Ariana Resources Share Discussion Threads

[charles clore] 11/5/2020 11:00

Back to par for the day. Another disappointing performance on an excellent news day for a company with no debt that operates in a rising sector, makes a very decent profit, hasn't put a foot wrong in years and yet it still cannot gain the kind of traction expected. What is wrong with AIM investors these days, are they blind?

[dixi] 11/5/2020 10:57

I suppose his problem is being a tipster and wanting to reduce. Telling punters to buy whilst he sells would be unethical. So yes, it appears to be very self-serving of him.

[dixi] 11/5/2020 10:15

It is becoming increasingly frustrating, too much topslicing advice maybe!

[thanksamillion] 11/5/2020 10:08

And after all that good news...up 1.5%, ...one day Rodders comes to mind.

[charles clore] 11/5/2020 10:04

kaos - I welcome any questions and in yours and temmujin's case I know they are genuine and well intended. No problem at all with them as they echo the thoughts of many others.

Very pleased with the price progress so far and to think just a few months ago I was quibbling about buying under 2p!

[bigglesbingham] 11/5/2020 09:50

No problem with questions helps everyone understand . Ie clarification regarding future operating centres required.

[bigglesbingham] 11/5/2020 09:49

You not bought them back yet ha ha

[paul280i] 11/5/2020 09:31

Sorry guys, I sold a few this morning to move into my ISA, I must take the blame for knocking the share price

[kaos3] 11/5/2020 09:28

paul - agreed - and hence I asked first - do I see it right - and then went on to paint what I see. Thank you for your effort btw.

will shut t f up for some time heh heh got it ;)

[kaos3] 11/5/2020 09:26

great - thank you BB

In continental law that I know - if a Co does a deal exceeding 50 % (depends on the country) of its assets value the management MUST put the deal on the shareholders approval - and such an answer I was looking for - a "must fact" beyond statements or believes. sometimes it is written in the Cos incorporation statue ....

[kaos3] 11/5/2020 09:22

shortarm - not at all - I am trying to discuss new info
but I understand it - reality is mostly percepted as minor (negative) to the hopes and believes

[bigglesbingham] 11/5/2020 09:21

From rns 25th Nov 2019: The proposed joint venture would be subject inter alia to due diligence, entering into binding agreements and shareholder approval. Pretty much as straight as you can get it whether English is first language or not. Cheers

[bigglesbingham] 11/5/2020 09:19

To me that does say yes it needs shareholder approval if the deal gets to that stage and this has been stated in previous rns when MOU was announced.

[shortarm] 11/5/2020 09:19

Feeling a bit negative today Kaos?

[kaos3] 11/5/2020 09:16

direct question and we get a "slick" but truthfull answer. It was not a short and direct YES answer which I would expected if there was a yes. And he knows it very well but does not answer it directly - so take your bet .....

05-09 14:21 Kerim:
Our MoU specifies that the deal is contingent on shareholder approval if required. This applies to Ariana as much as it does to the incoming party and its shareholders. At the time we did the deal with Proccea in 2010 and due to the earn-in arrangement, there was no requirement for shareholder approval.

PS - I believe too ......

[bigglesbingham] 11/5/2020 09:10

My understanding is the deal will be put to shareholders due to the nature of it. The procea deal didn't need to be I believe this does.

[soulsauce] 11/5/2020 09:09

As I remember it, Tavsan will only need a pre-processing facility on a much smaller scale than RR with the product being shipped to RR for final processing so Capex should be smaller than RR.

[kaos3] 11/5/2020 09:05

plus thanks to you guys I got my answer - we will not be asked if we agree with the JV terms - as far as I can see it. we will vote by staying on board or by selling

I am as optimistic as all and sorry to disturb the party feelings. I am not making statements - I am asking questions more or less - so I can clear my view - what makes my checking of the future progress easier. that is all

[bigglesbingham] 11/5/2020 09:03

I think that profits from tarsvan and debt repaid by 2023 or that's my hope.

[bigglesbingham] 11/5/2020 09:02

These terms need to be seen within the finalised agreement. But if they are thrown into the new JV this could become messy. I believe they would have to look at each project as a profit centre because the earning in on salinbas for example needs careful monitoring. If they do look at profit centres then would expect AAUs profit from kiziltepe to be allocated accordingly. It's a very good point however which needs clarifying as we wouldn't want our share of profit getting lost in development of existing projects,

[kaos3] 11/5/2020 08:55

i get it as the profits (free cash flow) of the present JV will not be "isolated" and will be thrown into the future JV - or did I get this one wrong?

[bigglesbingham] 11/5/2020 08:55

The 30000 ounce at current gold price results in less than year loan repayment . The Internal rate of return for this project was estimated at 80%. Only ballpark figures off the top op my head but not far out I believe.