Adam Davidson, CEO of Trident Royalties, discusses offtake milestones and catalysts to boost FY24. Watch the video here.
I read those documents, add. Their intention to sell the shares doesn't change the simple fact you keep ignoring.
Shares in circulation when SC said non-dilutive= 3.15bn
Were we supposed to assume he meant non-dilutive from another, previous, unspecified time? Because compared to the situation we were in when he said non-dilutive, selling these shares would be dilutive. You can tie yourself in knots trying to deny this, or you can team up with slug and start another culture war, but you can't change the number of shares in circulation.
Again, slug using the female sex in an effort to be patronising. What a charmer 🤢
The shares in circulation at the time SC made the comment were not the 3.3bn listed, because 160m of them were out of circulation, owned by solg. It was one of the few benefits of a merger that cost solg shareholders very dearly. If they get sold back into circulation, and there are 3.3bn shares dividing the company, that will be an act of dilution.
It's not that tricky add 👍
Nice try, SM. No weaseling here. As you can see, I stand by my statement that there will be no non-dilutive raise, because we are not a charity. If we sell shares that increase the number in circulation, that's dilution. If you don't understand that, it's not my job to teach you.
See? Total absence of any weasel. But you lot are now bricking it about the giveaway that's coming...
Before shares are sold, you own a number of shares out of the 3.15bn in circulation. Ownership of all assets of the company are divided by this total. Then, owing to a sale of shares by the company, you own a number of shares out of 3.3bn in circulation. Yes, your company has some funding. But how was it achieved? By dilution.
At the time Scott said there would be no dilution, there were only 3.15bn shares in circulation because c. 150mn were owned by shareholders.
I'm not sure it's me who doesn't get this, add. If you think selling shares that were owned by the company is non-dilutive then I have a bridge you might be interested in
Compared to when Scott said fundraising will be non-dilutive, will you own more, less or the same amount of solg's assets if these sell? Clue- it's not the same amount, and it's not more...
During the merger solg became the owner of these shares. It was whilst owning these shares, collectively, as shareholders of the company, that Scott said fundraising would be non-dilutive. Why wouldn't we think he meant 'non-dilutive from our current position (owning those shares)?
I knew you chumps would claim these shares could be sold and, because they are counted in the 3.3bn, that sale wouldn't be dilutive. But I also know that if your company sells something and as a result you own less as a percentage, that's dilutive.
Issuing these shares would be dilutive compared to the percentage of the company share holders owned when SC made his statement about non-dilutive. So it can't be that they are going to sell/place any of them- we were promised non-dilutive, right? 👍
7 months won't move the needle here, so looks like add will be forced to eat some humble pie (spoiler- he won't, it isn't in his character to admit he's wrong, he just claims 'no one can know' 🤣)
I won't hold my breath in anticipation of the rampy loons quitting this board. They haven't done in the last 5+ years they have been wrong- no reason to suspect this current false dawn will be any more of a wake up.
Someone said recently that Donald Trump is what a poor person thinks a rich person is. And Andrew Tate is a 14 year old boys vision of being a man.
It would seem slug shares a lot of views with a lost teenager. Maybe he didn't have a strong male role model growing up, or maybe he's been hurt in life to make him this way. One could almost manage sympathy if he wasn't such an insufferable bore.
"Next week could truly be the mother of all weeks with regards to news"
Tell us when you posted this, novice, then reflect on who understands this company better.
I do know that you can't have a sale without a buyer. And we currently don't have a buyer. And there have been no signs that there's going to be one. Deliberately vague nonsense about the data room just before AGM votes are due has never been the same as being in a buyers cross hairs.
Nick will know from his time at the helm than no amount of wishful thinking secures a deal. He can push Scott all he likes- Scott isn't in charge of when Solg sells. There's a common misconception on this board that we can 'work in the background' and 'get this thing done', when the reality is we can only work to explore, drill and derisk assets, whilst building relationships with locals. We can also give away the promise of a share of the resource for enough money to keep the company viable. Everything else is not ours to control. Scott can no more "get it sold" than he can magic the metal out of the ground.
Couple of years to run here, at least, and if Nick goes bankrupt in the meantime it will only cost investors who didn't do enough research. Sad, but true.
Predictably, add knows what I mean better than I do 🤣🤣
Any self awareness incoming, add, or are you sticking with that? Hehe
You're a funny old stick but you do make me smile. Or do you? Can you tell me? You know my intentions better. Right? 🤣
So I knew the GDP, I knew the cost, and I pointed out that slug was talking nonsense, but somehow your misreading of my post has caused you to get mardy with me? Unbelievable, add... Except it's your entire MO, so it's completely believable.
Still waiting for the post where I said it was insignificant? Have you found it? Or did you lie? Chump.
Thanks add- could you just pop a quote on here where I said it was insignificant?
'just a fraction' means it is not multiple of GDP. It's less than an 11th. That's just a fraction.
Any questions? No? Great. Feel free to keep providing your input though my lovely- it's always welcome 🥱
Slug proving he's as clueless about GDP as he is about climate.
Net zero globally could cost $9 trillion A YEAR but that's only a fraction of global gdp. Costs of not acting will increase YonY (so long as they are recognised and not dismissed as weather by simpletons...) so economic case is easier to make.
All this stupidity on his part aside... THIS IS A SOLG BOARD NOT A CLIMATE CHANGE/IMMIGRATION/WATER-POWERED CAR FANTASY BOARD
He clearly lacks friends in the real world so posts and unholy amount of his nonsense here. Poor petal.
No, I saw that SM. Unless I'm mistaken, solg didn't sell, did it?
So as I say (and seem to have to keep reminding the slower posters here) there is nothing in the pipeline besides some nasty fundraise, and a TO is still a very distant dream. I was right 2 years ago, and last year, and this year. Doesn't take a genius to seem I'm right again now, and the loons claiming a sale is imminent were wrong (but just as convinced) last year, and the year before, and the year before.... Happy to post some quotes to prove it. They get very upset though...
Well done, SM- you're beginning to grasp the time frames involved here. No TO in the next couple of years as there's no need. Wait for the SP to drop, wait for solg to get desperate, wait wait wait.
Those claiming something is brewing here now are the same brainless f**ktards who have been claiming the same thing for years- check their posting history. Patience is needed, but some of them are so old they can't wait. They won't be around in a couple of years to prove I'm right, but they will be around in 2 months, still claiming things are just around the corner 🤦♂️