Member Info for addicknt

And I completely disagree with you. And as for his role on the Appointments Committee, you brandish this as if it's of huge significance...it isn't. The only key appointment was that of SC and that was dictated by Sangha and his fellow Canadians.

Mather is a non-exec who controls a decent number of shares and as such he'll be consulted regularly, but he is not the one setting the strategy any more.

The funny thing about this Mather discussion is that both you and I are in agreement about him. The difference is you think he's running the show and I don't.

I've been trying to establish any references to DC's court case against the company and came across the article in the Financial Review dated Dec 2023. I know it was posted here at the time, but in the light of what's going on now, it's worth re-reading because it throws a light on the confusion that existed in the company at the time of his dismissal and I think it has relevance now.

DC's evidence to the Federal Court reveals the full extent of the confusion and chaos that surrounded the future strategy of the company and BHP's reaction to the FN/Osisko funding packages of that time.

Questions that arise: If BHP were so opposed to the Royalty deals then, why are they apparently in favour now? If Mather and others wanted to pursue a sale, why did they give licence to DC to evolve a plan to develop Cascabel only to change their minds in a matter of months? Twigger used the choice of financier as an excuse to fire DC, when it's pretty obvious this was no more than ploy to disguise the truth, which then unravelled and cost us A$2M. Why didn't he just tell DC to drop the development plan and go flat out for the sale Mather &co were hoping for?

The fact is the company was an unholy mess at that time and we as retail shareholders had absolutely no idea this was the case. Mather was seemingly all over the place; one minute he wanted a sale, the next he was supporting DC's efforts to move to a development plan, only to then change his mind again. I never really rated DC, but, against this backdrop, it's easy to have some sympathy for the bloke.

The final point is the most relevant; if Mather, Sangha and the CGP boys were so keen on a sale then, have their ambitions really changed? Doesn't seem remotely likely to me.

Eloro, you answered your own question, the potential buyers want it de-risked.

'84, it may have been but he was not the person to take the project further. The company had no clear strategy and if it was his belief he could sell Cascabel easily, he was mistaken.

Don't worry, it seems I was wrong. Your feud can continue.

Tesla, check the members list. You'll have no one to play with now. Perhaps you'll leave us in peace?

Well, it seems that BBG's contribution to these boards is over.

Dear, oh dear. Read Pbow's excellent post and the penny may drop.

RK, you seem to be having trouble understanding what I said. I did not say it's a problem, I said it's a critical part of the timeline and, from what we know at the moment, it will take longer than anything else, although more clarity is needed on this and ST said last week that he's asked the company for more detail.

RK, I wasn't referring to whether it would be a problem or not, I was talking about the timing - which is what my post said.

Orthern, I suppose we have to take the company at its word when they stated there was/is a great deal of interest and since I don't think they were/are lying, I'm happy to do so.

medi, the short answer is 'yes'.

Two points:

It's my view they didn't hear what they wanted to hear from interested parties and are now addressing the issue which arose i.e buyers want it de-risked.

Second, was it really a waste of time if eventually it delivers the return we all want? As I asked earlier, would you have been happy if they sold it for peanuts?

Yup, same here, even if it did arrive an hour after the announcement!

Orthern, you've missed my point. De-risking WAS the conclusion of the SR, along with something on the regionals which will emerge in due course.

Orthern, you claim the strategic review has been a failure, but does is it not the case that the conclusion of the process as it relates to Cascabel, was that in order to achieve a decent shareholder return we needed to de-risk it?

Maybe we could have given it away for peanuts, but would shareholders have been happy with that? Of course not.

Given the various statements, is it not also the case that something will emerge with regard to the Regionals? They can't just be left hanging out there with no cash, particularly when some of them are very promising. No management team would allow that and neither I suspect, will the government.

Tesla, sorry to disabuse you of your belief that I post in order to 'keep mug punters hanging on', I couldn't give a flying toss what anyone decides to do with their shares...it's none of my business. Perhaps you should bear this in mind when you post.

'84, I'm not so sure it's part of a negotiating ploy, rather I think the board is responding to the feedback it received following the data room exposure. In other words, the message which emerged was; " We're very interested but need you to de-risk the project first".

So, it's not a game of brinkmanship, instead it's a direct response to the buyer market. Just my opinion.

The company has re-iterated its commitment to keep us updated on a regular basis and let's hope this time they stick to the promise.

ToS, it's all part of presenting Cascabel as a turnkey project. Boxes being ticked-off one by one.

It is now, but I don't rely on this site for announcements and read the Stock Exchange page instead.