The Mining Play

MDMN - 2016-04-04 Weekly Discussion


#359

Just out of curiosity are you related to, or do you have any social relationship, with any BOD member? You seem to go far beyond simple apologist.


#360

I’ll let both my and your comments and past actions speak for themselves.Have a nice day Bubbles (and make sure you PM me a few of your other penny stock picks…they sound solid).


#361

Great post/point. I spent three hours with the attorney in Seattle who was overseeing the “transaction” (MDMN Gold shares for shares in AMNP). The process was so laborious and expensive that it made no sense for me to submit my shares. Now we have the largest shareholders and directors of AMNP as our current BOD. If this doesn’t speak to the common sense of shareholders. Nothing will.

Shareholders like Bubbles would be well-served to start building positions in AMNP based on their glowing comments of management.


#362

Last night, I was online when Uneverknow was posting that the shareholders would never be able to replace the current BOD. I was shocked by his assertions and arrogance. I could not believe what he was saying. IMO he is an insider or part of the current BOD. I think he made a huge mistake making those kind of comments on a shareholder’s board. Now, we know what we are up against and the thoughts of the insiders. I think everyone should go back and read his comments. What a huge mistake…


#363

Ind1 you are wrong about unever! That’s a fact


#364

I should also add that I have the same concerns for NPER and who is driving that bus.


#365

#366

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#367

Very good information there. Thanks for posting the link.


#368

Don, the allegations you post do indeed present a stinky story, and I do appreciate and respect YOUR opinion, as you have been well-balanced over the years. That being said, it is one side of the story - if we want to hear the “other” side of the story, I think we all know what needs to happen. But, nobody seems to want to do anything. I think the reason for that is because most people do indeed understand my prior premise, and that is that there is another side and money talks. You’re a smart guy - can you imagine what a neutral arbiter would conclude if presented with the fact that these men put up many thousands of dollars of their own money and were compensated with stock in accordance with industry standards? Yeah, I wish I would have had that opportunity too - but then again, I wouldn’t have wanted the responsibility of being a board member, as I am a busy man. I think we would all be better served to focus on other aspects of this investment. This board has turned into something that is not very helpful to shareholders, much less newbies.

ATTENTION TEXHORN: I am NOT related to anybody that serves in any leadership role in this or any other related company. I am simply a fair-minded individual trying to make sure ALL sides of the story are exposed to the light of day, not just BE’s side. Is that a problem for you? Question: Are YOU related to anybody around here? Did YOU bring anybody into this investment? For your information, I do find the negative arguments against this investment to be useful, but the management incompetence argument is intellectually lazy at this point, and quite frankly USELESS.


#369

[quote=“lnd1, post:362, topic:1133”]
I could not believe what he was saying. IMO he is an insider or part of the current BOD.
[/quote] Perhaps you need to reread it. Definitely way off base in your comments, IMO.

Uneverknow has made some constructive comments.

[quote=“Uneverknow, post:331, topic:1133, full:true”]
Back to my original point. Since there seems to be no up front money Medinah needs to operate on a shoestring. I was told how much the shareholder meeting would cost the company. I was floored by the amount. One can rent a very popular and professional meeting room in LV that holds 1500. Throw in some necessities the price is max 5k per day. Since shareholders attend on their own dime, so should the BOD’s. That saves 30k. It’s a start.

[quote=“Uneverknow, post:320, topic:1133, full:true”]
Once the MOU is official there is not much the BOD has to do. Compensation should be minimal. Non Gratis IMO. They have been compensated enough. They no longer must pay claim expenses, which is the biggest nut. Normal operating expenses can be drastically reduced with a little common sense. Expect some dilution. I have suggested, post MOU, full disclosure of all planned 2016 expenses, including compensation, and a plan to pay for those expenses via a loan on future production or dilution with a pledge to buy back shares. There are smart minds on this board that have management’s ears who could develop a solid business plan. The current BOD isn’t going away. Perhaps we can direct our energy and business savvy to help them make better decisions rather than taking a path that has little or no chance to succeed…JAS…[/quote]


#370

I have always been of the opinion that once Letts came on board that our BOD was in check. Not that Letts would assure that us shareholders are taken care of, but that he would make sure that Auryn and the Letts family interest would be taken care of and being a shareholder by default our interest too were in better hands. Now I am of the opinion that the Letts family have finally completed what they sought out to and that is acquire the ADL asset. The issue now becomes without Letts on board it appears we once again have the fox in the hen house and that sure does concern me especially when in comes to issuing common stock, convertible preferred stock and exchanging debt for equity. Not sure why Goodin was placed on the BOD we should be reducing our board not increasing it. I would love to see that our the Board is only Greg ( or a shareholder elected individual maybe better) and a Auryn BOD member. I do not believe we need more than two. JMO


#371

I have been waiting to hear the other side of the story on many issues over the years. The BOD has almost always declined the opportunity to clearly provide all of the information to clearly inform the shareholders through the web site in the form of “updates”. The ball has always been in their court and under their control. They have always known the questions that the shareholders have had but they (the BOD) have allowed those question to go unanswered while communicating so ambiguously in those updates that they generated many times more unanswered questions than they answered. This poor communication on the BOD’s part has developed into a conditional response that automatically cause me to read their update trying to figure out “why did they say it that way and what do they really mean”. It remains up to the BOD’s to correct this issue, not me. They are in control, not me, until they aren’t.


#372

We need to get the ETRF bid (Doc’s group?) and the CSTI ASK to finish up this negotiation of a tenth of a cent and then maybe SP progress can begin


#373

and again today at 11:01 EST


#374

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#375

One last post from me regarding the BOD . . . just so everyone is clear on my personal position and approach.

I think a “shareholder coup” or a “throw the bums out” approach is the WRONG approach. Wrong in all senses of the word, i.e. it won’t accomplish what shareholders hope for, it is wrong in spirit, and in fact given the real details of where we are and how we got here (not completely known by everyone.)

If it wasn’t for Greg Chapin and Les Price, JJ would have folded up shop a long time ago and we would have nothing. Also if Greg didn’t open his checkbook, same thing. Needless to say there will be various levels of disagreement on that or people will point out that none of this was done without compensation, etc.

Can we all agree that everyone of us would have handled things differently? I assume that’s the case because we are all unique. But we also can agree that not everyone would have agreed with the particular way “we” would have handled things. Everyone is of their own mind. Current management and BOD did the best they could or knew how given the circumstances. And what’s done is done. Let’s move on.

Here is my approach. Generally speaking I see 3 constituencies.

  • The current BOD, insiders, and management friendlies.

  • AMC (210 million shares) and their friends and families and affiliates.

  • The public shareholder base who get most of their information from theminingplay.com and aurynblog.com.

Those aren’t hard lines as some people consider themselves in more than one of these constituencies.

Right now we have Greg Chapin, and two other board members (Gary Goodin and Vittal Karra) who were selected by Greg Chapin and Les Price.

I think once this deal closes a better makeup of the board of directors would be one member selected by each constituency. That board needs to work to make sure all debts are settled appropriately under reasonable terms with the least cost possible to shareholder equity. That board should select a representative to sit on the board of AMC so that MDMN has representation with AMC given its 25% stake. Then the board needs to work toward the following:

  i.      Lean management structure
 ii.      Low cost operation
iii.      Limited dilution
 iv.      Payment of dividends mandatory

Then we can really be an efficient, trusted holding company, that distributes profits accordingly . . . a company that everyone has confidence in and we can move forward with a win for all and leave the past in the past.


MDMN - 2016-05-02 Weekly Discussion
#376

[quote=“Karl, post:370, topic:1133”]
Now I am of the opinion that the Letts family have finally completed what they sought out to and that is acquire the ADL asset.
[/quote] I believe this is true to the point that Letts guided the steps “by the book” that were necessary to acquire and monetize the claims in a contiguous block. Job is done. Now AURYN can set about developing the claims without interference. I don’t think AURYN cares about MDMN any further than that. I’m not sure that after JJ reneged on the sale of 350M shares that they were even interested in having a stake in MDMN after that. It wouldn’t surprise me if AURYN no longer has aspirations to acquire a major stake in MDMN. Plans can change dynamically as the conditions change. AURYN’s main interest is to exploit the early production hi-grade surface gold, create a revenue stream quickly to monetize and fund further exploration and formally prove up resources and reserves on the claims AURYN owns. An AURYN member on the MDMN BOD at this time would only be a hindrance and liability, thus Letts is no longer there. IMO

Perhaps CHG said it best:

The BOD does need restructuring and downsizing at this juncture as many have already commented.


#377

Wise Counsel


#378

Once again, a good point. The best way to resolve differences of opinion is to talk about them. I hereby nominate Bald Eagle to make the case for shareholders and against management at the AGM. Will he stand behind his words? Don’t get your hopes up.