George Frangeskides, Chairman at ALBA, explains why the Pilbara Lithium option ‘was too good to miss’. Watch the video here.
London South East prides itself on its community spirit, and in order to keep the chat section problem free, we ask all members to follow these simple rules. In these rules, we refer to ourselves as "we", "us", "our". The user of the website is referred to as "you" and "your".
By posting on our share chat boards you are agreeing to the following:
The IP address of all posts is recorded to aid in enforcing these conditions. As a user you agree to any information you have entered being stored in a database. You agree that we have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic or board at any time should we see fit. You agree that we have the right to remove any post without notice. You agree that we have the right to suspend your account without notice.
Please note some users may not behave properly and may post content that is misleading, untrue or offensive.
It is not possible for us to fully monitor all content all of the time but where we have actually received notice of any content that is potentially misleading, untrue, offensive, unlawful, infringes third party rights or is potentially in breach of these terms and conditions, then we will review such content, decide whether to remove it from this website and act accordingly.
Premium Members are members that have a premium subscription with London South East. You can subscribe here.
London South East does not endorse such members, and posts should not be construed as advice and represent the opinions of the authors, not those of London South East Ltd, or its affiliates.
PAA2 LOL
I wonder who’s singing up tomorrow, Convenientquestion1.
Thank's everyone, I appear to have sparked some debate, to say the least.
So do I appreciate all of the ladies and gents on ShareSoc Scott. In everyday life if you don’t understand something you ask until you get an answer - why should this be any different? I’m not put off by people hiding behind big jobs - I’m sure if they want certain things made clearer in their lives they’d ask questions just like we are
To many unanswered questions ere, really appreciate the ladies and gents on sharesoc ,the gentleman with 3% would really help the cause .but please if you have not joined an alternative as .been posted by martin s
Thanks scott
Yash has there been much consideration as to the funding consortium ? It seems to me I'm not alone in hoping it should be back on the agenda giving shareholders hope of a positive outcome should we vote against this takeover ?
It does seem that "some" think it's only about the offer of 5.5 p to the only argument here ?
ffc
A guy on sharesoc just posted about an investor who has 3% of shares in sxx , who is looking to join , will add a good percentage to the cause , if correct , well done to all concerned on the there , its not over yet . Ffc im with you lets have the details of the consurtium , the t/o stinks
Filter him ! I did months ago
LTV I hope you feel sorry for him
I'm sure on reflection the second option is not your wish but said in a moment of madness ?
ffc
No need for that ltv
Sorry LTV I hadn't seen your 11.42 when replying to Tex !
It goes without saying that I completely agree with your post !
ffc
LTV that’s a bit OTT.
Tex
I want a no vote so they revert back to the original plan of funding ! They have said there was a consortium offer for the 600million ??
Sorry but I’m not interested in a takeover at double what aal have offered. Tbh I would accept a complete hold up on progress if it took longer than expected to cross t and dot I on a funding package .. that’s why they should continue dialog because they can’t assume this takeover will be voted through ...
I don't want a higher bid. I want them to raise the money for the revised budget, per the SR. I want to know the terms of the finance consortium offer. Short term raise to keep the lights on while they negotiate terms with the consortium.
Sorry for dipping in and out of the debate here.
FFC - let’s assume a no vote goes through. Then what? The issue is we need more bidders and a higher price on the table. I assume everyone wants 10p+. That’s a long way from the current 5.5p offer.
Unless we have other bidders why would AAL increase their bid? They would just let it take its course and end in a prepack.
Yuri - no idea about P building their position. I guess we need to see.
Anything is possible. Another interested party is what we need news of. Currently we don’t have one.
Tex
Just thinking outside of the box. We could charge by the ton to move potash raising income to move forward.
Yesterday I hinted at the linking of the Boulby mine workings to the Tunnel and the distance. Polyminer2 replied 5km then the post was removed any idea why?
They were quite positive regards attempting to retry the sale later...
- No they simply said they would revisit it later in the quarter.....
- They let lack of update and comment feed negative sentiment for 45 days
They stated clearly why they did not, 'terms' and 'timing'.
- Just because they did not feel it was acceptable did not make it immaterial it was a primary objective of the SR to get such an offer. Confirming one had been made would have been significant nad raised sentiment and therefore SP - the very definition of inside information
It was early Jan when they received a revised offer, and as they stated terms and timing. To make it clear, they are now more likely to be acting in the creditors best interests (there are rules), not yours.
- only January because they did not do anything with it in December, and January to March is a long time and the SR runs until March
Stating that they were prepared to accept 5.5p did not preclude any higher offers from being made, but it did set a figure that was unlikely to be much improved upon.
- exactly unnecessary at that point in time because no offer had been made
substantial premium.
- only because they allowed the sentiment and SP to wither with their lack of attention and information
IBAB "Given the acceptance of management I have assumed that THEY know of no others in the running. If they were aware of another likely buyer doing due diligence, would they have rushed up the aisle with AAL."
Of course they would if that has been their hidden intention...
You talk about accept the situation, it is what it is etc..... but there are some huge gaps in this story that need to be explained, without explanation it will continue to smell like a stitch up....
Some questions:
1) Why did the BoD make no statement of reassurance/next steps etc. when they released the brutally worded RNS cancelling the $500m bonds? It took them 45 days to say anything and in that time they left the shares at the mercy of negative sentiment and shorters.
2) Why did they withhold the $680m finance offer from the market, this is inside information and would impact share price, which in turn would likely have seen the SP raise back to the 15p level and would certainly have forced a higher offer from AA than 5.5p
3) Why could they not have made the $680m work it was after all early December and a prime objective of the strategic review
4) Why state they would support a low 5.5p offer when one had not even been made, this put an artificial lid on all future offers or negotiations when terms had not been agreed.
They only real significant shareholders in the BoD are the two pals with alleged close links to the execs at AA . So the rest of the BoD are going to be heavily influenced by whatever those two say....
So we have not got here just because we have, but because of a lack of support by the BoD for the shareholders and SP. You might argue that the actions above were deliberate to ensure a low SP for the AA offer. Certainly the BoD continued silence speaks volumes - tese things above can be discussed as they do not impact the offer.
The only way this is going to see the light of day is if shareholders stop arguing on forums and telling themselves it's their own fault and actually do something about it...... that something is to get a significant % of the shareholders to work together as one voice (5% allows us to call a general meeting of SM and demand some answers and table some resolutions) but this is only possible whilst SM is still SM after that we don;t have shareholders.
So if you are the least bit annoyed about this, want some more answers then add your weight by registering for the ShareSoc campaign here https://www.sharesoc.org/campaigns/sirius/
If the doubters want to keep going on about unlikely events ??
do you think in the "unlikely event of a no vote "? (statistically possible if the PIs do hold 50% shares ) that the bod will still be in dialog with the funding consortium then ??
If I was the bod, I certainly would be !!
If management had not excepted the offer, Would AAL have the right to go to Sirius shareholders blocking the BOD out of any future negotiations . And down the Job Centre.
Other offers are off the table, we wont find out about them, because CF has signed a contract with AA for a job there as part of selling us OUT
also IBAB is politely telling us take the 5.5 as thats the BEST we can get as with him been an "insider" himself IMO, buying pre leak selling post privvy to the info, no longer invested, and who seems to have an answer for everything
reading chilting post, seems the exact same is gonna happen here, we will end up with FOOK all - CF be ok tho whatever happens
Tex - so P just building up position on behalf of AAL? Or to score couple % in 2 months? (putting litigation play aside)
Gertfrobe - majority trying to save whatever they can would easily remove blocking BoD (at least put the one causing troubles into non-exec state in articles set longer period vs instant effect)
Yuri, there is a chance of other options right until this is a signed deal or a liquidated asset.
In the same way there is a chance I will win the lottery this week.
I’m not comparing the odds, just saying nothing in life (apart from death and taxes) is certain, therefore you need to gauge how ‘realistic’ it is.
So yes, there could be other offers. Is it likely, based on the the current position? no.