Scotgold Resources Share Discussion Threads

[glenalmond] 25/11/2017 21:27

Hi Coli.

That is precisely what I thought. Very poor form from "Anon". Tut tut.

TBF, it's poor form from Kempe too for publishing it.

[coliwobbles] 25/11/2017 21:17

Hi glen.

I wonder if ''Anon'' would be happy with his name, address, occupation, employment history, links to previous destabilising campaigns....etc, published on PWS....???

hhhmmmmmmm.....

[glenalmond] 25/11/2017 20:56

"Anon" on PWS made a post on November 24, 2017 at 7:53 pm and wasn't "shy" about what he wrote.



Is that you Simon?

[coliwobbles] 25/11/2017 18:33

ROFL.....even your deflection techniques are pathetic.

Instead of doing the decent/honourable thing like any normal human being would do, and apologise for misleading by posting fabricated nonsense re the 'OIS', that you strangely had no problem in finding in your 14.59 incorrect rant, you do your usual and move the goalposts to a different issue entirely....!!!!

Unfortunately for you that 'other' issue just makes you look even more desperate than ever. The 'OIS' link is on the homepage of the Scotgold website and only an imbecile would struggle to find it. It's staring you right in the face in the top half of the page...!!!!

Good luck with 'Reporting SGZ to the regulators'. I'm certain both the company and the FCA will treat your latest complaint with the usual contempt they both regard you with.....ROFL

[pr100] 25/11/2017 17:51

REPORTING SGZ TO THE REGULATORS

I believe it is a contravention of the listing rules to try to raise equity financing whilst withholding material information from minority shareholders.

The controlling shareholder - and the CEO who is also participating in the RI - obviously know all the material facts including the BPT gold margin, galena route to market, revenues received and expected from gold and concentrate sales, the real Au grade of the the stockpile, the results of tests and trials announced many months ago, the reason why they aren't going to try to raise the rest of the Phase 1 financing until March/April, etc, etc.

But minority shareholders are being deliberately kept in the dark. This is a serious matter when the company is asking these minority shareholders to part with a lot of cash in order to take part in the rights issue.

[pr100] 25/11/2017 17:40

Thanks, I've found it now. It is not in the correct place. Shareholders will look for it under the "Investor Centre" menu - as I did - but it isn't there (either under "Reports & Shareholder Administration" or "AIM Announcements & Presentations".

Not good enough.

SGZ can't run a website let alone a gold mine.

[coliwobbles] 25/11/2017 15:26

Simon.....You're LYING AGAIN...!!!

I've just opened it via the Scotgold website.....105 pages long...!!!

Hilarious that you're STILL attempting to belittle the CEO and the company every time you post......and falling flat on your face EVERY time.....
Give it up......your employers 'generous offer' is completely and utterly dead in the water.....as dead as a duck that can't seem to even manage to tread water....ROFL

[pr100] 23/11/2017 09:13

"If that was indeed NLR's intention why list publicly in the first place…"

NLR is a late arrival on the scene and had no part in the decision to float SGZ. He does have previous in taking public companies private however and that may well be his intention here if and when he realises that Mr Market isn't going to finance the mine.

"…and why didn't the company simply dissapply PI's pre-emptive rights, as often occurs"

1. A placing/OO would reveal to the world that no IIs are remotely interested;
2. NLR already dominates SGZ votes and may not yet want to risk regulator scrutiny by increasing his votes to over 50% so is demonstrating his (possibly temporary) willingness to spread out the voting rights;
3. Given the company's obvious determination to avoid transparency, a rights issue enables him, under Sections 706 and 708 of the Australian Corporations Act, to raise cash without publishing a tell-all prospectus.

"Skin in the game should be valued."

Agreed - but skin above 30% (and certainly above 50%) is dangerous for other shareholders as they effectively lose their vote; hence the UK regulator requires any shareholder owning over 30% to put in an offer to buy the whole company.

[bo doodak] 22/11/2017 21:04

On a more serious note, it’s difficult to reconcile NLR underwriting the rights issue, and for no fee, with -

''what looks like disastrous mismanagement could be intentional subterfuge. NLR may be willing to finance the whole mine himself - without taking any pesky PIs along for the ride''

If that was indeed NLR's intention why list publicly in the first place and why didn't the company simply dissapply PI's pre-emptive rights, as often occurs

Skin in the game should be valued.

Given how these things normally work though IMHO, is it not likely, especially once planning approved, and II's do show interest, then the share price will be ''managed'' to a level they are comfortable with to subscribe to a further capital raising

A good way to combine investing with hill walking in due course, hopefully..

[glenalmond] 22/11/2017 20:19

Nice one Steel. Thanks for that.

[bo doodak] 22/11/2017 20:15

Its a well written entertaining read!

[bageo] 22/11/2017 20:13

pr100 you missed a very important bit off your quote on DNA:

"the receipt of all required regulatory approvals, including the conditional approval of the Toronto Stock Exchange."

It is not conditional on the granting of planning permission only that an application is submitted. The regulatory approvals are about the shares and nothing else.

[pr100] 22/11/2017 09:01

RIGHTS ISSUE

Sadly missing from this RNS was any indication that an II or JV partner has shown any concrete, viable interest in funding the remaining £6m or so to get the mine built. (It could be more as there is no guarantee that £2m of the RI cash will be spent on mine works.)

No third party would commit to financing the mine without PP being granted - but there's nothing to stop anyone showing serious interest "subject to PP" …which they obviously haven't or it would have gone into the RNS and boosted the share price to encourage PIs to partake.

So it looks increasingly likely that the only way to get the mine built will be if shareholders cough up all the money - which at today's market cap would mean obliteration by dilution for everyone except NLR who could end up owning 90% of the company.

This RI already represents 65% dilution for those PIs who don't have the cash to keep chasing the dragon. So the next self-funding round for more than double this amount in 3-4 months' time would kill everyone off whose pockets aren't deep enough to keep up.

The problem is greatly exacerbated by raising this £2.65m at Scotgold's lowest ever share price. Due to incompetence and mismanagement, the company has failed miserably to boost the share price or prevent it sliding inexorably to all-time lows. Even now, the share price is only hovering around the RI price because it is being artificially supported by brokers. There is a real possibility that it will sink like a stone once the RI cash is in as PIs contemplate the implications of the next fundraising and the uncertainty of planning permission.

Had the BoD been able to flag up some II or JV conditional support for the next phase then the share price could have risen to make the RI attractive. Alternatively, had they been able to confirm a route to market for the galena - which still sits unsold in inventory - the business case would have been stronger. But they have failed on all fronts to deliver and a lot of PIs will not be able or willing to shell out for 66% more shares to maintain their equity interest in the company.

Of course, what looks like disastrous mismanagement could be intentional subterfuge. NLR may be willing to finance the whole mine himself - without taking any pesky PIs along for the ride.

But I'm more inclined to blame the hapless CEO for the bad forecasting, missed targets, disinformation and lack of transparency which brought the share price to its knees.

[glenalmond] 20/11/2017 07:23

Hey Coli. I'm getting the early bus from Perth if you change your mind & will be spending the day in Auld Reekie. Otherwise I'll see you when I see you.

P.S. - as with trolls, I don't bother feeding ducks as it only encourages them to come back for more and spout yet more attention seeking noise ;)

Have a guid yin mate.

[coliwobbles] 19/11/2017 16:15

Hi glen, don't think I'll be at the AGM mate..!!
Would have loved to be there for a proper catch up. If the situation changes I'll let you know..!!

[coliwobbles] 19/11/2017 16:13

LOL

Poor little shylock...

Was hoping choking on your cornflakes when the Rights issue RNS was released was going to be the last we'd hear from you.......but then again, the entertainment factor you provide on here keeps us all laughing...!!!

Guess you've realised that your handlers will NOT be providing you with your pay off for all your nefarious work.....shame...ROFL...!!!

I see you're STILL WRONG about so many things....''baz72'' just your latest....lol

[glenalmond] 18/11/2017 10:59

Hmmm, he's taken it down ... for now anyway. Making a few corrections, perhaps?

"ERROR 500 - INTERNAL SERVER ERROR"

[glenalmond] 17/11/2017 22:03

New article from SJW Kempe ...

[glenalmond] 16/11/2017 07:55

Wrong board, muppet. On yer bike son.