Member Info for addicknt

Bozi, this argument has run its course and we will not reach agreement. As for examples, the answer is virtually every public company I dealt with had a properly diverse register, solg does not. The only deal I can recall where the register wasn't diverse was James Fisher when they were approached by a rival who threatened to go hostile. Sadly, the potential offeror hadn't looked closely enough at the shareholder base and failed to spot that family members held just over 50 per cent and had no intention of selling.

You say a concentration of shareholders is inevitable for a small company in need of finance. I entirely agree, but that supports my argument, not yours, as does the evidence provided by this deal.

Bozi, you seem to be proving my point. A truly diverse book may not have led to this capitulation, although there may be other factors involved.

Anyway, good luck over the coming days - it should be fascinating.

Any corporate financier looking at a situation like ours would conclude that 32% as a starting point for a hostile bid would be more or less a slam dunk, particularly bearing in mind the degree of shareholder fatigue that has been so obvious here. Our board understood this, hence they took the decision to recommend.

It's also my belief they did not wish to face the scrutiny of a hostile bid. Any dirty laundry would be publicly exposed, if it exists, and no management team relishes that prospect.

Look, you have your view, but I'll stick to mine, we were in a highly vulnerable position and the board knew it.

Bozi, you're right, small companies often end up in this situation, but that proves my point, they are highly vulnerable, and it's not just junior explorers. Just because others face the same issue does not mean the argument is invalid.

Bozi, the evidence is in front of us. Three shareholders holding 32% is a sign of a lack of diversity and exposes the company to exactly the action we have seen.

Smith was aware of this from day 1 and NM confirmed it.

It is far from 'ridiculous', it's a statement of fact.

Bozi, I'm sorry but you are wrong. The nature of our share register is at the root of our problems. It's the lack of diversity which led to the board rolling over so easily.

CMG, agreed and I'm sure we'd all like to know the full picture.

Q, as to whether BHP et al would have accepted 20p is futile speculation.

There remain many unanswered questions about this bid, but the question of wanting to avoid a hostile bid is not one of them. JCC obviously had both BHP and New onside and the board recognised they had no chance against them in a hostile situation. Over the years I've pointed this possibility out to you on numerous occasions and it has always been the great fragility of the company's situation. Our share register has always been the exact opposite of 'diverse'.

Q, you clearly haven't been paying attention. Numerous posters on here and elsewhere have referred to NM's comment about the reason why the Board recommended the bid. To repeat, it was in order to avoid a hostile takeover. The diverse book is total tosh.

MF, minor point, I didn't 'stand by' him; we argued for years. What actually happened was that I got bored of arguing because it was a waste of time. (He proved the point again last week when he referred to his diverse book nonsense...again. And his comment the other week about being 'the most successful investor' on here was classic tin-eared Q)

Nal, just to clarify, I don't recall ever having said you only hold one share, nor have I said you're not a shareholder. Yet again, you're attributing something to the wrong person. The fact you accuse others of making this claim about you is ironic in the extreme. You have hundreds of posts to your name when this is exactly what you do. Let's face it, self-awareness has never been one of your strong points.

Monte, I did not say it made me sell, I had already done so.

The options debate has raged for as long as I can remember and the arguments for and against are well-known. My own view is that provided they're awarded to the real value creators and are priced sensibly, they are justified. However, I don't agree with awarding them to non-execs as it can lead to a lack of objectivity and independence.

The question here is; at 3.5p were they priced too low?

Grant of options. Hmmm...

So, the answer is 201k ounces.

Aquinaga, I thought you didn't want me to post anymore?

Just to clarify, it was not confidential information, but let's put that to one side.

At the beginning of January I suggested Franco may have had a hand in this.

The cash flows would have shown that by end March the company would be out of cash. The milestones were nowhere near being met for the release of the next tranche and Franco were unwilling to provide another waiver. This left them with two choices; sell out to JCC, or hope they could get a hugely discounted and dilutive placing away, which comes with its own risk of failure. They chose the former and I suspect Franco may have nudged them in that direction. (NMM makes a very good point about the Going Concern statement, although the company says cash is required 'by' Q2 i.e end March.)

This is purely supposition, but in the light of today's announcement, it seems to make sense. The company was very clear in the document that there were substantial risks involved and this RNS is designed to ram home the message, and I guess it may have been prompted by the retail reaction and no votes already lodged. It's all very odd.

Aquinaga, good for you.

Aquinaga, no, I am not. I'm saying it isn't.

Aquinaga, that wasn't the sequence of events. I had sold my remaining shares a number of weeks ago. My statement re something not being right was simply a reiteration of what I've said several times before. So if you're suggesting I sold my shares based on inside info, you are completely wrong.

Arok, 'shareholders should be deciding on disclosed facts'...I couldn't agree more, but that's not my responsibility, is it?

Before I sold my final tranche of shares, you may recall I approached the Takeover Panel and raised the question of information availability. Their response, which I posted here, was that they'd look at it and get back to me if they felt anything was amiss. They didn't get back to me.

Like many people on here, given the statements made by the company in the second half of last year, it does strike me as very odd that apparently there have been no developments worthy of reporting to shareholders, which brings me on to my correspondence with Rodney.

As you know, Rodney is doing his level best to oppose the deal and has spent a great deal of time and effort putting his case together, for which he deserves people's support. I felt he had misunderstood shareholders rights to raise questions at the sanction meeting, specifically relating to info availability. By having a chat with him I was able to explain that he has every right to raise the point with the judge and that he should do so. I believe he found our discussion helpful.

So, despite my own views as to what the outcome will be, I really do feel shareholders should challenge the company with regard to available info. I would love to see a competing bid and hope one appears which benefits all shareholders.

This takeover has raised many questions and it's a great shame shareholders haven't been given the answers. I wish you well.

Aquinaga, I accept the criticism and I knew it would upset some people. I apologise for that.

I have said as much as was agreed, but I will add it's not price sensitive info and is not specific, but it does reinforce the company's message to shareholders and the board's decision to accept the offer.