I get most of us on here are not happy with what LNY have delivered to holders over the years, rightly so imo and we do have very real concerns going forward imo. Changes have to be made and 2 directors have to step aside asap imo!!!
My concerns imo and probably many here as well, are the apparent conflicts, time of management working for LNY, as they have multiple other directorships and involved with BCP which would take time, a director based in Melbourne, what value to LNY here imo, structure of the boards and mining skill set - predominantly finance guys and their relationship apparent conflict, a lawyer and media rep, performance and growth of LNY, the SP over a long period, market sentiment/reputation which is poor imo, along with unacceptable communications to holders and PR, the over the top rent and that apparent conflict, meeting realistic plans, timelines and drilling activity or lack of, the toll arrangements with Maas and that apparent conflict, debt recovery, processing/mining agreements which heavily favour the 3rd parties which take most of the gold and leaves us with only a small portion, which only funds 12 months of not a lot to move growth in this company, poor cash position year after year restricting us from achieving exploration etc etc, NZ, the Aus Tin deal etc, the list goes on and on.
Please note this is all imo since I became and investor in LNY. Also a common theme of reading other posters concerns on HC. From looking at T20 I can see why some support the current LNY structure, but surely they would want significant SP growth and the current structure imo has let all holders down and sadly some have to go imo!!! So how do we do it!!!
Positives we have a good Geo, SB is a proven money man with successes (get him focused and away we go imo) and now a new MD/CEO who has to prove himself this year imo as his performance indicators are way to light on for me. Reading some history on here previously was initially a concern for me, but finally we now have full time office reps with essential, critical mining experience and a strong willingness to drive and turn LNY into success is encouraging. Finally some direction which was badly lacking imo. Hopefully communications will now flow between holders and these 2. As what has happened in the past was a disgrace and totally unacceptable imo.
So do we continue to argue between ourselves (it's all too consuming and tiresome), venting our frustrations towards each other has to stop and we have to unite and be heard as one, it's our company as well, not just the boards.
3 options guys: time to make a choice!!!
1. we can force change by 249D's
2. negotiate and submit a request for changes, best to have over 5%
3. continue to be walked over by LNY imo and bury our heads in the sand.
I seriously want changes, but we cannot do option 1, please read below, why!
Option 2 is our only option the way I see it and we have to draft a submission with just over 5% of holders signing this submission. Rob are you keen to assist me? as you may have spoken to some of the T20 holders who might want to support, so would love to have a chat. Will find your email or post it again and we can go from there.
So we need 5% around 200-250 Mil shares guys only the big holders need to contact (always better to show more, but with minimum numbers ok) which from my calculations would only need 6-8 holders.
I have done some research again looking into top 20 from both Market Index and Day Trade Scans, which is good as it shows the T20 holders in detail and what other common stocks they hold in other T20 coys as well, plus can easily work out who's who on here if one wanted to. Out of respect, I will not post my findings here.
Or go to registry and sit for a few hours getting info or pay a couple of hundred $ and request a copy of register. Some companies are even willing to release a T20 update free of charge. I have done all these over the years but no point as well will not be doing a 249D.
The point of this is crystal clear as I do not want to waste time spilling boards etc etc.
LNY has 3.8 Bil shares from 5125 holders on its register.
4045 have less than 100k, which only equates to around 35 Mil shares
Worse still is that over 3000 have less than a 1000 shares who would never vote.
So we only have just 1080 holders have over 100k of shares, which is around 3.7 Bil shares which would all have to vote, unlikely.
Top 20 is 53% around 2 Bil shares
SB owns 29% around 1.1 Bil shares, plus supporters in T20 (700 Mil) = 1.8 Bil shares
SB, imo T20 supporters around another 700 Mil shares
Leaves others in T20 who might want change of directors etc to only 200 mil shares, plus the other 1073 holders all have to vote which will never happen to get 50.1% to effect a board spill.
So a very tightly controlled T20 register of 1.8Bil shares in full support of SB and LNY imo, which is 49%.
No chance of spilling the board by doing a 249D. This is not an option guys.
Appreciate your thoughts. We can make changes, easiest way is for 2 directors to resign and as I suspect the company would want that as well, so we can start a fresh future, improve market sentiment/reputation and reward finally, the long suffering holders. We do have great potential. We just have to regroup and re focus imo. GLTA, sorry about the long post.
View attachment 3095351
View attachment 3095303
(20min delay)