Member Info for addicknt

Mistermeister, I'm pretty sure they can vote. Have a look at the revised offer RNS which clearly states their shares are included in the 40% figure.

RT, ha! At least she got a new dress out of it.

I agree with your second point. They're free to do whatever they want.

Q, it was always going to happen, but post-DV's appointment, I'd hoped we'd get further down the de-risking path i.e in about 12/18 months.

Of the LOIs Maxit's is the outlier, in as much as it confirms their intention to offer an irrevocable undertaking should the bid go firm, which the others don't. However, even this is tempered by their statement saying it's their 'current intention', which quite clearly gives them a get-out.

Whilst the LOIs are useful for JCC, they're more or less meaningless, although they do provide unambiguous proof that all of the parties are sellers. It's almost as if they're saying to management 'enough's, enough. You've taken this as far as it can go under our ownership and it's now time to let someone else take it to its conclusion'.

Eloro, I think the article is wrong about all proceeds being required to repay loans. Neither will their shareholding be sufficient to block a deal, but a no vote will be a good poke in the eye for Mather from their very disgruntled shareholders.

Ned, someone else has already posted it on here.

"The name of the game here now is to get an auction going with an alternative and we're working on that" Nick Mather to a shareholder last weekend.

1) Should we take that at face value? In my opinion, yes. Why wouldn't he attempt to get a higher price?

2) Will they be successful? Who knows. Certainly none of us do.

3) Are JCC guaranteed to win? No. At least not at this stage.

4) Will they go hostile if another bid emerges? Who knows.

5) Is this some kind of illegal stitch-up? No. The one time both the LSE and Takeover Panel work effectively is when their surveillance teams keep a close eye during takeovers. They are not infallible, but generally speaking they can spot dodgy dealings.

6) Will JCC raise their bid if someone else enters the fray? I guess it depends on what the offer level is.

Conclusion: there are some pretty entrenched views being expressed, but surely the only rational stance is to be completely agnostic? None of us how this is going to play out, so although speculation is fun, it's also futile.

Pbow, didn't we drop a number some while ago? This was before the levy reared its head.

Antonio, we have returned some concessions - I forget the number- but I'm not sure ExCo has been shelved, although it's reasonable to assume it's been delayed. Having said that, it wasn't long ago that DV suggested it was still targeted for y/e. However, given our current discussions, I don't imagine it's getting much attention.

NMM, thanks. I'd forgotten the reference in the Report. As you say, the company should have given us an update, although perhaps the reason they haven't is for fear of disrupting discussions with the government.

NMM, agreed, although I wasn't aware we'd lodged a legal challenge - it didn't appear on the list which appeared in the article Pbow produced last week.

Given the overall cost, it's difficult to see how this hasn't impacted recent events.

Have you ever met an investment banker? They're the greediest buggers in the universe and that's driven by their business model, which is entirely fee drive. No deals, no fee = no job. Most of them work on very few deals each year and their task is to maximise their fees by maximising shareholder return and their bonuses and livelihoods, depend on it.

Obviously, you're fully entitled to your opinion, but I'm afraid I don't share it. This is not some great conspiracy to screw shareholders and if you believe it is I suggest a word with Mather may be helpful. The idea he's going to roll-over is fanciful.

Sid, one final point. RBC are our Rule 3 adviser and it's worth having a look at the definition and legal requirements of their role.

Pbow, have you picked up any indications that they are re-thinking?

Sid, I stand corrected, and apologies. But given their fee will be success based, it's in their interests to get the maximum possible value for the company, so they won't be trying to short-change shareholders. In any event, I have faith in Smith's independence and he's no pushover.

Btw, I don't begrudge one penny of DV's options and nor do I care if Maxit make a good return on their shareholding - if they do well, so do we.

This is the headline of an article produced by Mining Network.

The government had hoped to raise $220m, but so far only £12.8m has been paid by miners. The article also refers to concessions being handed back and delayed payments. The deadline for receipt of the levy is end Jan '26.

As we know, there are a number of legal challenges going on, but I do wonder how much impact this has had on our thinking with regard to JCC. In fact, is it one of the key drivers?

Can we afford to pay our share ? I doubt it.

This is one of the most self-defeating actions by the government so far, and demonstrates rank stupidity on their behalf.

Yet more proof of just how useless AI can be.

Just one example: Maxit is not our advisor, so where does the idea of a 43m success fee come from?

Nal, sorry, you're wrong. It was all supposition, not fact. Perhaps you've forgotten the endless debate of this topic over the past x number of years?

Thetriplestar, you're absolutely right, they are more or less totally meaningless. The only thing they really signify is that they are willing sellers and this is useful info for others who may be considering a bid.

Bozi/Fort, I think you're both right about Sangha wanting out, but why he went further than the others is still a mystery. He really didn't need to.

Fort, you suggested Sangha's an insider - I'm not so sure. It would remove the option of him trading during the offer period, and very few people like being in that position.