Member Info for addicknt

Eloro, and a happy New Year to you. The context of the article concerned takeover speculation, so it was a reasonable assumption to suggest that's what you were referring to.

Whoever wrote that article certainly doesn't like us. Mather's legacy?

Eloro, that's not an accurate description of my opinion. I've said it enough times, but what I'm expecting is the company to deliver of the milestones as laid out in the various announcements. I've said nothing about a takeover. I hope that's clear?

Jerry, for the time being I doubt it. As you say, you can put them in the bottom drawer where they can keep your GGP shares company.

Jerry, we're not in a vulnerable position at the moment, so a 10p bid isn't likely to gain much traction.

Apologies, DC's PFS was released in April 2022, not '21. Fort, you are right about inflation and its impact on large projects.

NAL, you criticise me for saying I think NM was making a mess of things. Coming from someone who has regularly expressed their loathing of Mather do you not think you're being hypocritical? If you pulled your head out of your ar5e for one moment, you may actually begin to understand what's actually being said.

Fort, DC's PFS was released in 2021, one year after the worst of Covid. NM's version was unachievable, hence the need to re-work it twice. Yes, the Crux report did have many shortfalls, but by the same token it was also contained many truths, as became apparent with the passage of time. PFS 3 was the result.

NAL, please let us know if you ever come up with something useful or interesting to say.

Eloro, perhaps you've forgotten that highly critical report written by a company whose name I forget, which pointed out the inherent weaknesses in the original PFS and its wildly over-optimistic predictions? They were right.

As far as Cascabel was concerned, we were on the road to nowhere and Mather was flailing around with no grip on the company in Ecuador and little idea of how to move forward.

As I said earlier, he rode the Lassonde curve and there's no doubt in my mind that we'd be in a far worse situation now if he was still running the company.

MR, my average was around 2p and I had an awful lot of them. Like you I bailed at 32p. It wasn't because I thought there was anything wrong with the company, far from it, but I made sure my head ruled my heart. It was my most remunerative trade ever. Anyway, that's enough crowing - it's ancient history now.

DBW, let's hope so.

What exactly? Raise money via dilutive placings for exploration whilst failing to advance our key asset? NM rode the early stage of the Lassonde curve and had he been left in situ, as sure as eggs is eggs, he would have overseen the fall.

As much as anyone else I regret not selling at somewhere near the peak and I should have known better. By coincidence GGP peaked at roughly the same time and by recognising it for what it was, I exited with a stunning return. Why I didn't do the same here is a mystery. Actually, I know the answer. Having banked a very substantial profit I didn't need the cash. What a mistake! Oh well, hindsight's a wonderful thing.

Eloro, this is why I love you - such unbridled joy and optimism!

Just out of interest, what alternative did he have? It's not his fault the market doesn't understand what he's trying to do. It'll get there in the end. And no, the market isn't always right. Far from it.

Q, I suppose the brief summary of my view is that the package provides us with options which hitherto were unavailable. Our backs were against the wall throughout the first half of 2024 and the package allows us the breathing space to get on with the task of creating shareholder value. Well done Scott! (don't get excited, Eloro. I know you disagree with me.)

Q, that's a fair question. My view is that we've done it this way for a number of reasons.

1) Obviously we need sufficient money to get us through the process and an endless trickle of dilutive placings was not appealing. In fact it would be disastrous for private investors. Over recent years the board have done a magnificent job of defying BHP's call for equity funding and the package was a wonderful poke it their eye.

2) The drawdown schedule suits both parties. It reduces the risk for FN and means if in the meantime something comes out of the woodwork, we are on the hook for less cash, thus improving shareholder returns.

3) It sends a very clear message to the market that we can paddle our own canoe if needs be. This gives us the credibility we've been missing.

4) It improves our negotiating position considerably.

5) If we arrive at the completion of the programme and there is still no interest, we have the fall-back option of moving to construction...assuming we can successfully raise the additional funds.

6) As for a debt alternative, our balance sheet could not stand it.

The package we've secured suits us extremely well.

It goes without saying that we've many hurdles to clear, but the support of FN and Osisko has improved our chances immeasurably. This is why 2024 has been one of the most important and transformative years in our history.

Q, whether G Mining Services end up constructing the mine is not the issue. Our only concern is who owns it at the time.

Q, one word, turnkey. That's the company's word, and it doesn't mean construction let alone production.

No need to apologise - it makes a nice change from the relentless pessimism of the doomsters, even if it is tosh.

Eloro, great rumour ! Keep 'em coming! Perhaps you could make it your New Year's resolution to post one a week?

Eloro, the composition of the Board bears virtually no comparison with the previous regime of Mather and his cronies, so I think it's safe to assume things have changed.

Given that we've been forced down this path, Mather, in my opinion, would be entirely the wrong person to deliver the strategy.

RK, precisely my point.

'fraught'.