Member Info for addicknt

HFM, I really hope you're right.

SM, one other point: If they'd acquired those shares they'd have gone over the threshold of 30% and would have had to launch a bid, so it wouldn't be a case of further stealthy purchases in the market.

If those shareholders knew a hostile bid was on the cards they'd have been daft to give any undertakings. They could have simply sat tight and waited to see what unfolded. Would JCC have gone hostile without their support? Who knows?

SM, yes, Smith did say that and emphasized how important it was to keep the Newmont shares out of JCC's hands, although I couldn't see how they were going to prevent it.

I'm not sure about your comments about going hostile. Personally, I think we'd have stood a better chance of bidding them up in the febrile environment of an unwanted bid, so I remain unconvinced by our Board's argument. It feels to me me as if the Board has rolled-over and had its tummy tickled. But who really knows? Something has led to this enormous reverse ferret and for me, the answer lies in something not going to plan. In fact, I'm struggling to come up with any other rational explanation.

The document goes to some length to explain the reasons why the Board is recommending this offer, and they are all negative.

The relevant section attempts to justify the price by the normal references to sp comparisons in the recent past. It gives a number of good reasons why this will be beneficial to our employees (not the directors), but singularly fails to provide a compelling positive argument for shareholders.

It lists the risks of continuing to own the company and, in my opinion, therein lies the answer. Something has happened to bring at least one of those risks into sharp focus. The failure to garner any interest in financing Cascabel? The government's recent actions? Or was it final recognition of something most of us have known for years i.e the whole thing was simply too big for us to handle?

It's almost as if they're saying; "reject this at your peril".

Let's hope another miner enters the fray and is prepared to take those risks and has the resources to do what we most certainly cannot. An interesting few weeks lie ahead.

BHP's appetite for copper and just how strategically important they consider it to be. He talks about the difficulty in finding new deposits and the challenges inherent in them. Notwithstanding those problems, BHP see copper as their future.

Given this fact, why do you think they haven't gone for us? We would seem to be the obvious target, and yet we're not. Strange, isn't it?

Monte, the article demonstrates

BHP is placing upon it.

Reading the article you can't help but think their actions here tell us something very important about Cascabel and its lack of attractiveness to BHP and, for that matter, Newmont.

NIncidentally, there's an interview with Mike Henry in today's Sunday Times in which he continues to emphasise the looming global shortage of copper and the emphasis

Q, it doesn't necessarily mean buying shares in the open market. The offeror bids via a tender process and shareholders either choose to sell or not.

Honestly, you're flogging a dead horse with this diverse book thing and it's probably best to accept you were wrong and move on.

Q, one point: You say the 'diverse book' protected us from a hostile takeover; that is not what NM has said. In fact, he said had the board not given a recommendation JCC would have gone hostile, and they would have won.

I'm afraid the diverse book was always a myth.

You been at the sherry, Q?

Eloro, much the same conversation as on here.

My own view is that I'm disappointed, which is daft since I've made a respectable return, although not enough to justify the time invested, the risk and the opportunity cost, which has been significant for all of us long-termers.

To counter balance this, I can't help but think something has gone wrong which has led the board to their position, so I was relieved when the announcement came.

So, it's a strange combination of relief and disappointment.

Do I think they'll be another offer? Who knows, but I sincerely hope there will be.

Despite being in an offer period, if price sensitive news emerges, such as the CIPA, the company has to release it. This is particularly relevant in our situation because it may crystallize private investors views as to whether to vote yes or no.

I've just realized I'm wrong about Mather. He can't give an irrevocable undertaking on behalf of DGR.

Mather is clearly intent on trying to put an alternative together. His reverse ferret is revealing. Board split?

SH, as you well know, there's a third alternative, but I understand why you won't mention it.

Strike, I'm afraid he's right about the Peel announcements. They do not reflect PH trading on behalf of JCC.

Almostdone, I think under ASX Rule 10 they have a vote on any major disposal of assets and in our case NM is excluded from voting.

I'd like to know what happened to the deal signed two years ago with BHP, which, for some unfathomable reason, was being held back . Maybe the lads have forgotten about it, or perhaps they haven't looked in Caldwell's old desk?

Rodney, last night rcgl and I swapped a few messages about voting thresholds required under a SoA versus a tender offer.

As was pointed out yesterday, JCC don't get a vote under a SoA, whereas under a tender offer no one votes as it's simply a case of agreeing to sell your shares or declining to do so. I think your argument was that it would be more difficult for JCC to win via a SoA rather than a tender offer? (forgive me if I've misinterpreted your position)

If this is indeed the case, why have they agreed to go down this route when they'd be more or less guaranteed to gain control via a tender offer? Why risk it?

Whilst one of the reasons for electing to use an SoA is that it appears 'more friendly', many agreed and friendly deals are transacted via a tender offer, so I'm not sure that's the explanation. Not for the first time, I'm confused.