Conroy Gold & Natural Re... Share Discussion Threads

[goldeneye5] 11/8/2017 16:58

https://www.economy-ni.gov.uk/consultations/conroy-gold-and-natural-resources-plc-proposal-grant-prospecting-licence-county-armagh

[kevjones2] 11/8/2017 15:47

Professor Moriarty. LMAO. That's a bit harsh...





....on Professor Moriarty.

[goldeneye5] 11/8/2017 15:46

So it turns out Tom W never checked the facts and wrote based on hear say! I believe he recently called himself a fraud buster an journalist.................that is actually funny......there is hope for us all yet.....I'm actually an astronaut you know!The rebel 800,000 votes comment was not true and made up. Turns out it was only a few and the were both for and against. Also turns out they had no knowledge or info until count over.The prof did not use a technicality of dubious legality to block 3 resolutions. o Sullivan has accepted he messed up and will not be pursuing this issue legally. The overwhelming majority of shareholders voted with the current board against the resolutions, however a minority of shareholders with a majority % shareholding won the day and deservedly so, that is democracy.......Tom W cannot grasp this! But he is simply wrong to say the majority of shareholders... certainly not journalism.

[resourceful] 11/8/2017 15:26

just read the TW stuff
if what is written is true the board knew days in advance what they were doing to do
why then the charade
a q

[goldeneye5] 11/8/2017 14:15

https://www.irishtimes.com/business/energy-and-resources/conroy-gold-boardroom-drama-could-turn-into-pyrrhic-victory-1.3181775?mode=amp

[bageo] 10/8/2017 18:58

They would drill but it might make some dust ... or is it slow enought not too.

[kaos3] 10/8/2017 17:23

slow as snail - no dust - reminds me of a certain CEO - doing nothing - no dust is in the air

[thecynical1] 10/8/2017 15:21

Kaos.... Cool saying..... What happens when a bad horse runs by? No dust?

[kevjones2] 10/8/2017 13:23

I posted this on LSE:

"It's an awful indictment that O'Sullivan had to seek court injunctions to prevent Conroy from diluting again or adding to the bod before the new GM - again. Be in no doubt that O'Sullivan would not have taken these actions unless he had very good reason to do so. Note also that this time (the new GM proposal) Conroy did not state there would be no dilution. Regardless, these injunctions will utterly discourage dilution before the GM - mission accomplished.

Nevertheless, I have no idea whether a new bod can undo the shocking reputational damage done by Conroy, family and friends. All I know for certain is that for the first time since the 29/09/2014 RNS proclaiming a definitive mining program turned out to be just more bs, I have hope. I'd sooner see CGNR go down with a fight than with another 15 years of dilution."

[kaos3] 10/8/2017 10:42

in slovenia there is a saying - a good horse allways leaves dust in the air while running by

[paleje] 10/8/2017 10:39

O'Sullivan was only protecting his interests seems to me on very brief skim read. Have you even been involved with noise problems/nightclubs, I have, it can get very nasty whether O'Sullvan was using as an excuse or not he was protecting his interests.

I think I'd rather have a streetfighter aligned with my interests than a gentleman taking the pee.

[goldeneye5] 10/8/2017 09:27

lol, a shareholder who believes in Conroy.I think I may have posted that stuff before a year or two ago when someone asked who o S was. I initially thought he was the Limerick FC guy way back, until someone pointed out which P o Sullivan he was...He was a bit of a mystery at the start.

[resourceful] 10/8/2017 08:43

wow also
who knew anything like that about osullivan
to me he was faceless ubtil recently
just a silly investor
who are you goldeneye
clearly close if not one of the board

[goldeneye5] 10/8/2017 08:36

Cut and paste.... simples!

[thecynical1] 10/8/2017 08:07

Wow...... Someone has a lot on their mind......

[goldeneye5] 10/8/2017 01:11

What the judge said about O Sullivan. (Court records) looks like there was No love lost.Is this the kind of chancer you really want on the board?I bear in mind Mr Orr's able cross-examination of Mr O'Sullivan without setting out all the points which he made therein. But at least one of the points admitted by Mr O'Sullivan was that the issue of noise seemed to have amounted to "a tiny percentage of the total refunds" of the cinema after the club reopened. Even allowing for points that were made elsewhere in the evidence as to other possible categories which may have referred to noise Mr O'Sullivan did not dispute Mr Orr putting to him that the total numbers were "very very few." In reviewing the beginning of 2007 the principal witness for the plaintiff accepted that only £82 out of some £13,000 had been lost on the ground of noise. He admitted that there were no documents showing that he was unable to show films in screens 1, 6 and 7 before they were closed in the second half of the evenings. He admitted that no film had been rejected for distribution because of the noise issue but asserted that the time which he continued to show a film was sometimes truncated. After putting various statistics from early 2007 to Mr O'Sullivan he was forced to acknowledge that in the vast majority of days there was no complaint about noise at all. I take into account Mr O'Sullivan's affidavit which he did not expand on in his evidence in chief save in some brief respects not relevant to this issue. What emerges from paragraph 21 of the affidavit is that the closure of screen 1 and the closure of screens 6 and 7 which led on to the claim for rescission only took place after he had consulted his solicitors, Memery Crystal. He was asked whether he had not considered a remedy against the third party (related companies to whom operated both the bar and the club by this stage). He said 'no, his advice was that his first and only port of call was the defendant.' I find this puzzling given that there was no evidence of Mr Holmes and his colleagues in Sheridan refusing to co-operate with Mr O'Sullivan. I find Mr O'Sullivan's evidence in this respect unsatisfactory. I will say a word in a moment about the evidence of Mr Holmes. I bear in mind that the defendant did not control the nightclub now known as Precious. I further bear in mind that it was significantly altered in the summer of 2006. [49] In his affidavit and evidence in chief Mr O'Sullivan chose not to volunteer the fact that he had got a report from acoustic consultants by 5 March 2007. I find it quite remarkable and significant that he did not give this report to either the defendant or the third party until the middle of the following year, 2008. It is common case that there were exchanges between Mr Peter Holmes and Mr O'Sullivan and various other persons working for them in the period November 2006 to January 2007. But if the plaintiff company genuinely wanted to cure the problem of noise from the club it is inexplicable that they did not furnish their report, from A W M Consultants until, on the evidence of Mr Peter Holmes, June of 2008. They had sat on it for 14 months. (They had some criticism of the report but that is a separate matter; no attempt seems to have been made to properly revise and disclose the report.) One is left with the conclusion that rather than seeking to mitigate his loss by curing the problem of noise Mr O'Sullivan of the plaintiff had repented of his agreement with the defendant and was using the noise as a justification for claiming rescission. Why did he not seek a meeting with Mr Holmes in February or in March of 2007 before closing the screens? I can detect no explanation for that. Indeed he mentioned the issue of noise to Mr Holmes but not until October of 2007 some seven months after he had closed the screens. Mr Holmes had received no form of complaint between January 2007 and October 2007. He averred that he sought a meeting with Mr O'Sullivan in October 2007 to discuss any concerns he might have had "but he rejected same". [50] It was put to him that it was significant that there was no press comment at all on any alleged noise problem at the Odyssey or Storm Cinemas. There was apparently one brief mention in a rival's radio advert to noise in other cinemas which might refer to these cinemas. That is a further pointer to noise being a small issue but Mr O'Sullivan did not feel able to offer any explanation for that. Indeed under pressure from Mr Orr and the figures which he was able to draw attention to he shifted his ground somewhat to saying that he was not opening the screens at night because of the risk of damage to his reputation. It was put to him that inconsistently with his case but consistently with Mr Holmes trying to make efforts to restrain the noise from the club, the number of complimentary tickets which had risen in November and December then fell back again. The percentage related to noise, it will be recalled was in any event "tiny".

[goldeneye5] 10/8/2017 00:51

O Sullivan looks dodgy here!http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8493973.stmThe judge said Mr O'Sullivan was entitled to complain it was a misrepresentation to inform him there were no disputes or complaints to the best of the seller's knowledge when, in fact, there had been.However, he said noise issues had amounted to "a tiny percentage of the total refunds" given by the cinema after the club opened at the entertainment complex.It was also acknowledged that on the vast majority of days no complaints about noise were made by cinema-goers.Mr Justice Deeny said he found it "remarkable and significant" that a report Mr O'Sullivan obtained from acoustic consultants in March 2007 was not provided to either the defendants, Village Theatres Three Ltd, or the Odyssey Centre's landlords, Sheridan Millennium Ltd, until the middle of 2008."They had sat on it for 14 months," the judge remarked.He said that rather than "seeking to mitigate his loss by curing the problem of noise," Mr O'Sullivan was using the noise as a justification to get out of the contract.

[goldeneye5] 10/8/2017 00:34

A little background on Patrick o Sullivan from 2014 and his link to the cinemas at the oddyssey building in Belfast. The cinema has always been owned by Village Cinemas, and was only leased to Vue, then Storm. It is now operated directly by Village Cinemas. (The licence is in the name of Village-Theatres 3 Ltd). This is despite news reports in May 2006 stating that Storm Cinemas had bought the multiplex outright for €7m, but supported by news reports in February 2010 that Patrick O'Sullivan, owner of Storm Cinemas, was trying to get his lease annulled because the previous operator had failed to disclose loud music and vibrations from a nearby bar and nightclub that had led to complaints from cinemagoers! The case was decided against him, the "judge remarking that Mr O'Sullivan was using this issue as a ploy to get out of his contract". So it seems clear that Storm never owned the cinema, which is now operated directly by Village Cinemas. (In April 2008 Entertainment Enterprises Group and Odeon had acquired the other Storm cinemas, all situated in Ireland.The judge wasn't fooled by o Sullivan. Shareholders won't be fooled by o Sullivan as it has emerged that it was always a ploy to gain control of Conroy Gold by the back door without paying a fair price for it.

[goldeneye5] 10/8/2017 00:10

A little reminder of when Paul Johnson was very happy with what he experienced of the Conroy team. Think that's him in the little video clipshttp://www.miningmaven.com/pdf//Conroy%20Gold%20and%20Natural%20Resources%2004.04.11.pdf

[goldeneye5] 09/8/2017 10:35

Apologies, request does not include GE, so they want 8 from 9 gone. Looks like O Sullivan changed his mind on GE at the last minute. I certainly have no wish for JT to take over Conroy because of a grudge he holds. I just found it strange nobody was mentioning it, given that's what is really behind this whole thing. A change is going to come I suspect, but not what is expected!

[goldeneye5] 09/8/2017 09:58

Still no comment about John Teeling!As creepy as it is, a certain poster always comes back to me. Creepy!