Member Info for addicknt

Not necessarily. It's likely we were paying in stages with the bulk of the fee paid only on a success basis. So it's possible some of those stage payments were buried in the admin costs.

Pbow, that was my understanding. However, it's important to note that the costs of arranging the finance package were not included in the annual report because it happened as a post-balance sheet event. The next MD&A will reveal how much we paid advisors.

RK, I recall that SC said in one of the MD&As that there were no advisors currently retained.

Medi, he doesn't have a contract and has no executive duties. He's not an officer of the company so has no legal responsibilities. I'm not doubting he has behind-the scenes influence, but that's not the same thing.

Fort, as I said the other day, we are an explorer so your revenue argument doesn't wash.

I agree about further share options and believe he's reached the point where he's sufficiently remunerated. I also agree about the chairmanship. The failure to appoint one is a complete mystery.

What 'shareholder duties' do you think BS has? And what 'contract' does he have?

BBG, if you are indeed correct and a revised schedule has been agreed, perhaps the reason the company hasn't announced it is that they don't want to become sausages...whoops, hostages to fortune. If this is the case, I think they are wrong.

Eloro, as NMM pointed out, the 978k related to options. We can argue all day about whether we want him incentivized in this way, but it does not constitute a salary as you suggest. His base salary, even with the bonus included, is by no means high or unreasonable, as virtually every peer review will confirm.

Of course, you'll have the opportunity to vote against his remuneration at the AGM, but hopefully you'll lose in the same way as you did last year.

On a different topic, the accounts appear to confirm my view that we settled with DC and it costs us circa 2m. It's a pity the company hasn't commented on this, although I guess both the company and DC may be bound by an NDA.

ToS agreed. I never comment about this issue normally, but the taxation point is completely dismissed by the Green lobby as being irrelevant when it most certainly isn't. Anyway, that's me done on the topic.

Indeed they do and Labour have dug a hole for themselves. They think they can milk 'those with the broadest shoulders' - I loathe that stupid phrase - without understanding the people who got them into power were the middle classes i.e those with the broadest shoulders, and they will not vote Labour again when they eventually wake up to the fact that Labour regard them as being some sort of giant cash machine. Just wait until Reeves hammers their pension savings.

Blair understood this and did little to frighten the horses - Starmer does not and he will pay the price.

Q, where do you think the money for the subsidies comes from?

Q, interesting argument. The people who can't afford to make the transition will be required to pay higher taxes. In other words, 'let's punish the least well off'. Great politics!

If the utterly ridiculous Labour government pursue this strategy they will only be serving five years...if they get that far. The bacon butty muncher is easily the most dangerous man in the country and if Starmer had any political sense, which he doesn't, he'd kick Miliband into touch at the next re-shuffle.

My bet is that the next major news will relate to funding for porv and some of the other more interesting regionals.

B3east, I'm absolutely convinced that if someone plonked an offer on the table which represented fair value, we wouldn't be able to see SC for dust. He doesn't want to 'drag this out', but circumstances and reality have conspired to require us to wait longer than any of us would like.

I don't want our board to chuck this away for peanuts and if that means waiting a bit longer, so-be-it. And I have no problem rewarding SC properly, provided he delivers on the milestones and strategy outlined in the report.

Eloro, I think the 978k relates to the options. His base salary is peanuts.

B3east, this is an exploration company with no revenue, so I repeat my question, should employees of this and similar companies work for free? Do you? If you don't like the business model of explorers, perhaps you should be invested elsewhere.

He's approaching his late sixties and wants a big payday, so the idea he's 'stringing it out' is nonsense. And this may come as a terrible surprise, but yes, indirectly shareholders do pay for an employees salary. Or did you think they work for free?

Smick, yes, I agree with you and also Fort's point about time wasting. However, I don't blame SC for that and am of the opinion NM is entirely responsible...which explains why I voted against his reappointment at the fateful AGM.

Pbow, yes, I understand that, but I was making the assumption we'd want some of our own employees to oversee matters and provide technical input, but you're better placed to understand these things than am I.

Q, as you know, I don't share your opinion. If we were genuinely intent on production I can see no reason to constantly refer to turnkey. It strikes me as being superfluous. In other words, why mention it at all?As for the block cave experience, wouldn't we need someone to help us in the mine design process?

NAL, perhaps you could give us the benefit of your insight and explain what exactly I've said which is 'delusional'? I very much doubt you've looked at the various documents, and even if you had they are far too complex for you to understand. In fact, you haven't even read my posts properly.

Yet again the board have referred to getting the project to the turnkey stage and this will involve obtaining the 900m.

Does this mean they believe that none of the majors will be interested, which seems unlikely (they wouldn't need the funds - they'd be more interested in the licensing situation) or, is this positioning to ensure we are attractive to a wider buyer market and in so doing making the bidding process more competitive? Whichever it is, my view is that the consistent use of the word turnkey reveals our intentions.