Core Gold DMMIF

Circling the wagons...

[merlin991]

A message from Tad: 

 https://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=32275048

============================================================

It appears that the 4 board of directors are circling the wagons, and carrying on as if they did 
nothing wrong with their pathetically misguided attempt of ripping this company and its assets 
away from the long term shareholders of Core Gold (DMM in the old days)

So, now these rogues have appointed Mark Baiely as full time CEO. Funny they never stated 
it was a unanimous decision ... anyone think for a minute that Keith Piggott would go along 
with this appointment ?? Just a guess but I highly doubt Mr. Piggott woud be in favour of this
appointment. 

Mark Bailey is the individual who was most agrumentative about not allowing Zhaojin Mining 
to do some industry standard confirmation drilling during that fateful March 9, 2019 board 
meeting. 

Zhaojin Mining had drill rigs and a crew all ready to go on site, just awaiting approval from 
the board to do some confirmation drilling as part of its due diligence process prior to it 
committing up to a US$100 Million offer of partnership with Core Gold for a 20% equity stake 
in our company and a 60% share of the Dynasty Goldfields Project. This investment would 
have included a brand new, statre of the art, 2000 tpd mill built on site at Dynasty Goldfields 
and would have seen Core Gold maintain 40% of all mining production from the Dynasty 
Goldfields Project

Anyone care to do the math of what Zhaojin Mining was valuing our company at by offering 
US$100 million for a 20% equity stake and 60% share of Dynasty Goldfields ? Core Gold 
would still have had 100% control of the highly prospective Linderos, Copper Duke Projects 
and the Zaruma Project with its curent operating mill, as well as whatever status that the 
Jerusalem Project currently is.. 

I would hope this gets to Rob Washer. His long time director Mark Bailey stabbed all of 
his shareholders in the back by refusing to allow confirmation drilling by Zhaojin Mining.

We'd be tradng well north of $0.45 cents per share right now, We would have been 
particpating in the current run up in share prices of every other bloody gold mining
company , but no, we're mired at $0.18, with only a mealy mouthed news release issued
this morning announcing to the world their absolute arrogance in appointing one of their
own as permanent CEO, against the wishes of many of the long term shareholders. 

Mark Bailey is not to be trusted as the CEO of this company. He does not have the 
confidence of many of the long term shareholders. During his tenure as a director, first 
under Rob Washer, and then during Keith Piggott's time as CEO, Mark Bailey apparently 
visited the Ecuador assets exactly once. Yes, once, in all the time he was a director. Some 
efforts at oversight, huh ? Since he became interim CEO he had supposedly travelled to
Ecuador on 3 or 4 more ocassions according to statements made at the Special Shareholder's
Meeting in June ...... Impressive ... NOT.

Pathetic actually. 

Seems Mark Bailey apparently gave Rob Washer "carte blanche" over all operations and 
decisions, decisions that basically ran Dynasty Metals and Mining into administrative 
receivership in Ecuador. Yup, all under Mark Bailey's tenure as a director . And he's 
supposed to be the one to now resurrect Core Gold ? After his adamant supprt of the 
Titan Plan of Arrangement, a deal that the long term shareholders were vehemently 
opposed to ? Long term shareholders who were vindicated by the BC Supreme Court 
ruling that stated the plan of arrangement was not fair and reasonable. 

Mark Bailey is supposed to be trusted now to entertain any and all offers that may come 
to Core Gold ? Seriously ? After all the B.S he and lead director Gregg Sedun tried 
to pull on long term shareholders ? Chasing away a potential US$100 million offer
of partnership by not allowing some confirmation drilling by a multi-billion dollar 
market cap mining company ? 

Anyone doubting the veracity of my statements can refer to the following examples 
excerpted from the transcript of the March 9, 2019 board meeting, which is found in 
Keith Piggott's first affidavit that was submitted to the BC Supreme Court for the 
Fairness Hearing.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The transcript for the March 9, 2019 board meeting in which Mark Bailey adamantly refused
to allow Zhaojin Mining to do confirmation drilling starts on page 404 of Keith Piggott's
first affidavit and continues through to page 491.

Specifically on page 410 Mark Bailey begins to question Keith Piggott about Zhaojin Mining
plans to do some confirmation drilling :

"Mark: Keith I have a questions for you, since you've been involved with the Chinese, what, exactly,
are they doing for due diligence ?

The -- the information that came from shareholder Fibbs(phonetic) was that they were -- they had a
team down there flagging drill sites in anticipation of an upcoming drill program...... Is that what their
due diligence is going to entail, drilling on our [indiscernible] with no -- as part of their due diligence
they're going to start drilling? ...... "

..... Mark : Keith, I have to interrupt you. You cannot let them drill on our property in a due diligence
period with no -- with no deal. They put up $20 million in a signed agreement to earn 60% that's
acceptable to the company and Titan, then they can go away, but they can't go out there and drill
during the due diligence period and kill the property with no agreement.....

...... Mark : That's our response ...

...... Mark : That's our responsibility, Keith. That's not the responsibility of a third party who has 
no agreement with the company. Do not let someone come in and drill. If they want a sample --- 
most of the core was never split. Go in the core shed, find the drill holes, split it themselves and 
sample it. They don't need to drill those holes. We don't need to take on the liability, the 
environmental liability, or any other liability by having a third party ...."

And the discussion continues on until page 431 through 446, Mark Bailey continues in his assertion
that confirmation drilling not be allowed and Mark Bailey's stance remains no confirmation drilling :

"..... Mark : And it doesn't stop -- and the Chinese -- I totally disagree with you Keith, on the Chinese 
drilling and trying to twin our holes. We have the core there, we have surface outcrops, we have mining 
of the veins, we have all the -- all the surface and already -- data available to make a decision. Twinning 
a hole is no guarantee that they'll get the same results. They may miss the vein, they may hit the vein. 
And you can -- you can -- if you've drilled enough, Keith, you know you can drill an ore deposit six 
inches away from a deposit and have nothing" ......

......Mark: Well we don't want them to do that. we don't have a deal. What you're doing is giving them a --- ...

... Mark : Free ride to test the property, Keith. They're going to free ride it to test the property with 
no committment, no $20 million, no long term. They can go in there and test it, if they don't like 
what they see, they can move on or they can try to renegotiate -- [indiscernable] --"

Those are some of the examples directly stated by Mark Bailey regarding the board of directors 
stance about not allowing confirmation drilling on March 9, 2019 for Zhaojin Mining to complete 
their due diligence prior to committing to a potential US$100 million investment as a partner with 
Core Gold.

Keith Piggott's Second Affidavit submitted to the BC Supreme Court contains a transcript of
the Special Shareholder's Meeting, the follwoing excerpt again also shows Mark Bailey firmly 
opposed to any confirmation drilling : 

There is an exchange betweem shareholder "Mr Brookfield", (actual name is later corrected to
Mr. Brockington, and Mark Bailey starting on page 34 of Keith Piggott's Second Affidavit.

Specifically on Page 37 Mr. Brockington directly asks Mark Bailey :

"Mr Brockington : When Zhaojin Mining wanted to preseent a bid for alternatgive financing with 
the "go-shop"period, they wanted to do confirmatory drilling, and actuall physically arrived in 
Ecuador with drilling -- drill rigs and people to carry out that prgram.

What they wanted to do was twin some holes of the old Dynasty Goldfields where they'd seen 
core samples. But this is a normal process in evaluation of any property. Why was Mr. Bailey 
resisting this process ?

Was he concerned that when he was director in the past that there was something untoward 
going onunder Mr. Washer?

Is he concerned about the assaying procedures or sampling process?

What is it, Mr. Bailey, you're concerned about? You should know. I believe you are a geoligist; correct?

Anyway, that had the effect of shutting down the Zhaojin bidding process by ending the normal 
due diligence and their ability to bring a superior deal.

You said, Mr Bailey, in fact, that the confirmatory drilling could devalue the property when you're 
twinning a hole, if it's going to produce similar results.

We all know in a gold situation, yes, you may get 2.1 grams over 10 meters; you might get 2.3. 
You might get 1.8. Yes, it's not going to be exactly the same, but averaging section should hopefully 
closely parallel those originally reported.

What are you hiding? Why did you say that? Is there anyone in the room that can cite a similar circumstance in the history of mining that confirmatory drilling would devalue a resource? "

Mark Bailey responded shortly thereafter :

"Mr Bailey: I'm Mark Bailey. Ive been in the business for 43 years. Exploration geologist. I've had 
a very successful career discovering deposits and building mines. So I don't need to be questioned 
on my credibility.

Drilling -- twiinning holes in an open-pit mine, first off, no one does that.

Second off, the holes and the collars that you want to twin are gone because there's an pit mine 
where they used to be. It's very difficult to twin a hole when the hole is not there anymore.

Showing up with three drill rigs to twin a couple holes is not confirmation drilling. It's an exploration 
program, which is uncalled for.

No company in my carrer has ever let another company come on their property and drill it for free. 
If you want to do a joint benture, you put up money. You sign a mining agreement, and you earn 
into the property. That's how you drill holes. You do not drill holes for free on a property.

There were no holes to twin. All core was there. They could sample core. And more importantly, 
the open pit mine exposed more veins than the drilling did. They could have sampled the open-pit 
and got more data out of the open-pit mine than they would have got off drilling.

So they weren't trying to twin holes; they were trying to do exploration drilling on the property.

The first questions I've lost track of because there were so many.

I've not been to the Peruvian properties of Titan. I've been to Ecuador three times this year to the 
Core Gold properties. And I've reviewed those, and I have input in the Core Gold properties, which 
we are drilling now, which we're expanding, and we're doing work on things that were never done 
by previous management. ..."

".....Mr Brockington: Yes. I want to come back at Mr. Bailey on one point that he says it's not usual 
for a company to ever twin holes.

Well Mr Bailey, I'm a mining engineer. I've chaired a provincial Crown Corporation. I've been in this 
business a few more years than you, I suspect, because I'm a little older.

You may not know me, but I can tell you that Inco, in my career, did twin holes on a property where 
I was chief engineer. Thank you.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just for the record. All from publicly available information and public court documents.

This shareholder has absolutely no trust in the current make of this board of directors, and their 
continued efforts to consolidate power is now in open view for all shareholders to see. 

Mark Bailey, as well as Gregg Sedun, should step aside, hand in their resignations, for the good of 
this company, and its shareholders, to move forward. Many shareholders can not trust that these
two individualswill make a decision that is not in their own self interest, as was displayed by them 
during the Titan Minerals plan of arrangement fiasco, where these two would have held directors 
positions in the newly merged company.

Enough for now. I'm absolutely disgusted with today's announcement of Mark Bailey being appointed 
as permanent CEO. 

Arrogance. Just bloody arrogance.

[merlin991]

Another message from Tad: https://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=32275363 Here's another example of the deceptive and underhanded way that Core Gold Lead Director Gregg Sedun, and the other directors, including now CEO Mark Bailey,  as well as CFO Sam Wong did eveything in their power to discourage and

[Multioz]

Too much mud slinging chatter to figure out the last two transactions tabled, but between the merger presentation and recent thread on a Chinese deal, have an outline.  The Chinese Offer looks fantastic and the Titan Offer is looking very good at this point in terms of some financing for this company.  Hoping the Chinese are circling back!?!    If they were paying US$100M for a

[The_Alchemist]

Multioz, this might be hard for you to understand but industries have standards that are considered best practices... and generally, management and boards of directors have a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders to follow such standards - so when a company is planning on offering $100 million for 20% of a company over a few years, they’re going to do a due diligence, which in this case is

[Multioz]

Alchemist, Understand DD - just reading Bailey's comments from the Merlin transcripts, and did not see anything that was not a fair comment (just seemed like a long blog to make someone look arrogant or unskllled without achieving the objective).  Would not argue that some twin holes would be great before finalising an agreement, but such work would be a condition precedent in an

[flashcash]

I don’t understand the opposition to a twinning hole drill, the results could have been kept under a non disclosure agreement and the results would have confirmed the scale of the project. It just stinks !

[bailey2]

Obviously they  were laser focused on the unfair and unreasonable Titan deal. Hopefully the board has learned from their past errors. We now have to move on, keep close watch on happenings, and  let the bidding process take shape. The unexplored wordclass potential of our properties,, the largest processing mill in Ecuador presently, that only needs 3 million dollars spend to get us up

[Multioz]

"...only needs 3 million dollars spend to get us up to 50000 oz per year, will undoubtedly bring a mid to large mining company to the table to partner, or even takeout Coregold" "Build it, and they will come"  !?!? ...No reserves needed. Not sure how the previous transaction was unfair and unreasonable?  Looks like the ruling is the fairness opinion failed to pass

[standfir]

p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 9.0px Geneva} p.p2 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 9.0px Geneva; min-height: 12.0px} Multioz - "Not sure how the previous transaction was unfair and unreasonable?" - If we understand you correctly, you are stating that you are better at judging that, than a judge?  Read the judgement.  It says exactly that, unfair and

[Multioz]

Thanks Standfir - a bit more background on the fairness opinion is good, had not seen there was a relationship there.  I would offer, probably not a Judge's job to judge valuation, but background on the opinion is helpful, and if Companies are related, not good! My assumptions were around Core raising some money (not a take-out.  Was working on the assumption all a bit early stage