Buy
Sell
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Karelian Diamond Resources Plc LSE:KDR London Ordinary Share IE00BD09HK61 ORD EUR0.00025
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.00 0.0% 4.20 3.90 4.50 4.25 4.20 4.20 255,175 11:13:46
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Mining 0.0 -0.3 -1.0 - 2

Karelian Diamond Resources Share Discussion Threads

Showing 13801 to 13824 of 14500 messages
Chat Pages: Latest  556  555  554  553  552  551  550  549  548  547  546  545  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
24/9/2019
14:52
are you on drugs equal voice ?! WE CAN NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION ONLY THE PROPOSED BOD CAN so go ask them, then come back here and post the answer - your chum robemy will be well chuffed with your initiative
witchywoo
24/9/2019
14:43
Why not be transparent for everyones benefit and answer robemys question here. Then everyone is informed.
equalvoice1
24/9/2019
14:13
Equalvoice perhaps if yourself and Robemy address your questions to the proposed BOD and not on here you might get an answer...just a crazy thought!
witchywoo
24/9/2019
14:11
Out of interest has nothing angered you in the past about the current bod that prompted you to post?
sirianbotham
24/9/2019
14:10
Write to the requisitioners. The email is on the website. At least then you get a reply from the source and not an anomonous avatar.
sirianbotham
24/9/2019
13:38
I am new to this forum and I hope I will be welcomed as everyone is allowed to join and have a view. You all joined at some stage and posted for the first time. Don't forget that. I am just very angry and have decided to join here. I am a Karelian Diamonds shareholder and I will vote in the EGM. I feel it very important for me and for other shareholders that the proposed new board answer the question posed by Robemy. It is clear that many here are trying to gloss over what is a hugely important question. Well done for noticing this Robemy. I had saved it before to read when I had time, but only realised you are correct when I compared the reports today. You are 100% correct. Half of the entire report has been removed. Why? Why can the people who removed Section 4 of that report not explain, in the interest of transparency(which they advocate as a reason to vote for change)not answer that question. Their unwillingness to answer this is very telling and damaging for their cause. I will continue to support Robemys quest for transparency and a public answer here from the proposed new board. In the absence of an answer shareholders (many who are/were on the fence)have no choice but to assume that this is a terminal blunder on the part of the proposed new board. The optics here are disastrous and suggest curtains for the proposed new board. It is complete hypocrisy.
equalvoice1
24/9/2019
11:49
Wouldn’t surprise me if it turns out that robemy is actually one of the current board members, or maybe related to one of them.... L.
lazygun
24/9/2019
10:06
gosh dave, are you suggesting we might have a stooge on our hands here, haha
witchywoo
24/9/2019
09:43
If you have a problem the BB is not the place for your answer and you know where that answer should come from yet you continue to moan on a BBEither you just like moaning or there is another reason for your comments
dave444
24/9/2019
09:41
Not accusing you of anything. I just don't think in the scheme of things it's important or frankly that relevant. I have met some of the new board at previous agms and believe they are acting in the best interests of all shareholders borne out of a complete frustration which the current bod is or is not doing. This is a tricky process. It's also coming at a large personal cost to those taking the action so I am sure everything they do is geared towards a successful outcome. Contact them on the email link.
sirianbotham
24/9/2019
09:19
So I now get accused of making a mountain out of a molehill, accused of spamming and being odd. It would be nice if someone could respond in a constructive way to what is a significant development.People here either want to ignore it or downplay it. I doubt it has anything to do with giving the current board any advantage.Doesn't look good.
robemy
24/9/2019
09:07
Ref the report, who knows. The section in question had a lot of numbers in it didn’t it? Maybe they thought it would give the current board info that they don’t want the current board to have in case they try and plagiarise it? No sense in handing your competition anything that might give them an advantage is there? Frankly, if you’re focusing on that, you’re probably focusing on the wrong thing. Ask yourself this. When was the last time the current board produced any sort of detailed plan for the assets that they have? Having looked back through company rns’s For last few years, I can’t find a single one.. Ultimately, it boils down to whether you believe the current board, or the proposed new board.. Who is more likely to deliver company enhancing value? The current board, or the proposed new board? The current board obviously have history with the company, but are extremely poor at communication, and also don’t seem to have shown much at all by way of progress of their assets. The proposed new board definitely an unknown quantity. Backing them would certainly require a leap of faith. Would they be any worse than the current board? Who knows, but sometimes in order to change radically a company’s growth fortunes, that also requires radical change. At this point, I might be prepared to stick some more money into Kdr and give the new guys a chance... L.
lazygun
24/9/2019
09:05
Did they RNS the appointment if Stephen grimmer in the first place? NoDid they RNS a new claim for diamonds in Ireland? NoDid they update shareholders on the lahtajoki mining permit transaction? NoDid they correct the Irish times recently on incorrect details in their articles? No#timeforchange
sirianbotham
24/9/2019
09:03
In terms of transparency if you can tell me anything about the current bods plans and how they intend to move this forward beyond ' building the first diamond mine in Europe outside russia' then it would be welcome.I see they are continuing to tweet about seitapera as a target area but what work have they done their since 2012?
sirianbotham
24/9/2019
08:58
something around here sure is 'odd' - have a nice day spamming here and LSE with your repetitive bleating
witchywoo
24/9/2019
08:57
Mountain out of a molehill imo. I have seen more detail of interest since the requisitioners asked for the first egm than all my time invested here and at previous agms. If the reports been amended I suspect it was a precautionary matter and aimed at preventing the current bod from finding an excuse to block the vote etc. There is an email address on the Karelian shareholders website. I'd contact them there and ask.
sirianbotham
24/9/2019
08:47
One can assume all one wants but the report was published by the requisitioners on their own website. Surely they are the ones who should be able to answer this? Not sure why I would need to contact the current board to find out the answers here - oddWhere is their transparency they have been preaching. This is looking worse by the minute.
robemy
24/9/2019
08:15
suggest you contact the BOD (current or proposed) robemy - you might get the clarity you clearly need :)
witchywoo
24/9/2019
08:01
Pressure from the company you think? That's interesting, why would that be? Some clarity on the reason would be useful here. Anyone?
robemy
24/9/2019
07:51
one assumes parts are redacted due to pressure from the company. as a shareholder I'm more concerned about how KDR has been run over the last 10 years, lack of transparency, part-time staff flitting between CGNR and KDR, money also passing between the two companies, never being told about the court cases in Finland, complete shareprice collapse... Do we even know the actual current licensing situation on Lahtojoki - nope of course we don't
witchywoo
24/9/2019
07:08
What are your thoughts about the deleted part of the report Lazygun?
robemy
24/9/2019
04:42
Rbonnier, if the share price dropped because the egm requisitioners started to sell shares, and the incumbent board bought them, as soon as they go over 30%. Concert party rules apply, forcing the concert party to make an offer for the company at a share price minimum being the highest share price in the last 12 months which would be at least 4.25p. So cheap mgt buyout I believe simply isn’t on the cards L.
lazygun
24/9/2019
04:14
I think you’ll find that the incumbent board is only a shade under the 30% mark... It’s even possible they may already be over the 30% limit. Prof Conroy - 7181311, 18.6% Conroy plc - 1232601, 3.19% Brendan mcmorrow - 285000, 0.74% Sorca Conroy, - 1129911, 2.93% Maureen Jones, - circa 630k (I have been lead to believe), so, circa 1.63%) Other director holdings - somewhere between 1-1.5 million, somewhere between 3-4% probably... So, incumbent directors are already at somewhere between 26% and 30%, depends on the actual holdings of Maureen and other directors. I’m not sure how accurate those last two numbers are... This is even before factoring in martello’s holdings... It’s a known fact that Thomas Anderson has a connection with Brendan mcmorrow, since they both joined circle oil on the same day, and were employed there at the same time for 7 years, prior to Brendan joining Kdr.. In a board control egm situation, would the incumbents really give away such a significant portion of voting power unless they already knew which way that voting power would be used at such an egm? Why would a successful businessman like Thomas Anderson put in £100k into a business without doing due diligence first? Now though highly speculative, one might argue that either Mr. Anderson has been privy to information that should probably be made available to the market.. (and so far Kdr haven’t published any kind of plans - so in such a scenario would that be a breach of insider trading regulation?), or perhaps is he just helping a friend (concert party breach?), or has he just decided to take a £100k gamble/investment on the company.. what successful businessman does that - any other ideas? whilst quite speculative, Only TA and the incumbent board would know this. But They would have had to have communicated prior to the placing, in order for the placing to be approved in the first place... It will be interesting to see if he decides to add to his current holding through another placing, or outright market purchase.... The incumbent board I notice refers to the lack of plans etc from the proposed new board. What they conveniently neglect to mention is any kind of detail with estimated timescales for their own plans..... (if indeed they even have any, which given theirs almost total lack of communication of such to the market and their shareholders to date, certainly adds to the perception that they don’t have any real plans... L.
lazygun
24/9/2019
00:14
I respect your opinion RBonnier and everyone is entitled to share their views and thoughts here. But it really does concern me that nobody seems to want to discuss the removal of half the report with us. After all, it's transparency the proposed new board are promising us. It just doesn't look good from my point of view.
robemy
Chat Pages: Latest  556  555  554  553  552  551  550  549  548  547  546  545  Older
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
LSE
KDR
Karelian D..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20200527 01:45:11