Conroy Gold & Natural Re... Share Discussion Threads

[red rook] 02/10/2018 17:32

Conroy must have heard the rumblings of a shareholders' revolt and stuffed some of his 'hard-earned' cash to prop-up the share ! GLA LTHs

[red rook] 02/10/2018 00:30

KevJones,

I am not a holder of this disaster, and not looking to buy in (at any price). However, I have monitored CGNR, on and off, for some time. My advice, for what its worth, is that there will always be some posters who will carp and try to ridicule those wanting to protect their investment by forming a shareholders group. But it is possible. For example, recently SOLO shareholders successfully held their BOD to account.

If shareholders here could rally 3%+ into a shareholders' group then they could play a pivotal role. The advantage here is that CGNR have a few large investors who shareholders could approach to help launch another bid to oust Conroy.

It must be obvious that the old fart Conroy just wants to string things along for a few more years before he passes away from natural causes. Till then he will keep this life-style company turning over, poking a drill-hole here and there, to give the illusion of activity and progress. It takes a lot of energy, effort and money to get a mine into operation. Conroy is just not that man !

IMO, form a shareholders' group, approach the main two investors to support you to call an EGM and vote the old fart out. IMO, shareholders will also require to have a change of name for the company. To the market anything called 'Conroy Gold' will have no credibility. If a clean sweep of the BOD can be made, and a new way forward articulated for the company, then it may have a chance.

IMO, there is no way that CGNR will be able to bring a mine into operation. It needs to enter a JV with a larger mining operation, and hand over the role of operator. CGNR could take an upfront cash payment, for all work done to date, and say a 10% free carry into production. Long term shareholders could at least recoup some of their investment.

[shambaby] 29/9/2018 13:20

BH stated Mid to end of September for results. New presentation now states Q4 plus further drilling results 2019 across multiple targets. I suspect latest results delayed as possible behind the scenes negotiations.

[goldeneye5] 27/9/2018 12:27

True shambaby, interesting to see if we get something along with drill results, given the delay.

[shambaby] 27/9/2018 09:50

According to BH drilling results due by end of month

[kevjones2] 27/9/2018 09:23

Thank you, Glenalmond. I have sensed for some time now that people are just getting sick and tired of rampers.

[glenalmond] 27/9/2018 09:08

Kev's hardly a "toxic poster" & certainly not a bully imo, Goldeneye.

Quite the contrary, in fact.

He quite correctly calls a spade a spade, as do I.

[goldeneye5] 26/9/2018 07:17

Toxic posting again. Comes across like a bully. Still with the personal attacks. Need I say more!

[bageo] 25/9/2018 23:34

Goldeneye

The competant person is professionally responsible. As I have made clear I doubt he would have assembled the presentation - that is the promoters job. But then as a professional it is the competant persons responsibility to ensure they aren't selectively quoted or withdraw their consent.

Prof Earls is a well respected geologist but most has been in academia or the BGS so not requiring compliance with JORC or 43-101. If you were looking for an explorer in Ireland & N Ireland he would be one of the first choices for technical experience.

[mineng] 25/9/2018 22:17

I gave you some clear examples of what was IMHO contrary to the code in the presentation and gave you the relevant parts of the code to judge for yourself.

I hadn't read the previous presentation. Was that just as misleading?

Why does reasoned criticism have to be assumed to be part of a conspiracy?

[goldeneye5] 25/9/2018 21:02

What part of the presentation is incorrect?

[mineng] 25/9/2018 20:17

Goldeneye

I read the disclaimer. So what.
Does this remove JORC obligations? No.

This is not some school science report. It matters to investors who have real money at stake.

If you say you follow a code you must follow the code. IMHO this does not by a long chalk.

[goldeneye5] 25/9/2018 19:49

Wow, things have become desperate here. Taking a pop at one of Ireland's most respected Geologists is low, even for this board. I'd imagine he is having a good old chuckle at that. Nasty posts usually mean the company is doing well. Try reading the disclaimer on the presentation, maybe that might calm you down. It's a presentation. Simples!

[ad1967mc] 25/9/2018 18:57

Presentation is big on fantasy and selective about facts. No mention of costs anywhere. How do they expect a £2m company to fund the level of exploration required? Utterly delusional.

[bageo] 25/9/2018 18:19

I'd started looking
hxxp://www.jorc.org/docs/jorc_qa_sep_2013.pdf

my guess is Prof Garth Earls would need to be reported to his professional organisation - in theory - but only if he has authorised this presentation. If someone else has selectively extracted information then very difficult

hence why the company seem to do whatever they likes without any standards

[glenalmond] 25/9/2018 17:05

Right, so who do we report this to and what will they do about it?

[bageo] 25/9/2018 16:08

mineng,
couldn't agree more if it was the ASX they would be forced to withdraw it but AIM does nothing.

[kevjones2] 25/9/2018 13:59

Wow. Thanks for that information, mineng. I knew we are being fooled but not to that extent.