to pay for further exploration at Goliath.

We do not have to prove it up completely, unless we want to sell it.

Just find a 50X50 meter patch that is reasonable close to surface and that contains enough gold to make it worth mining.

At some point a major would have come along and offered better terms then a 75/25 split to their advantage.

So here is to hoping that the BOD has an ACE up their sleeve, because so far and on it’s own, today’s announcement do not look like a contender to the deal of the century

Unless th

There seems to be a sentiment that all will come good with Scallywag.

That Newcrest will treat us so much better, when we intend to close the deal on that prospect.

But why would they. So far, at least in regard to what have been announced today, we have shown to be nothing but a walk over.

And what scares me the most, is that so many of my fellow investees, seems to be happy with taking what is being offered.

Be glad you were offered a full 25% of something that is potentially massive and could have kept you going for a hundred years on your own. (that is if Goliath is as big and awesome as we have hoped for, for so long)

I want to see Greatland Gold trading in several pounds and not pence.

But can we get there, when we give 75% of potential huge assets away.

And yes I mean give away, because the 20 million is to be used on exploration cost’s.

It’s not money, I as a shareholder in Greatland Gold are going to get in the form of a special dividend. Nor is it money that we are getting to freely use on proving up some of our 100% owned assets. Or towards our expense at Havieron.
No it is money, that are given to prove up assets, Newcrest will be owning 75% of.

That is not selling our assets. That is giving it away. In my view.

Had we at least been given 100 million, on top of the 20 million, for the assets, then at least I could start to entertain the idea, that we had done a deal.

And yes, we might have come a long way, but that does not mean we should not strive higher when we have the potential assets we got.

Maybe the loan is the best option.

I don’t know.

I was not at the negotiating table.

But at the upcoming AGM, the BOD have asked for permission to issue more shares.

I assume that right will be granted to them.

The cash we will receive, should they execute the option in part or full, could have made a significant change for our future. We would have had a position of strength.

What I do not get, is the jubilee attitude to loosing 75% of what we believe to be fantastic assets.

Goliath is thought to be so much bigger then Havieron.

How is it possible to celebrate only retaining 25% again and again on multiple targets and even call it an amazing deal that shows our position of strength, as some posters do.

At least with Havieron, it was just a single prospect that we lost 70% of.
And my hope was that we would be in a better position of strength before a new JV was even considered.

Or even better yet, that Havieron was going to be the catalyst that would allow us to become miners ourselves, because that is where the true profit is.

Greatland Gold has been around since 2005, and some of our tenements have been hold since pretty much day one, but it is only in the last year you have seen the share price break 5-10-15 and 20 pence territory.

With the income from Havieron just a few years away, we could slowly but surely start to prove up our assets and when we know there is enough gold to make it worthwhile to start mining, then do so.

And I am sure we would be much better off.

It has taken Greatland Gold 15 years to get to this stage. But it would not have taken us another 15 years to start mining some of all our other assets.

The 70% sale of Havieron has made sure of that.

Why the loan?

Currently LIBOR looks likely to be minimum 0.15% up to 0.25% according to google.

So we are talking a minimum of 4 million annually in interest.

Why is it considered so much better then issuing more shares.

Wed, 20th Sep 2017 12:02
RNS Number : 3067R
Greatland Gold PLC
20 September 2017

Placing of 166,666,667 new ordinary shares of 0.1 pence each ("Ordinary Shares") in the capital of Greatland at a placing price of 0.45p per Ordinary Share, raising gross proceeds of £750,000 (the "Placing")

If we placed 200 million shares today, we would have those 50 million and a bit.
And if you make it 300 million, we would have plenty to pay for further exploration.

So yes, that is more dilution, but so much worth it. The issue is at a completely different price then 3 years ago.

And we would be in a position of strength if we had enough cash.

I can currently only see 2 reasons for accepting such a paltry deal.

1. We do not have enough funds to move forward and meet our responsibilities. And this is, for reasons I cannot yet see, the best option available.

2. There is more to the deal, then we have been told so far. Maybe there is a promise of, for instance having all our other ore processed at Telfer at a mates rate. But if that was the case I would have wanted to know that know, see it black on white. Feel that sense of security that it would give, if it was part of a deal.

Because right now it only remains a hope.

And the ever more percentage given away for even less monies, does not call for celebration.

But hey, the share price is up. That is at least a silver lining after receiving such a blow.

Today’s announcement has been such a blow to me.

What exactly are we gaining from Newcrest?

I have on more then one occasion argued that Newcrest obtained 70% of a World class find at Havieron for peanuts. (65 million) A bitter pill, but one that could be worth swallowing.

Now Newcrest are obtaining 75% for pebbles (20 million)

The trajectory is going in the wrong direction. What will the next be?

80% of Scallywag for a pepercorn (5-10 million)?

I hope not. And the only excuse I can find for this deal, is that something much better await us in the future.

I liked the sentiment of thedoors 8.08 post. (look it up, definitely worth reading)

From Greatland Gold’s homepage:

“Black Hills

Saddle Reefs has a north-westly trend and results from sporadic historic drilling include 3m at 9.14g/t gold from 26m downhole, including 1m at 21.2g/t from 27m, in hole CBR073

11 of 28 samples collected returned over 10g/t gold, best gold results include 81.7g/t, 45.7g/t, 37.6gt

The other prospects of Rogers and Northern Granites show gold mineralisation at surface with rock chip results including 50.2g/t and 10.45g/t at Rogers and 6.9g/t at Northern Granites

Paterson Range East
The Paterson Range East licence, E45/4928, is 100% owned by Greatland and lies approximately 25 kilometres north of the Company’s Havieron gold-copper prospect. The licence covers 224 square kilometres of Proterozoic basement rocks prospective for Havieron style gold-copper mineralisation.”

We are giving 75% of this up for a paltry 20 million.

Come on that is not something to celebrate.

Hi Volmer, thanks for your finely worded reply. I appreciate the time and effort you put in.

And between you and Scotty666’s last post, the two of you have managed to move me. A bit.

But not enough. Yet.

Maybe the two of you can help me and potentially others, out on this board.

Question: Can you open an ISA account with Peterhouse or even better yet, can you move what you buy at Peterhouse into your ISA account with an online broker?

Again, my purpose is not to stop Gunsynd raising money for further investments, from which we will all benefit at some point in the future.

It is about rising concern about the way it is done.

Anything from 60-80% of the shares in the company have been issued since May 2020, on favourable terms and I expect the holders of these shares, will all be in favour and vote yes.

For me it is about making so much noise, that the BOD finds a different way to raise the capital we need in the future.

There has been a shift in the way they do it.

In the past they did the raise when the share prize had increased in value (and then it would fall back again afterwards.)

From an RNS.

Mon, 10th Jun 2019 07:30
RNS Number : 6426B
Gunsynd PLC
10 June 2019

“Hamish Harris, executive Chairman of the Company, commented: "The recent movement in the share price has allowed us to raise money on a far less dilutive basis to shareholders. “
Gunsynd Regulatory News. Live GUN RNS. Regulatory News Articles for Gunsynd Plc Ord 0.085P (lse.co.uk)

Now it seems like every raise has to be given at a discount and with warrants attached.

That should not be necessary with the assets we have. The future of our holding looks so fantastic, outsiders ought to be willing to pay a premium. (especially if warrant’s are attached)

Discounts and warrant’s should first of all be used to tempt existing shareholders into, part with more of their money, and when that fails to be sufficient, please by all means have other investors lined up, ready to pick up the slack.

Or even better yet, the BOD should achieve permission to sell shares on the open market, (potentially some that are held in treasury) throughout the year as and when needed or they think the price is favourable.
That would totally and completely dial down the feeling of being left out and sidelined.

Profit is king and therefore as you say, the share price is what really matters in the end.
Still, it really hurts to be kept outside of the bubble and it is also financial damaging in the way that I do not get the optimal profit achievable.

So again, all disgruntled LTH, for the sake of sending a message to the BOD, that they should find an alternative and more inclusive way for all shareholders to participate in the future, PLEASE vote NO to dis-applying the statutory rights we all hold as shareholders.

The recipe to lose 80% of your stake in a company

Or how others can gain control of 80% of the shares in a company

My main point with these post’s is to highlight the above and how irritating it is to be sidelined, and see goals you have worked hard to achieve, disappear out of your grasp, in way’s that can only be described as being unequal to all shareholders.

And hopefully muster other unfortunate shareholders to contact their Broker and vote to make some noise.

Are we likely to stop from raising money for future investments? NO.

And that is neither the purpose.

The purpose is to make some noise about the way cash has been raised since May 2020.

On unequal terms, that have made it impossible for all shareholders to participate on equal terms and maintain the percentage they have built up.

To put it in simple numbers, a 1% ownership of the company pre raise in May 2020 is now roughly a 0.2% ownership.

Roughly 80% down.

Have there been opportunities to buy and only pay slightly more then the discounted price: YES

But you might have missed out, if you assumed it might fall further and placed your buy order accordingly.

What you have most definitely missed out on, is the wonderful warrants that that have been attached to the raises.

It seems to have become the BOD’s Operatus Morandi to avoid giving all their shareholders the opportunity to participate on favorable terms.

Is their goal to raise money or is it to move the ownership of the company to new/selected investors?

There might not be any sinister motives behind their actions.

But as an old LTH, I certainly do not feel they are placing much consideration on my interests.

So, fellow old LTH, please take time out of your busy day and contact your Broker and vote NO to dis apply your rights.

Just for the sake of letting our disgruntled voices heard.

I do not know what the cost would be, to give all existing shareholders the opportunity to participate in the raising.

But, I sure am of the opinion, that it would be the right thing to do.

I assume the money are going to be spent on Rincon Resources. And that opportunity has not just popped up all of a sudden.

The Board of Directors could have planned and executed this very differently and much better.

That is if, they have any respect for the old LTH’s.

They could have sent an RNS out, outlining their plan, explaining how expensive it would be, to do the formal way, and that going through Peterhouse was by far the best/cheapest option, and encouraged everyone to open an account with Peterhouse, so they could participate.

It would still be far from my preferred option, but at least I would have been given a choice.

And that remains my sticking point. I was not given a choice to participate. At a discount and with warrants associated.
Warrants, that I could choose to execute in the future.
Or choose not to execute, if I do not find it worthwhile.

Either way, I would have liked to have that option.

And having not been given the option, makes me feel like the BOD have nothing but disdain for us old LTH.

If you were a shareholder at the beginning of 2020, whatever your percentage was back then, it is now at least 75% less.

And this is how it unfolded.

“Following the passage of the resolutions at the GM today, 6,334,275,841 Existing Ordinary Shares of 0.001 pence each in issue in the capital of the Company, together with the 64 additional Ordinary Shares issued on 1 May 2020 to ensure the Company's issued ordinary share capital is divisible by 85, will be consolidated into 74,520,893 New Ordinary Shares of 0.085 pence each.”
http://irservices.netbuilder.com/ir/evocutis/newsArticle.php?ST=EVO&id=31142820448194557

No problem with that. All of us maintained the same percentage.

The problem is all the shares that been issues since the beginning of May 2020 without all LTH or newcomersfor that matter, having the change to participate on equal terms with the chosen ones.

In November/December 2020 it seems like we will reach more then 360 million shares

Number of Ordinary Shares in issue on Second Admission 367,367,047
https://gunsynd.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/GM-Dec-2020-Circular-Gunsynd.pdf

So that is 367,367,047 minus 74,520,893 = 292,846,154

Or put differently it is almost 4 times as many as we had after the consolidation in May.
292,846,154 / 74,520,893 = 3.9 times the shareholding in the beginning of May.

And that is without giving us old LTH the option to maintain our percentage.

So for that reason, at least purely on principle, I urge all LTH to vote NO to dis-applying your statutory rights.

Lets yell as loud as we can, with the last few remaining shares we got.

Let’s not go quietly into the night.

@hereandnow, I find most of what you are saying here to be factual correct and I too am looking forward to Gunsynd getting more money in the coffer.
And I voted yes to increasing the amount of shares, but I am not keen on dis-applying my rights.
Last time they did this number, I lost 2/3 of my percentage and this time it is 30%.
I do not know who it is they are so keen on "giving" the company away to, but it ain't me.

I have not been given the opportunity to maintain my percentage at a discount and with "cherries" warrants on top.

And that hurts and it annoys me and so it should to anyone in the same situation.

Therefore I am loudly advocating that as many as possible get in touch with their broker and vote NO to dis-apply their statutory rights.

But hey, long live Gunsynd and may we all do well.
But I would love to be on equal footing with everyone else.

Don't forget the right to the warrants.

What is so annoying is that there is no equal possibilities for all shareholders.

So everyone, please consider voting NO to dis-apply your statutory rights.

There was only 2 questions on the voting slip.
I voted yes to increasing the number of shares and NO to dis-apply our statutory rights.

Please, as many of you as possible, contact your Broker and vote similarly.

I doubt we will win, but at least, we can send a strong message.

It is not okay, to bypass the ordinary shareholder.
By all means, let the BOD, do their job and line other investors up, should the current ones not take up all the shares they are entitled to.

But this consistent favouritism annoys the H... Out of me.

“In the first half of 2020, the market has seen an aggregate of USD$3.9 billion in gold transactions— in eight deals representing approximately 31.9 million oz of gold reserves — with an average price of USD$123/oz.”

Imagine we would only be paid USD123/oz for our 30% at Havieron or even worse at Scallywag where the anomalies are bigger.
Or any of our other assets.

We are so much better of selling 5% of the Havieron asset and use the funds to pay for our share of building the mine there and become miners on our remaining assets.

It would be ludicrous to even consider USD123/oz when the prize is 1800 or more today and we would have a company maker for the next 100 years with all our assets in the Paterson region alone.

Let's be ambitious, let's dream big, let's realise the full and true value of the assets we are so lucky to posses in WA.

Correction.

If they do, then I hope it is not one where we minor LTH, are being screwed over for the benefit of the chosen few.

Thanks for the tip Scotty666.

I'll have to look into that, and consider the cost and tax consequences and if it at all is possible for an ordinary salaryman like myself.

But no matter how easy it is to open an account with Peterhouse, it still irritates me enormously that the BOD time and again choses this avenue instead of an avenue that could potentially benefit every single shareholder.
New as well as old LTH.

I accept that it might be more costly, but it would also be fairer, and fairness never comes easily or cheaply.

I would be happy to accept a slightly higher dilution of our shares to pay for the extra cost.
We are already being diluted by 30% so for me it would not matter if it was 31-32% to pay for the extra cost giving us all an equal opportunity.

I can not help but wonder, if the BOD has a hidden agenda.
If they do, then I hope it is not one where we minor LTH, are not being screwed over for the benefit of the chosen few.