Member Info for squeaky19

Being a glass half full (or knocked over) sort of person I was looking at this the other way...

He has converted 200k options at 23p. So far so good.

He has a lot more options at 40 odd pence plus down to 1 million at 28p.

Apparently he is not buying any of the options at 28p. What does that say???!?

I realise that there are a lot of unhappy people.

However, I agree with EL.

Despite the fact that this is not what we have been told over the last 2/3 years in a way it simply puts the clock back to the point when CNR were actually going to build a mine...

Had the mine been built by CNR we would have needed either a lot of finance (perhaps unlikely in such a jursidiction?) or a lot of dilution.

Here we are with MTL going to build the mine and we are getting... a lot of dilution. But the mine will be built.

As above, this is not what we were told - "build mine", "no sell the asset", "no sell the company".

What we are getting is a MERGER with MTL where CNR holders end up with 34% of the resulting company, which will then build a mine.

It's arguablly not too different from the JV that lots of people wanted some years ago?

This is probably(?) the same level of dilution we would have faced if CNR had built the mine themselves 3 years ago.

So we don't get the "quick buck" we were promised. We get 1/3 of a mine build that we were promised many years ago (many years late).

Is that "great"? Not really no.

Is it "realistic and ultimately potentially a good deal" (assuming we all live forever like Jim)? Quite possibly.

Ok, the dilution may be higher than if CNR built it themselves.

However, given the CNR management, how much chance would you have given them of making a good fist of building the mine successfully? And not having enormous cost overruns, more dilution and a poor end result?

Final consideration from me...

Will MTL be able to build this from free cash flow without the need for lots more "15p warrants"? I don't know, but maybe keep your piggy bank handy if you don't want to be diluted further.

Or get out with your 9.9p plus selling 4 x Xp and lick your wounds?

PS My reading of the circular is that to pass the deal needs 75% of shareholder value "present and voting" which means anyone who doesn't vote doesn't count towards a mythical 25%. Given most PIs don't vote... this is going to pass. GLA DYOR

There is far too much emotion here but I get that, I'm not over the moon myself!!!

I think it's time to learn lessons, take stock (no pun intended!) and then plan your course of action.

My biggest takeaway is "do your research".

I had been recommended this company on the basis that I would be "investing with a billionaire". I didn't look into who he was, what he had done before, or the fact that he believes he's going to live forever.

Had I worked out any of those 3 things I might not have invested. Que sera sera.

Now, insults aside, I believe that we are in a situation not too different to what happened in the UK many times a few years ago when Building Societies de-mutualised and you ended up with a few hundred shares.

People got attached to them, made stories about them and so forth whereas the cold, hard sensible approach was "given the money would I have bought these poxy building society cum bank shares?". In most cases the answer would have been "no".

I look at this the same way.

MTL might be the world's best mine builders .

However, as Seingred points out rather bluntly. They might also just be a p!ssant little company based 14,000 miles away with one mine that is about to close its doors for good. I certainly don't know either way on any of those fronts so we all need to look into that very hard.

But which may, incidentally, be why they don't seem on the face of it to be able to afford to buy even a basket case like us without smoke and mirrors and chicanery.

Would you have bought their shares two weeks ago on the strength of that?

That I believe is the question we should be asking ourselves before doing anything other than pocketing 33p (if we are lucky) and heading for the hills pronto!

GLA!!!!

Hi ddd

I think that your numbers bear scrutiny, and as all your numbers previously, they tend to be sensible.

I also think that you may have hit the problem... your suggestion is for a bid of £92M.

That is the current MCAP of MTL!!

Which then starts to look like the Glazers buying MUFC with MUFC's money?

There is logic in selling to a "smallish" gold miner for paper who builds the mine and then returns the CNR profits in "reasonable" proportion to CNR holders.

But as EL points out, we'll all be dead (apart from Jim, who is apparently going to live forever?).

And given the MTL MCAP and cash situation I'm not sure they can go higher?

There seem to be mixed messages - "we have lots of cash" and "we will have £200m free cash at the end of mining at Runruno in one / two years time (which would be when we switch the lights out!)"

Also worth noting that the well know sales process for the asset was to achieve £100m to £200m when gold was at 1600$/oz or some such...

None of it adds up? :-(

The deed of undertaking is personal and has nothing to do with his directorship at Condor, it goes to great length to make this clear, so there would be no need for an RNS from anyone

B*llockski Geng!

They have not "deliberately leaked" anything.

MTL have an 11 page deed of undertaking from Jim on their website dated 28th November.

You can go and look for yourself.

As per my earlier post, either Jim is 100% behind this or he is getting "mates" at Metals to perform a whole bunch of cinema to flush others out (which seems too much like panto season to me).

On the bright side Jim must see fantastic value in ending up owning a big chunk of Condor plus a nearly exhausted mine in the Philippines. But then he is going to live forever...

How have Metals "gone rogue"?

They have an 11 page undertaking from Jim to vote for their deal...

The Runruno mine has an expected life of mine of... 2026

That's next year FFS!

Other than that they only have prospects for drilling

Yes, it provides a deadline for others.

But if that is Jim's idea then does this not mean that either:

a) he's planning on stitching up Metals? or

b) he's provided some "consideration" to Metals to do his dirty work for him?

I can't really say I like either scenario. Does anyone else read this differently?

Well it would appear to be a done deal as far as JM is concerned?

I don't see how all that would be written down and agreed if he was trying to flush someone else out?

Also, we seem to get a measly 10p for our shares plus some paper that may or may not be worth anything??

What am I missing?

Cheers :-/

I agree cf re Calibre, it just seems like a bolt from the blue to casually infer that "we might be selling the SAG mill" wot we've been trumpetting as part of the shovel ready nonsense for many years now?

Nevermind all the NDA claptrap and then letting that slip in a manner that screams "it's Calibre".

Unless ofc someone else intends to bring in their own mill which would scream "we spent 6M on the wrong chuffing mill"

but hey, let's stay positive :-) (unlike the SP!)

It does seem "positive" in respect of a sale.

BUT

Why does it mention that loans will be repaid "if we complete sale of the SAG mill"???

I thought we were selling a putative mine which "needs" a SAG mill?

This opens speculation that we are selling to someone who doesn't want the mill because...???

I realise that this is paranoia but this notion of selling the mill seems to be a bolt from the blue to me?

Why not? If that is what happened and it wasn't things being shuffled around then "someone" also bought those 300k shares...

Thank you for trying asp1, but best to remember in future, do not feed the troll!

All the best

You say potato, I say potato

Doesn't really work as text does it...

Anyway, the fun continues.

My personal take is that it has to be "positive" in the sense that the only way that the Directors can make any money from this company(?) is through an asset / company sale which remains Plan A. If it wasn't going to happen they wouldn't pour in good money after bad?

In terms of a target price, I can only be guided by the (imho dumbass) statement that the sale price will be "between £100m and £200m" (or was it in USD? Or Arcturian megadollars? It matters little until it happens).

Given just north of 200m shares in circulation and potentially a few more options depending upon whether they end up in the money or not then we are looking at 45p to 90p give or take?

For me the key remains that Plan A still seems to have some legs? GLA DYOR etc.

I didn't even hear the word Nicaragua never mind cnr, but I could have missed it?

Maybe his answer should have been a bit shorterin order to clearer...

Due to the oaktree purchase they do NOT have any spare cash for more buy backs.

At which point any discussion of further buy backs is moot imho.

GLA DYOR

Yes I have, with only one buyer in both cases.

Yes it's tortuous, and if it's "confidential" then you cannot say ANYTHING.

However, if MC can say "we're in advance talks with two potential buyers" in December then ...???

David,

I'm sorry, but based upon your last reply I'm rather worried for you.

Your reply to me includes the exact wording that explains that if you tender your shares Stifel will be purchasing YOUR shares.

If you participate in the tender offer any money that you receive from the company in lieu of a waived dividend entitlement will specifically be in recompense for you selling your shares to the company via Stifel.

I genuinely struggle to see how people are not getting this basic mechanism that is fully explained in the Circular.

THERE ARE NO MAGIC BEANS

OK, one last try...

From the Circular:

"For Qualifying Shareholders who would like to waive some or all of their Entitlement in consideration for the ability to tender their Shares in the Tender Offer, Stifel WILL PURCHASE SUCH SHARES at the Tender Price up to the amount of the waived Entitlement for each Qualifying Shareholder on the terms and subject to the conditions set out in this Circular..."

Therefore, please can people stop posting things such as:

"You will always have your original holding as you’ve only waived the right to the divi for so many shares nothing more."

This is plain WRONG and totally misleading to anyone who hasn't read the circular.