Member Info for addicknt

To answer my own question, they are defined as being "Subsidiary Shares".

Bozi, surely they would be described as treasury shares of the subsidiary company?

NMM, I think it was referred to in either one of the documents or a Q&A session. In any event, I think Fort's observation is right - the management can't act as proxy for all shareholders by casting votes on our behalf.

NMM/Fort, point taken, but I recall SC, or someone from the company, saying they carry no voting rights.

Fort, Treasury shares do not have voting rights.

Magoo, what is it exactly you find wrong with the 25th October update?

DBW, yep. This fact seems to elude some of our bears.

Eloro, rather SC than DC. If he'd still been at the helm I rather suspect you'd be shouting even louder. All his production nonsense was total balls.

Fort, the interesting thing is you make all sorts of accusations about how inept SC is without actually knowing what's going on.

We have no idea of what's emerging from the SR, nor do we know where we stand with the IPA. In an ideal world we'd have been given an update, but as far as the SR is concerned, we are bound by confidentiality agreements and market regulations.

Yes, we'd all have wished for a quicker solution, but the delay is, to my mind, understandable. SC inherited a total mess and he's having to sort it out.

If, by the end of Q1 we haven't had evidence of some progress, I'll probably join you. But. as it stands, I'm prepared to support Caldwell as he attempts to deliver on his promises.

Paddy, that's nonsense. I'm with HL and voted without a problem. In any event, it's a London listed firm.

Fort, they're not denying access to the AGM - we're welcome to attend if we happen to be in Brisbane!

Roxi, I agree with your comments about getting on with the job, but I'm not sure I'd describe wanting to attend an AGM as needing a comfort blanket. It's more a case of good investor relations and simply announcing the outcome of the resolutions isn't.

Personally, I like to see the body language of the directors and the tone of the meeting. The 2020 meeting told me everything I wanted to know about Mather and Twigger and confirmed my view I'd made the right choice to vote against NM.

Anyway, for whatever reason, they've made their choice and it is what it is.

Sadly, you are right, particularly as they'd made a commitment to improve shareholder communication and I'm wondering why they made this decision. Cost, or perhaps, based on previous meetings they didn't think it was worth it? Or do they wish to duck some thorny questions? Although I'm pretty sure they could cope with anything we might ask.

I'm not happy, but it doesn't alter my decision to vote for SC.

I've received a reply to my email which asked whether we'd have the option to join the AGM remotely. The answer is, no.

Orthern, yes, I get that, but I wonder if our argument is that we haven't been able to raise that amount of cash because of the uncertainty that's surrounded the various licences and IPA? Chicken and egg?

The government has been making all the right noises for some time, but to get this moving they need to expedite the IPA asap.

Orthern, when the SR was first announced I voiced my concerns about it being open-ended. However, as time's gone by the strategy has become clearer. Specifically the intention to develop Casacbel to the 'turn-key' stage. It seems all of the current work is focussed on this and to me it makes perfect sense.

Any buyer is going want this to be as risk free as is possible (nothing is ever completely without risk) and that involves us getting the various licences and IPA in place. Only by doing this can SC maximize the return.

As we all know, getting the government to move quickly is an impossible task, so in the meantime we have to sit back and wait for them to deliver.

Given that this is the strategy, how does it make sense to change personnel? It's not Caldwell's fault dealing with the government is a long and tedious task and the idea anyone else will do it faster is for the fairies.

Fort, with regard to the fees received by Maxit, yes, they will have taken a fair chunk of the 16m associated with the merger, but I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that neither they or Citi are on a retainer and that their remuneration is now on a success basis only. Given that it'll be based on a sliding scale related to transaction value, they'll be highly incentivized to maximise the shareholder return.

You should use the Stock Exchange web site.

The reasoning behind this spate of releases is completely transparent (I'm not complaining, btw). Shall we run a sweepstake on the number of them next week?

I wonder if the 13m trade the other day was the short closing?