Member Info for addicknt

It's here, lads!

RK is correct, they did have a small position, but it was closed a long time ago.

Stay Calm, there are no reported short positions, and as far as I can recall, there never have been.

I suppose the pertinent question is; are we immune to market forces?

Interesting article in the business section which refers to a rumour that Rio is lining up a bid for Teck.

It quotes a 'banking source' as saying that activity in mining m&a is " the busiest for 10 years" as companies battle over copper resources.

That explains it!

A further thought about the working capital element of the package (assuming that's how it goes). My guess is that the amount will partly be dictated by how much headroom exists between the amount already borrowed and the value of the asset.

As it stands, FN have plenty of asset cover, but the question is how much more would they be willing to risk. As I've said recently, my view is that we're probably talking between 50 and 100m max.

Affrm, there will at least two sets of lawyers involved and, depending on the number of institutions involved, it will be more. The legal costs will be huge and the one thing you can always guarantee is that if more than one set of lawyers are working on something, they will be arguing amongst themselves forever.

Eloro, are you Scottish by any chance?

P.G Woodehouse: "It's never difficult to distinguish between a Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine".

Eloro, you misunderstand, for a change. My view hasn't changed - it will be sold and the financing is a key part of allowing us to negotiate whilst on the front foot (I thought I'd made that perfectly clear) So I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I haven't lost faith.

Solgold. In any event, the name of the party benefitting from the Charge has to be revealed, so there was no legal means of disguising the lender.

RK, only the company can file documents at Companies House. It cannot be done by a third party. If you look back you'll see the previous FN Charges being registered. It's a legal requirement and the company had no choice.

Sid, I don't think it's a question of no one showing any interest, but rather it's a matter of them wanting to pick up Cascabel at a bargain basement price and our board, quite rightly, saying 'thanks, but no thanks'.

Apologies. I misunderstood.

TI, what evidence do you have to suggest the political in-fighting of old is still ongoing?

We know we have an extraordinary resource, possibly more than one, and I believe we should should take SC at his word when he said we've had a great deal of interest expressed from companies wishing to get involved. If we then recall the comments of that ex-Glencore CEO who said the major's strategy is to exploit the juniors, we can probably assume that those entities who have expressed an interest have done so at valuations which are way below what our board is prepared to accept. They understand our financial weakness and will do everything to bend us over a barrel.

So, if you were CEO, what would you do? The obvious answer is to solve the financial vulnerability. When SC says this is what he's engaged in, I think we should take him at his word. He's currently deep in negotiations with financial institutions to place us in a position whereby we can open discussions with trade buyers with us being on completely solid ground.

If, as I believe, we end up with a two phase funding package with the first phase providing more than enough money for us to get through the next two years and the second phase providing us with the where with all to start development, this will give us a super strong negotiating position which has been lacking for so many years.

My guess is that we are unlikely to see a sale of Cascabel at this stage and that the announcement will instead be all about cash, and once we have have it we'll be able to take a far more bullish stance with buyers.

So, it's not about the quality of our asset; it's not about the geopolitics, it's all about money and our attempt to avoid being royally screwed.

Of course, this is merely speculation on my behalf, but it makes sense to me.

CMG, Newmont have specified ten assets which they intend to dispose of - Solg is not one of them.

Orthern, likewise, I absolutely see your points and I'd be lying if I said I'm completely at ease with the situation. Like everyone else, I'm trying to make sense of things which, given this is Solgold, isn't easy.

'84, precisely. That loan was either provided to allow us to conclude something with Franco or, they were happy to provide it to enable us to do a deal with someone else...a trade buyer/ jv partner.

If they felt their existing exposure was under threat, surely they'd have already pulled the plug?

Orthern, why do you think no one wants the asset? What's putting them off? As per my question of this morning, if a mining company wants to be in Equador, and we know many do, are there any better prospects out there?

As for the 10m loan, do you think anyone would have lent us the money, particularly with such a short maturity date, if they weren't confident that something is going on which will secure their position? Finally, why would the government have signed the EA if they had worries?

Of course, anything is possible, but doesn't any of the above provide a degree of comfort or give us a clue as to what may be happening?