We would love to hear your thoughts about our site and services, please take our survey here.
Pretty easy to work out who's under-invested too, beebs. ; )
LW, they are short duration, unsecured loans from existing finance suppliers. What is your expectation? Bebeto, its not a change of approach away from the long term finance. This RNS expressly communicated that some of the these funds raised will be used to "complete" the expansion funding. The fact that they are choosing to also put a chunk towards getting going on (and continuing) certain elements of the expansion that were originally proposed to be done post funding, is pleasing, but does not mean, in any way, that long term funding on better terms, is not being persued hopefully to conclusion.
These fellas spend weeks hammering on about not believing anything about finance progress until we get an RNS (which they highly doubt is coming). So we get an RNS, which very pleasingly not only confirms some finance with an actual itemised list of what it will be used for (all good things) and then also a confirmation of the continued progress on the main expansionary funding package (expected in Q1). So they seamless change lanes again, so as to (again) avoid acknowledging that their fears and predictions were completely misplaced. Unfortunately, having previously alledged everything from fraud to insolvency and the ever-popular dilution, they're running out of bogeymen lanes to change to and the deramps are getting sillier as they get shriller.
Just read the facts. Take your medicine and jog on.
Perhaps not to the converted. But you enjoy a bit of a preach, Beebs. Sometimes hammering on about the negative truths (that bother us all) and sometimes just whatever negativity you can wildly speculate on.
Come to think of it, local government share allocations and royalty earnings would demand it too.
My first thought was that the structure will also relate to the licences, which we already know from the Ocim fiasco are non transferable. If assets are also encumbered, depending on jurisdictional rules, transferring them can be problematic. Way easier to own the company, than swim against the current trying to transfer assets.
LW, it was for late filings. Not creditors.
Beebs. You just gave me a heart attack, you crafty underhanded plonker. Of course that's not us. Bloody hell.
They do. They are a trading entity. But unbelievably irritating!
Beebs with the "someone said" posts reminds me of the "some might say" intros for the Stig. :D
You're going to at least give some references, pal.
Someone said they saw Robbie having lunch with Elon Musk and Rick Rule.
Fallenmaddona, tell me you know nothing about management at Caracal, without telling me you know nothing about management at Caracal.
I have yet to be invested in a company where the the CEO has aligned his own future with that of his company, to the degree that Robbie has here. While I have a number of concerns with my investment here, management not having skin in the game is not one of them.
Yes LW, certainly positive. I know there will always be detractors. But as an investor with some very decent paper losses under my belt, I was pleased that the discussion had an air of pragmatic honesty about it. It was frank and mistakes were acknowledged.
I'm keen to hear it again, as there were also the usual tidbits thrown in. I stand under correction, but I think Robbie said that certain elements originally envisioned to need the finance package have started under (limited) internal cashflows. The fourth (big) heap start, being the context. This, to me, is a big deal. To know that we have had the cash to undertake some limited improvement is reassuring.
Also that Mill End have sold all their shares. That explains the persistent selling into volume, which while I suspected it to be the case, I enjoyed the confirmation. Robbie confirmed that Mill End have no interest in being a shareholder.
Certainly the funding deal sounds close to me. If I recall correctly it sounded like we can expect the first draw down in 5 or 6 months. But confirmation of signing materially before then.
And then the Vim Rutha and Tz discussion is always exciting and reminds us why we put up with the stress.
The disclaimer is that this is just my interpretation and opinion. I might be wrong.
LW. I think they said they'd put out the recording over the weekend.
LW, I think that question was first in. I too am keen to understand the timing.
I'll second that hodge. Happy to take whatever news is availible. If that's only some fresh irrigation starting on a new heap, then hit me up with some heap leach pics. While we all want the big news, there's no point in refusing the small tidbits, like a child holding their breath, trying to get what they want. To see a heart beating and gold being mined is very important, while we wait for a ramp up of some sort.
LW, The problem is that. after the January fiasco, it would be difficult to start naming potential providers, even if it was just a bit of fun speculation. At best, it would be ripped to shreds here and elsewhere. At worst, I wouldnt put it past some to contact the potential provider. There has been some bizarre vitriol, here at times.
Probably best to say that some decent digging into the material already made public, does, at least for now, appear to have some superficial corroboration and draw a line under it. I'd be surprised if even that doesn't get met with derision.
It's one of two things:
He is the ex-chairman. In which case this is the most staggeringly unprofessional behaviour I've ever seen from one and I wouldnt trust a word out his mouth. Or
It's not the ex-chairman and I wouldnt trust a word out his mouth for obvious reason.
Incidentally, I do however find it easy to believe, if not blindingly obvious, that we've left some unpaid bills in our wake. It would be naive to think you could go through the disaster we had (on the ex-chair's watch) and not leave a bunch of unhappy service providers in limbo. But I won't be taking those pointers from anyone claiming to be a bitter ex-employee.
I'm not going to get into a personal spat here. Its boring for everybody. So this will be my last post today. To paint anybody who disagrees with you (including me) as not being to take criticism against management is misleading and a cheap trick. I called you up on (literally) trying to expressly spread a rumour. You actually used the word, "rumour". I will restate my earlier obsevation. That there is one group quotong numbers and RNS's and another group giving us their opinions (some that thankfully have been removed by moderators) rumours and doubts. The ones who are calling up some of those opinions are not in some sort of personal spat. They are correcting the unbased stuff. I have yet to hear anyone here say Robbie has done a perfect job.
I'm happy that Robbie deserved criticism over the fiasco in December January. I have also been first in line to criticise his habit of over promising. So, beebs, thats another untrue allegation.
Lies, defemation and wierd conspiracy nonsense will not be tolerated. Its no surprise that a certain poster here keeps on getting moderated. Facts matter.