Member Info for Toffers

Seamus, I didn't ask you, it's a straight forward question which has a yes or no answer, do the Russian State own any minerals that currently lie underground? I'm waiting for dumb, dumber and even dumber to answer, yes or no, and if they say no, then why, and what is their evidence to back that assertion up?

I didn't ask you seamus, and I didn't ask to be posed more questions, just want a straight answer to the question, particularly from the man who used to drive a ford focus and then had a juddering qashqai! I aske a simple question to the three of them as to whether the Russian State own the minerals as they currently lie underground?

So the three of you are dumb, dumber and even dumber, I think I've summed that up pretty well.

Ikay you three, sbrace ceejaywest and chessmaster, do you each accept that the minerals underground are currently owned by the Russian State? let's have your answers on that for starters.

Here's a story tonight for entertainment purposes, or is it entertainment when infact a company grossly overvalues something, and then surprise surprise, due dilligence is carried out and doesn't come to anything afterwards? Asking for a friend!

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/man-bought-private-jet-and-bugatti-after-council-gave-him-655m-of-taxpayers-money/

Apologies if repeated;

https://www.asx.com.au/listings/how-to-list/listing-requirements

Ben, if they are listed on the ASX, I think they then qualify for tax incentives/rebates from the Australian Government, and that could be very handy I would imagine. I think they can also get some loan assistance from the Government and some loan relief but not entirely sure on that one, but pretty sure I did read about the tax incentives/rebates.

Oh, and most of all, I forgot to mention the recent addition again, "low visibility" now of a sale, in other words, it would seem it's off, if it was ever on! Duracell batteries have more power than this Board! My personal views.

Ikn you dipstick I said, quote, "Personally, I don't believe there is anyone at 'the table...", it was my view, my perspective, there is nothing libelous in that.

As for a take over, I did say that shares and cash, but no one has proferred even that have they?!

The ikn crew shout sale from the rooftops, but they fail to take on board that the minerals are underground and therefore in State ownership. Until they accept that is the current position, they will continue to deflect and argue and twist anything that they can.

They also fail to acknowledge that Putin has the power to withdraw the mining licences if he so desires. The head of the government can withdraw and that's him. He could do that at a moments notice.

They can't sell the concentrate, why? I've already given my views on that, again to do with the State and restrictions.

I've also provided a link previously to the meeting of the russian deputy prive ministers in late December 2022 in which it was intimated that Russia might well keep its metals for its own domestic markets. Could this happen? I would say it's drawing closer to a yes the longer the war drags on but again, these are my views.

Does anyone actually know if the Sinosteel agreement still exists as they hadn't taken it up, and the intervention of the war might well have nullified it?

The lawyers I'm almost certain will have closed their files down, if they were ever actually really open, as you can't indefinitely keep files hanging on in your cabinet with no real instructions, it's just costs running for a lawyer to get them out and review every 3 or 6 months.

I doubt UBS are still on the case, if ever they were, they certainly didn't do a very good job if they were!

Do the NDA's still exist? nothing was mentioned was it on this point at the AGM? I would have thought they would have elapsed by now, or again, become void due to the war situation.

They must be running out of money now, so what next? last time it was a private investor whose identity was never revealed who bought the placing shares, and probably flipped them. Might even have been Mac, nothing would surprise me!

To recap, there are minerals underground which are currently owned by the Russian State.

The mining licences could be revoked at any time, not definite, but could, it's not an impossibility.

There's no revenue, and some funders and instis won't touch if a company is not generating revenue, especially in the current climate. They haven't sold the concentrate, so no revenue from that, despite dimitryreacts continually saying its sold!

The Queeld case is a major thorn in the side for shareholders as no one knows how it will play out. If the company win it, all well and good, they will hopefully recover their legal costs, if they lose, the damages could be high together with legal costs and no one is none the wiser as to how that will be paid.

The sale of any assets could trigger injunctive relief. My personal views.

Personally, I don't believe there is anyone at 'the table', they could have bought the company for peanuts by now. They could even have bought shares on the cheap and mounted a take over bid with very little to pay, but nothing has happened. My views. Time for a brew.

They don't clarify anything spikey, they leave everything deliberately vague.

Magnum, you're not listening, I do still hold some shares, it is minimal so there was no point in logging in, but 2015 to now and no sale, plus all the red flags I've raised in recent times, plus the addition of the court cases, plus the wording of "low visibility" on a sale now, you can't take what they say as gospel, that might have been CS's view on the day of the meeting, it might have changed since, it might change from hour to hour, day to day, and he might not be correct, he's human, but also, as I have said, they are glorified salesmen, it's their company and they want to retain their salaries and keep the lights on regardless. It's not what they say, it's what they don't say! Has he told you they don't currently on the minerals for instance that still lie underground? No, I doubt he has! Has he said there is a clear risk in that respect, particularly as Putin is a loose canon at the moment? No he hasn't. You need to read between the lines. My views.

They have clearly stated there is "low visibility" regarding a sale. This as a new addition of late and it basically interprets as I see it as nada, there is nothing, it's just that they don't want to say nothing, as peeps will go running to the hills, and I suspect the company will want to raise soon as the lights will be going out with little cash left. My views.

Magnum, that was said last year!

So, in essence, there are two imponderables just to start with, ie. what will happen with the Queeld case, and what might Putin do if he gets rattled with Eurasia and it being an unfriendly territory (British Company)? Never mind the fact that they haven't sold anything since they first mentioned the sale of MT in 2015, and are sitting on bags of conentrate that they are paying storage for! My views.

Spikey, I agree with your musings, but also, as the minerals remain underground they are currently the property of the Russian State. They don't belong to anyone else until extracted. The big risk is that IF the company lose the Queeld case, Putin could withdraw the mining licences and then that will prevent any sale and Queeld might end up with damages unpaid. I don't know why people won't consider all the risks, you have to look at both sides of the coin, if you don't you're blindly investing!

Scuba, I have emailed Keith in the past, he didn't answer, I don't expect it to be any different if I did so again and I have my reasons for this.

I'm saying that you need to look at what isn't said. Did anyone ask what happens IF the claimants should win? I'm assuming not. Did anyone ask what the damages might be IF they do win, and how they will be paid? I assume not. I'll go back to what I said some time ago, IF and it's a big IF of course, IF they do win, then I suspect, but obviously I won't have heard the evidence, that their barristers will seek damages based on when Queeld and Mispare say they would have sold their shares if they had not been prevented from doing so. If the median is taken say of half the shares at half of the highest sp so say 20p to make it a round number, then with Queeld holding some 307 million shares, and Mispare some 80+ million shares, you can do the maths, but I would reason that it's going to be a considerable amount, plus their legal fees on top. So bearing in mind the damages could be substantial as I see it, and none of us mere mortals know how that is going to be paid, I've every reason to think that if the company tried to put through a sale right now whilst that litigation remains in situ, the claimants lawyers would hurry along to court and seek a restraining/freezing order to prevent the proceeds of sale from being distributed or removed out of the jurisdiction pending the outcome of the trial. Then, as I have said, there is the prospect that the losing party might well appeal. Put it to Keith and ask him for a full explanation on the above, and ask him if this affects the sale? If he says no, then I will be truly gobsmacked. My views.

Nuffin, I logged out, and saw your shameful response. Of course it affects the sale, if the company sell any assets right now whilst there is litigation ongoing which could result in substantial damages being awarded to the claimants, the claimants lawyers will undoubtedly imo apply for an injunction immediately in the form of a freezing order to freeze the proceeds of any sale pending the outcome of the trial. So i will say, it's my guess of course, although I know what I think, that the company will have been advised not to pursue any sale at this point in time until that litigation is finally concluded, and as I have said, there's every possibility that there could be an appeal. So yes, the litigation will imo very much affect any potential sale and that's why there is now low visibility of it happening imo, and those are CS's words "low visibiity". My views.

Did anyone by any chance read the Reply of Queeld and Mispare to the Eurasia Amended Defence? Can anyone summarise truthfully what it said?

Friendsps, not going to get in to an argument and then just slate me with facts that are not facts, they are your opinions, and clearly you are on the ramp camp side, that's fine, I do note you still haven't denied being connected to the Nomad, and clearly you are not going to confirm or deny as you sidestep it, that said, I've provided a lot of information here for people to assess things for themselves, and whilst sometimes I might put my own personal viewpoint to it, I provide links so people can read for themselves and decide for themselves, which is more than most do here. I have already said below that no one can answer on the court case, and I've said it before, and I only post when a document has been filed so that people can search for it themselves and view it if they want to, and yes, you can answer, I provide my views and welcome debate but there's no chance of it because the likes of ikn etc just shut it down with personal abuse thrown at me, and yes, I have you filtered, but if I log out, I see the comments, and therefore, if I feel it's worthy of a reply I will make it, yes, I've lost money, that's history, nothing i can do about it, that's the risk of investing, the common denominator is the rise and fall of the sp which has happened in other shares connected to certain ramperthoners who also happen to be here, some of whom I have met, and no, I don't have an agenda, as I post information with links to help everyone, and don't shoot people down and personally abuse them like ikn et al, have a good day at work, but like you've said before, you wouldn't post during office hours and then you promptly did so.