Member Info for addicknt

Contained within the p&l there's a reference to the release of $1.4m contingent liabilities as a result of it turning out to be lower than had been provided for. The liability was settled by a payment of $2.1m. I wonder if this has anything to do with DC's claim? In other words, have we settled with him?

Incidentally, the reduction in admin expenses by 67% in the quarter demonstrates that at last someone has a firm grip on the company. Obviously, it would be better if the company was more active in terms of exploration, but we are where we are and needs must. SC has done exactly what he said he was going to do.

The June '23 year end report stated that the company had sufficient cash to take us through to y/e '24. This has been reiterated by the company on several occasions. The company has also previously said it would need to raise more cash. Can anyone explain why this report says anything different about the cash position?

However, it is disappointing not to have any clearer news of progress on the IPA or the SR.

All conferences are a waste of time. Mather loved attending them because it gave him the opportunity to grandstand and tell the world how brilliant he was.

Alternatively, he may be busy doing something important and didn't want to waste time at another useless conference.

That's not the case. If you look at the daily volume over the past few months, aside from being very low, it's been the case that buys and sells are more or less in equilibrium. In fact, there's been plenty of days when buys exceeded sells and yet the price still falls - I think today is a case in point.

Subby, as significant shareholders they are obliged to report all share transactions, and they haven't done so.

As far as we know, the last institution to sell was a small outfit in London whose fund had to be liquidated due to poor performance.

Tesla, yes, it's amusing to be lumped together with nal. I had no idea I didn't have any shares - maybe I've been imagining that line in my trading account. I'll have to double check.

BBG shares one thing in common with nal - they are both incapable of understanding what people actually say.

Absolutely, SM. To quote Wodehouse; " two mastadons bellowing across the primeval swamp."

Fort, just as you were completely wrong about the AGM election, you're making the same mistake with this. Maxit will not end up with those CGP shares and they will be acting for us in any future transaction. And it's worth bearing in mind what Sangha has said i.e that we will not be raising any more money. He wants the big fee associated with the disposal, not a few bob related to a fund raise.

Ship, it's not a question of him acting in his best interests, it's a question of legality and professional reputation. Corporate financiers simply cannot do what Fort is suggesting without risking all sorts of sanctions.

Why do you think he can dictate where those shares go? He can't. And the fee he 'trousered' was paid by us because he was acting for us.

Maxit are our advisors and as such will not be acting for anyone other than Solg. How do you imagine our main shareholders would react if they thought Sangha was dealing on both sides of the fence i.e being involved in a huge conflict of interest? It ain't gonna happen.

Fort, unless something's changed, Sangha is acting for Solg, not anyone else. If there is another fund raise he'll get a fee from us, and I'm not sure why you think he's in a position to 'award' himself anything.

Eloro, oh dear. Feeling a bit stupid?

SM, it's amusing to be called a de-ramper by one and a ramper by the other.

The are both mince thick and are consistently wrong - although from opposite ends of the spectrum.

What an absolute tool you are. Your inability to understand what's being said rivals that of our Aussie friend.

Tesla, I accept your point, but in this instance the market (whatever that is) doesn't have a clue about the likelihood of one thing or another. I do not believe there are professionals out there who are constantly evaluating our circumstances - in fact I imagine we are roundly ignored.

The thing I keep coming back to is the result of the AGM. Clearly, the institutional holders and some of our larger shareholders, who would have had contact with SC, have bought into his strategy and the fact they haven't sold indicates they are content to let it run its course.

I am in total agreement with your last sentence, although I apportion the blame to the previous regime, not SC.

The market has no more idea about what's going on than we do, and is therefore not capable of reflecting anything other than the trades of small retail investors. We are all in the dark and will remain so until news appears.

They probably realised they'd made a mistake and dispensed with his services. They need someone who's eloquent and super-bullish about the company. Therefore I nominate stackhigh.

Eloro, We agree on that!