Member Info for workingstiff

"The point I was trying to make was that we should be producing far more that 500k to 550k oz by 2020." I was also disappointed in this. If there had been a qualifying statement - eg: these estimates are based on the current gold price, which, if it were to continue, would make some of our underground operations uneconomic in the longer term - I would have understood this.

I hope this new (old) board aren't taking us back to the bad old days of dissconnected, illogical and risible statements. Remember - "We'll be debt free in 2018", or "People should invest for the dividends".

Also, shouldn't the repayment of the $29.5m bridging loan and the $6m unpaid loan guarantee fee include some interest payment? Or are we back to "mates rates" for the children?

"Have you seen CofE on your travels? I need to catch up with him about a few things."

Lol! His work here is done.

I think the reason they converted the banks loans into bonds can be found in a throw away remark Peter Hambro made a few years ago, when he said something like - "the banks control what we do". Presumably this means those loans had restrictions attached.

With regard to throwing $60m a year at IRC, I'd prefer them to take over the ICBC loan now (on similar terms - staged repayments, with the option of windfall capital payments), wind up IRC and sell it. Whatever they get for it can go towards the debt.

And while I'm dreaming, does anyone know if it is possible for the shareholders of failed companies to sue the chairman for lying through his teeth?

"In the event the company goes into administration, the shareholders will likely be wiped out and the assets used to pay off the debt holders. As the guarantor of the debt, the debt will ultimately sit with pog - hence, the assets are LIKELY to belong to pog. They pay the $200m debt and take full ownership of an asset likely to be worth around $200m. IMO"

In which case POG should be lining up a buyer for IRC's assets with a view to getting as near to $200m as they can for them. If they could achieve this and time it right they could potentially walk away with no more damage than the ~ $30m repayment they made on IRC's behalf.

Now that the old cabal is back in its entirety I wonder if they will see it that way.

If IRC folds POG will ship another $200+ million in debt, the share price will plummet and Pav will be able to pick his 10% up for a song.

Share price hasn't moved. I guess this result was priced in.

"If so what are the chances of galvanizing them into one voting block and demanding a seat on the board"

From the look of the comments on this site it looks as though said chances are slim. It is a good idea, though.

I remember Fortune Oil. That is why I have just voted to keep the existing board.

CofE - I think you may have misunderstood this. As I understand it POG are lending IRC money at an interest rate of 12%pa.

My point was that they could have withdrawn the guarantee BEFORE the money was drawn down. The other factors - the market, the disappearance of their Chinese partners - were known to them by then. This is why I prefixed each statement with "In 2014" You guys are going to do what you will do. You are going to get burned.

Dear CofE I don't supp at POG's table. I have been a shareholder since 2013. I don't post here often because there are other things I would rather do. I don't put an opinion as to whether to buy or sell shares because at the moment I don't have one. I don't want the old board back because I don't trust them. I don't trust them because in the past they have acted against the interests of shareholders. Here is an example: In 2014 POG was staring down the barrel of a gun. The share price was collapsing, the gold price was depressed, and the due date for the 2010 bonds was looming large on the horizon. In 2014 their IRC Chinese partner reneged on his commitment to to bear proportionate responsibility for the IRC loan guarantee. In 2014 IRC started to draw down on the ICBC loan, creating a conditional liability and a crisis of confidence that made it impossible for POG to borrow money for the bond repayment, or roll the bonds over. I believe the correct action for a board acting in the interests of their shareholders at the time would have been to withdraw its guarantee of the ICBC loan and mothball IRC until better times. After all, they did it with the POX hub. I believe this would have put the company in a better position to weather the storm at the beginning of 2015 and saved me, personally, a lot of money. For me they clearly put the interests of a business run by their children first. The Amur deal proposed a 30% dilution for a business that was producing 100K oz, and carrying debt of $16m. It was clearly a bad deal, as today's letter highlights, but Hambro pushed it hard. I do not believe he had the interests of existing shareholders at heart when he did this. I believe he was trying to strengthen his own position by creating new shareholders who would have been supportive of him. Incidently, there was a share rally in 2016 that got us to the low 9p's. It was killed stone dead by the announcement of this deal. I could mention some other things but feel I have given enough of my life up to this post. I also would have liked the new board to flood us with good news. It is true that the old board left them with some exciting opportunities. It is also true that the old board left them with a mammoth problem. They have had less than a year. I think they deserve more time.

If the people behind cabs/slevin would front up with a statement of intent (other than reinstating the previous board) then perhaps I would support it, but they don't. They hide. This tells me they are up to no good. 24p. Lol. When this plays out we'll be lucky to get 5p. Small shareholders voting for this change are like turkeys voting for Christmas. Unfortunately, if this board is representative, that is the way this is going.

I agree with the Sothic letter. The crap Amur Zoloto deal that Hambro tried to foist on us was the last straw for me. This stinks of an underhand take over. I'll be voting with the board.

I hope this doesn't mean we get Hambro back. Apart from anything else he looked a bit senile in some of his later interviews. In any case, if IRC can't persuade ICBC to defer the loan repayment (again) we are in deep do do. Shuffling the deck of new and past directors will be a bit like re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic.

At these prices it should be a takeover target

Do you want Pavel & Peter back, and why? No. On a number of critical occasions over recent years I thought they took actions, or attempted to take actions, which were not in the shareholders interest. To bring back either or both of them would be to re-establish a familial link with IRC which I don't want. Do you want the current board removed, and why? No I think removing the board at this stage would be needlessly disruptive. I think they deserve a longer period to show what they can make of the company

This looks like a destructive waste of time to me. With regard to the return of Pavel, anything that strengthens the link with IRC (through family ties) is, in my opinion, not a good thing. What is needed is a quiet period of productivity and achievement. I know how I will vote in any subsequent proposal.

They have done so in the past to defer payments. Does this renegotiation include removing the POG guarantee?

I hope that your assumption isn't tested. If it is tested, I hope it is correct.

I was referring to POG's position as guarantor of IRC's debt with ICBC. As I understand it, if IRC fail to make a repayment, then all the capital must be repaid, and POG - as guarantor - will be liable for this.