Member Info for Toffers

There's plenty to evidence what this 'group' do. heavens above, they invited me to join them and I refused. I've witnessed first hand what the ring leader does! Have you? Have you been there when he approaches the head honcho? Have you got emails from his disciples and from himself no less? Look at the other shares where it has happened, coincidence? all with the same people pushing the agenda? I'm not saying the Board are 'involved' but I've seen the ringleader of the group approach a ceo of another company! So get real Mont, I've seen it with my own eyes, and I've been told about certain things.

What if SD has negotiated a bigger slice of the pie relating to HAV in part of a deal with Newmont? what say Newmont have agreed to us having 50%, equal partnership, on the basis that SD raises the monies needed to purchase the 20% at favourable rates? production is then speeded up and this time next year could be a very different situation entirely with the sp. Or am I dreaming?

Interesting these games have started now with the sp, a day or two in to news. Makes me wonder if Newmont are picking up a few shares knowing they've got plenty of time before the ink is drying on the paperwork!

Hi B1ll, they confirmed in a proactive interview in early March 2015 that they had two interested parties in the MT assets. This was 4 years prior to the 2019 suspension when WH Irelands, the previous Nomad, walked, without notice, and explanation to shareholders. The current Nomad, SP Angel, seems to have made a number of faux pas, inciting shareholders to invest further by making the ridiculous comment about a possible massive dividend or words to that effect, when he should have kept his trap shut, it was not his place to make such comments nor coerce investors in that manner, and in my view, should be looked in to by aim regulation and the FCA, and secondly, as Del says, he's signed off a rns which is clearly misleading regarding the Rosgeo figures etc and which needs correcting, but he seems to be oblivious of his duties to the markets and investors! The biggest problem there is that the Nomad is PAID BY THE COMPANY, so hardly impartial, and this is where it is all wrong, the Nomad should be an impartial figure in my view who keeps an eye on regulation and makes sure that the market is run fairly and not prejudicially to investors. My views of course.

It was 'manufactured' by a certain group who took advantage, whether of their own volition, or in cahoots with the Board(?)! The same notorious group have led the charge before in other AIM listed companies and dropped the sp like a stone as they've exited and in the interim these AIM listed companies have been able to get placings/raises away! Coincidence?

"no war currently"? look at the share charts tab above. 2 December 2020 share hit it's top price in recent years of 42p. By 13 December 2021, it had declined to 19.5p. On announcement of the war around 2 March 2022, the MM's dropped it to 7.8p. Since the announcement of the war, it's actually dropped less than at previous times in recent history!

I'll translate! actually Tygra is just about spot on like myself. It was actually 2015 when they said they had two interested parties for MT officecat so they had plenty of time before covid, and then the war, but sold nothing.

Newmont/Newcrest deal has been announced subject to shareholders approval. Tygra is invested as am myself, as we both were here for sure. The thing is the HAV mine is just one year away from production and the reserves are looking good, and it's gold! If Newmont JV following a T/O of Newcrest, production could be brought forward significantly. It won't be like here that is for sure. They also have a leader who is transparent as he can be given the circumstances, unlike here. You'll see the rns's are straightforward, no shortlys, no potentials meaning nothing happening. The communications are on another level. The reason why some still post whether holding a small number or none is because of the disappointment factor after realizing all the b++s given by the Board. Now, with two sets of litigation on top of everything else, you have to factor in, what if they lose the Queeld case? the damages could be crippling and surely that has to be concerning, but the Board don't give the two sides of the coin, they only tell you the positive side from their perspective that they think they have a good case, but what if it turns out not to be?

I'll take that as a compliment on behaf of Basil!

You know the saying, it takes one to know one! boom boom!

I said it was to sell, you couldn't sell for over an hour, or at least that was the case on HL!

Mr nuffin also has me as 'transgender' ha ha!

See what comes up after hours, but it NT to sell for well over an hour this morning.

Yet again it looks as though the market makers had news in advance as it was NT to sell for a long time this morning, assumedly whilst the remaining shorts cleared. Market now restored back to normality.

Apologies if already seen!

https://www.sharecafe.com.au/2023/05/15/execs-on-board-with-newmont-newcrest-deal/

The fantasy is in your head mr nuffin, you and I have never communicated anywhere other than here, that's fact, and I'm not 'Helen A' either, but you keep scraping that barrel! On the legal side, if there was no case to argue, the defendants (the company) would have argued that and succeeded, but alas! The Judge hasn't thrown it out and it's going to trial. The question is, if the company lose, what happens, because damages would certainly be higher than £3-4 mill, and where did the $35 mill go again, anyone know?! You lot need to wake up and smell the coffee. Bed beckons!

Lots to do. Toodlepip!

I haven't had any communication with you friendsps, so that tells me that you are another handle of iknownuffin. So iknownuffin has at least two handles on here then, at least!

Firstly, unless you reveal your twitter identity then how do I know if you've contacted me or not? and only you have said I am some Matrix person! secondly, I've repeatedly asked you to filter me and yet you still carry on, whenever I post you suddenly arrive and abuse and attack, so why? thirdly, all my postings contain my own opinions, just like everyone else who posts here and elsewhere, the only people who know the real truth of the matter is the Board, but they are rather scant in being transparent, and hide behind shortly's etc! so they only have themselves to blame if shareholders start querying, attacking, arguing, and giving their own assumptions/theories of what might have happened or hasn't happened. For instance, the Judge hasn't thrown the Queeld case out, he could have done at first instance if he didn't feel it had any merit, so it looks as though it will go to trial soon. On that basis, should he find in the claimants favour, and finds that the Company through their share registrars dragged their heels and failed to deal with the indemnity situation when Queeld and Mispare had the same on offer, then naturally, damages will follow on from that. The Judge will then have to decide when were they likely to sell shares, at what price, and how many, as they were prevented from doing so. On the basis that Churakov might have been trying to help them out, then I would take it that it would be around the date that the Board finally got around to informing shareholders in an rns that Churakov had had an urgent cash call, but the Board weren't aware, and he had disposed of quite a volume of shares. I suspect words were had and Churakov was told to restore the situation back to how it was and quickly. I also wonder if the Board deliberately dragged their heels on their indemnity situation because they had no intention of acquiescing to it because they didn't want some 300 million + shares flooding the market which would have undoubtedly collapsed the share price. Further, as the damages are not quantified in the amended particulars, that begs the question that should the claimants succeed, then the Judge could also award damages for any loss suffered by Queeld say, for not being able to bail themselves out of an akward situation because they couldn't get to their shares to get cash. If they succeed on their claim, then potentially, an award of damages could cripple the company financially as it will be well in to the millions. The alternative is whether a Judge would order the transfer of any directors shares, assumedly CS's as compensation in lieu, and if that were to happen, that would perhaps potentially give Queeld a takeover position of the company, but I'm not sure on the transfer of shares situation as a remedy? The company state they believe they have a good case, but they don't give any indication of what might happen if they lose, and I think they should.

Their

I've not yet seen the Board adhere to the UK Corporate Governance Code. There is no female on the BOD and as far as I'm aware, there's been nothing in the Company's report and accounts to explain why. All they've done is hand executive and non executive roles out to 'mates' effectively. How was Artem appointed? How were any of them appointed? You should be asking them and not voting to replace some of these old boy network types who appoint their 'mates' in to strategic positions on the Board with their fat cat salaries and pension perks and others to boot, which shareholders are paying for. The Board is male dominated which isn't healthy at all, not in this day and age. Where is there adherence to the UK Code?