Member Info for addicknt

1) Support a management team which is working on behalf of the smaller shareholders and is moving towards an exit, or;

2) Cause chaos at board level and hand the management of the company on a plate to those organizations who have absolutely no interest in retail investors. They would insist upon funding the route to production with their own equity and in the process would dilute us virtually out of sight.

So far I've seen no logical argument which makes any sense of supporting point 2.

Caldwell is the only thing standing between us and oblivion. (I do like the odd bit of hyperbole!)

If they're afraid of a creeping takeover we should be heartened. At least it suggests someone's interested in the company!

"...and counter a creeping takeover". This is an interesting comment.

The shares are very illiquid and buying in the market simply isn't feasible, so are the Board concerned that a large block of shares would change hands? Could BHP be hoping to persuade Newmont to sell to them? If not, how else would it happen?

In any event, the danger has been spelt out and a vote against the Board seems pretty daft to me.

Best wishes for a successful recovery Steve.

Fort, I certainly agree with your first point. Given that everyone knows it's for sale, the normal argument of keeping the powder dry is irrelevant. In the corporate finance world most advisors and their clients like to keep things as close to their chest as possible i.e avoid any public mention of a sale. The exception has always been Rothschild's, who tend to leak news of a sale to the Sunday press. Their view is that it gets things moving, whereas their competitors just regard it as lazy and potentially damaging.

I can tell you've never sold a company! I'm afraid your post is completely wrong.

Cov, are you sure? Remember the 2020 AGM when we were actively courted by proxy agents? Come to think of it, given we haven't been approached this time may suggest the Board is confident of success. I hope they're right.

Fort, you and I have been round the block a few times, but I cannot think of a single example of a sale process which maximises shareholder value when set against a background of chaos. Not one. And this will be no exception.

The question shareholders should be asking themselves is, do you want a board who are pursuing a competitive exit or, do you want to create more chaos and uncertainty?

This AGM is the most important in our history - even more so than 2020. If shareholders boot Caldwell out and a new CEO is appointed (if one can be found to take on this vipers nest), bang goes the exit and back we go to all the nonsense about production, with BHP pulling the strings. Can you imagine the massive disruption that'll be caused with the CGP interests sitting on the sidelines doing their level best to impede a new board? It doesn't bear thinking about.

Fort, you want the company sold, so does the board. I would say they're trying to deliver exactly what you and many of us want.

Incidentally, the article should dispel any lingering doubts people may have had about the intentions of the current board. The company is for sale.Full stop. Why the Californian Teachers fund should have a problem with this is beyond me. We also now know just how much Mather wants a sale, which makes you wonder why he spent so much time blathering on about production.

It's ironic that it takes an employment case to reveal certain key facts about our business.

Thanks for posting, mogg.

What this article does reveal is the exact reason for Cuzzubo's departure, which many of us had long suspected.

One question: Is my memory failing me, but Sangha wasn't a director, was he? In any event, his role in matters is clearly significant.

Blackrock are no longer shareholders.

Eloro, in terms of any potential deal the sum involved is de minimus. An adjustment may be made to the value, but it would be negligible. It will not delay a transaction.

BBG, are you able to post the full article?

I'm afraid your expectations are unrealistic. Do you expect them to give a specific date? The corporate world doesn't work like that, particularly when dealing with governments.

As for a plan, they have one and are working towards delivering it.

Had either Mather or DC set themselves a similar process we probably wouldn't be having this conversation - it would be done and dusted.

Bp1, what is it about the RNS of 25th October you don't understand?

Surely the problem is that the strategy he set out takes time, particularly when you take into consideration the mess he inherited?

He wants to sell the company, but the fact is it was in no state to be sold, specifically the lack of licences/IPA etc. It seems to me he's taking the right approach and we just have to accept dealing with the government and developing Cascabel into a turnkey project is no easy task, and it's a great pity the previous CEOs didn't make more progress in these respects. I shudder to think where we'd be now if DC was still trying to push ahead with his production fantasies.

I promise you, I'm finding this every bit as painful as you, but I see SC as being our best hope.

Magoo, so when a CEO outlines what his strategy is, they are no more than 'empty words'?

And no, I'm not happy where the share price is, but I do understand what he's trying to achieve.

DBW, the volume is still negligible and there have only been 100k(£7k) more sells than buys. How this explains a 6.8% decline is the sp is beyond me.