Member Info for addicknt

As ever, the auditors report is important and worth reading. In essence, it gives us a clean bill of health, but the critical part is they have concluded that management's assumptions about the next stage of financing have been made on a reasonable basis. This was important.

There's also mention of the need for separate funding for the regionals and an admission that failure to obtain financing will require the company to relinquish certain concessions.

Released. Ho, ho!

We don't produce an annual MD&A.

Promote it to whom? Everyone in the industry is perfectly well aware of who we are; we aren't in need of funds at the moment, so there's no need to court potential investors with the promise of a cheap fund raise, and those same institutions can't buy in the market because there's so little liquidity.

So what's the point of 'promotion'?

Bozi, it's just an opinion I've held for years and relates to any company. Having trade investors on the register is a double-edged sword and often ends in tears. So far, other than a bit of kudos, I've not seen any tangible benefits of having BHP as a shareholder.

Btw, there's an interesting article in the financial section of the Mail today about the hole Anglo has dug for itself and the prospect of another bid from BHP after the six month period expires. It argues BHP has moved on and is concentrating on expanding its copper business in South America.

Eloro, your a sensible chap, you know it makes sense.

Bozi, if Mather has indeed blocked a low-ball bid, surely that's a good thing? In my view his biggest mistake was getting BHP involved in the first place.

Eloro, the reasons are crystal clear - he's delivering what is necessary to achieve a decent exit price. Vote against him if you wish, but I rather suspect you'll find yourself in the same minority as you did last year...2bn vs 15m. Have you actually sat back and thought about the chaos which would ensue if you had your way?

As to your other points: I think Sangha and co did misread the situation. People make mistakes, regardless of experience.

The permits point is a valid one.

I think my initial post tried to answer your question in the third paragraph. It was all about value.

Q, I agree with your comment about acquiring us cheaply, but disagree that the share register had anything to do with it. It was all about price.

You also know I agree with you about a hostile bid, although it's got nothing to do with cost. The real reason is that there will be no need for one - it will be an agreed deal.

Sensible investor would be wondering why we are still on the shelf, particularly when the macro-picture for our commodities is so favourable and we are sitting on such an important discovery.

A few random thoughts:

Political risk. I believe this has been overblown. Miners operate in the most politically volatile nations on earth, many of which don't even make a pretence of being democratic. Nobby is doing his best to persuade potential investors of the case for Ecuador and we have seen many new entrants to the market as a result. This is not to completely ignore the politics, but it's not as important as some think.

Project risk. Cascabel is not straightforward, but how many new discoveries are?

Is the discovery as important as we think? Yes.

Capital cost. Yes, a lot of money is involved, but which new developments don't?

So what has stopped us selling? I believe the dd process did throw-up expressions of interest, but they simply didn't reflect anything approximating fair value. Those interested parties sought to exploit our financial vulnerability and also knew that our new management team appeared to be desperate to sell. This was not helped by Sangha's statements. I'm also of the opinion that the interested parties also used our lack of the required licences as a stick with which to beat us.

Therefore, our Board took stock and realised the only way to overcome these impediments to achieving the strategic goal was to address these negotiating weaknesses and to work towards delivering them. The word 'turnkey' was not some throwaway comment - it had real meaning.

So, as much as we don't like it, the Board is pursuing a strategy which is designed to deliver value for all of us, and I don't for one moment believe the strategy of achieving a sale at a value which reflects the true worth of Cascabel has changed at all - it's just taking a lot longer than the CGP people initially thought.

As you are clearly incapable of comprehending what people say, I'll give you a hand.

My first post pointed out that for the past three years the results were issued on the 29th. I did not say that would be the case this year. My second post pointed out that would not be possible this year due to the fact the 29th is a Sunday.

This really isn't that difficult to understand, although it appears to be beyond your intellectual capabilities.

Anyway, I'm going to take Mather's advice and will leave you to flail around spreading your BS and lies.

Oh dear! Where did I say an RNS would be released on a Sunday? In fact, I specifically pointed out it would be Friday 27th or Monday 30th. Just how thick are you?

Orthern, he was talking about the broader issue of government interference, but still referred to solgold as a 'tremendous property', so I'm not sure that equates to 'glossing over'.

I liked his cynicism towards EVs and I particularly enjoyed his evisceration of that twat Trudeau. He remains bullish about M&A in the sector.

Thanks for posting.

For the sake of clarity, I should add that the finance package will be referred to as a post-balance sheet event.

BSR, by virtue of the fact we issue a quarterly finance report and MD&A, the company produces far more financial info than most companies of similar size.

Look, we all know you're desperate to pick holes, but I'm afraid you're way off beam on this one. Anyway, keep trying, your continual errors are always good for a laugh.

Incidentally, the 29th is a Sunday this year, so we're likely to see the report on either the 27th or 30th. I should add that I think we'll see some interesting commentary from the auditors in the Going Concern section. They will have to report that as of the balance sheet date, the company did not have sufficient cash for the next twelve months and since the structure of the finance package is contingent upon achieving certain milestones, their wording will have to reflect the T&Cs. In other words, I can't see how the report can offer an unqualified opinion, but this should not concern anyone who actually understands the position.

For the past three years the results have been issued on 29th September, as you would have discovered if you could be bothered to do the most basic research.

Jerry, I wonder what's changed since Palmer's comments in June?

Q, so you've never had sex with a woman when both of you were drunk? Or have you always carried a consent form with you and have a lawyer in the room to witness the signature?

Nobby is proposing to amend the constitution to allow foreign troops to set up bases in Ecuador. Specifically, this is aimed at American forces and is being done in order to bolster Ecuador's drive to eradicate the cartels and follows discussions with the US, who I imagine would be more than interested.

I guess that means just about every bloke in the country is a rapist and every woman a victim. What total nonsense.

Q, I'm not remotely interested in your feud with '84, but to claim having sex with women who are drunk is rape is patently absurd.