Member Info for addicknt

DGR owned 20% of the company, so it's not insignificant for them. Mind you their share price didn't budge, mainly because it was already at rock bottom.

DGR need a realisation soon, so it's no wonder NM supports our management strategy.

Darren, which is how I took it!

Just out of interest, how are things in Ecuador at the moment? What do people think about the prospect of the new regime? Are they expecting real change, or are they resigned to more of the same?

Darren, Ecuador is more than welcome to him, but if you don't mind I'd prefer not to have him anywhere near our company.

P**s ups and brewery's come to mind.

Eloro, despite the fact I voted against him in 2020, I will not be doing so again. I think he's useful as an NED and we want him to remain onside with SC. The most important thing is that we maintain Board continuity, although Twigger's position is neither here nor there. Fort seems to think if we sack the lot all our problems would be solved - he's wrong. It would be chaos and we've had more than enough of that.

Q, what makes you think the upcoming AGM will have anything to do with a 'low ball offer'? Because I don't.

Fort, those holding over 3% account for 50.48%. Then there's NM, SC and BS's holdings on top of that. I don't know how many institutions hold less than 3%. The balance of the shareholding has shifted considerably since 2020, although if it appears the Board are facing a battle I have no doubt they'll be canvassing our support.

Unsurprisingly, I think you're completely wrong about SC and you'll regret it if he gets given the boot.

The reason Irwin isn't buying more is that he feels his fund is fully exposed and he has no wish to take on more risk in this stock. He's balancing his risk, just like all fund managers.

Eloro, yes I think he is looking at that time scale.

DBW agreed, but you won't persuade people like Fort with your argument about remuneration.

Q, why are you wilfully missing the point? I'm talking about the upcoming AGM and the threat of Board disruption and all you can do is bang on about Mather. You seem to be implying that you think Mather is going to vote against SC and, if that's your view, fair enough. But I'd like to know why you think that. Everything we've told, and we've been told repeatedly, is that the Board is united, and that's all that matters. For heavens sake, move on!

Eloro, I didn't want to ask that question because it seemed a bit daft - a bit like a kid in the back of a car constantly asking "Are we there yet?" My guess is he won't know any more than we do, although I may be wrong.

Q, he no longer controls the dominant block. Assuming the ex-CGP holders support him, SC does. But that's not really the point, is it? We're led to believe NM is fully onside, so together they're in a powerful position.

The other point is that whereas in the past NCM voted with BHP, there's no reason to assume Newmont will.

What I was trying to get to in my original post was who is likely to vote against the Board and why? Because apart from BHP, I can't really see why anyone would, and now Mather's not in the driving seat, even BHP may have changed their minds.

This thought process was triggered by Irwin's comments to me yesterday, and although I suppose I could ask him, I don't want to keep bothering the bloke.

Incidentally, I know there are people on here who want to see the back of Caldwell, but with respect, their views are not important...and neither are mine. It's all about our main shareholders.

RT, you're right, he did stymy BHP, but, rightly or wrongly, he ended up paying for it with his job.

The point of my original post was not to look back, rather it was to look forward to the next month or so, because that's all we should be interested in. The debate about Mather was done to death and we really don't need to rake over it again.

Q, DGR have 6.8%, Tenstar have 3.59%. I forget how many he holds in his own name. They have less than the old CGP interests. The other thing to bear in mind is that in the event of another fund raise - god save us from that- none of his interests has the cash to stand their corner. They'll be diluted out of sight. Can you see him wanting that?

Q, the problem you've got is that you've never understood what happens in these circumstances. Although it's technically correct to say he won a majority, it's the size of the majority that matters and his was not large enough. For better or worse, that's how plc's work.

Q, no point opening up that debate again, but you really are the only person who still thinks that.

Q, he doesn't have the largest shareholding, or anything like it. Mather was the past, not the future.

Fort, god help us if all we're left with is Twigger - we'll be looking at a big fat zero. How do you think the government will react to yet another change of CEO? Surely they have only a limited amount of patience?

The key question is, which of the main shareholders will vote against and why? What evidence do we have to suggest any of them will vote for change? As we know, when Mather was given the heave-ho there was a lot of noise out there. Since that time the shareholder base has shifted significantly and I'm struggling to see how there would be a successful vote for change. But who knows? There may be stuff going on in the background that we're totally unaware of. I'm just praying there isn't.

WI seems to be fairly certain that we'll see some boardroom changes after the AGM and two questions come to mind:

Who will get the boot and why?

We only have six directors, so who can we/should we lose? I've never forgiven Twigger for his truly abysmal performance at his first AGM, so I don't really care if he goes. James Clare? I'm not sure what he adds but having a lawyer onboard may not be a bad thing and I assume because he's Canadian he'll be supporting SC/Sangha. Alban? I'd have thought it's useful to have an Ecuadorean onside. We need Vujic. Mather? Hmm. Do we really need him anymore? And Caldwell. To my mind he's absolutely essential and he must be given time to deliver on his strategy. If he hasn't managed it by this time next year he should resign before he's pushed.

The next question is why is there still discontent amongst the main shareholders (only they can affect the outcome) We've done nothing to upset Newmont and if BHP are no longer interested surely they'd want SC to deliver an exit. One assumes the Chinese are fully onside. Clearly, Sangha/GGP holders will support SC and, if what we've been told is true, so does Mather; so who exactly is going to force board changes? It won't be a few disgruntled retail investors.

Overall his tone was positive and he said he'll be keeping his large holding until the asset is sold. However, there's no mistaking the fact that he's as frustrated as we are. He knows the value of what we have and he's optimistic SC and Sangha can deliver. Let's hope he's right.

Sorry, it was 'very smart mining experts'.

Mogg, his exact words were, ' I had some very smart guys visit the site...'. Seems pretty clear to me.

Eloro, that was the conclusion I reached. I wouldn't have thought he did it just out of curiosity.

DBW, the difference is that he paid for these experts to visit. I wonder why he did this now?