Member Info for addicknt

AgArCu, that was a royalty deal and we were giving away revenue not a percentage of the company. They are not synonymous.

Q, as I said, I'm with you on the SR and the outcome will determine whether I continue to hold these shares or not.

Q, one of the biggest issues with your argument is that if no one is interested in buying Cascabel, as you allege, then funding it is going to be equally problematic, particularly as we are such a small company.

I have yet to see anyone provide a compelling description of how this might be funded without massive dilution or ruinously expensive debt (assuming we could even raise the debt). I know you've now shifted your opinion to favour a jv, but again, I'm not sure why you think that would work for us. If we are on the back foot, as the Aussie poltroon suggests, how are we in a position to negotiate good jv terms with a large multi-national, who are not exactly known for their benevolence?

Btw, as you know, I agree with you about the SR, although not necessarily with your view of its conclusions. The one thing I would like some clarity on is a statement from the company about about the reference to funding in relation to the SR being available for consideration by the end of H1. It strikes me that it's a fairly legitimate to ask the question 'what's happened?'

RK, are you really trying to tell me nothing has changed? Wake up!

At the time of the merger, and quite remarkably, Cornerstone were able to dictate terms, which included a strategic review and, in my opinion, the replacement of Cuzzubo with Caldwell. Such was the desire of Mather to move things forward, and his long held ambition of 100% ownership, he agreed.

The downsizing of the board, despite all the governance guff, removed his power base, but again, he agreed. My view is that Mather is fully onboard with Caldwell's/Maxit's agenda, but he is not driving that agenda - that's Caldwell's job. He wants an exit and so do they.

RK, they may have 'driven' the merger, but it's what it led to that's important. And to be honest, I really don't care what happens to Mather in December - he's not the one driving the bus.

Btw, I think point one is easily verifiable - NEDs don't have much influence and none of Mather's cronies sit on the board. And I happen to think Twigger will go along with whoever's in the driving seat.(Incidentally, I think Twigger's hopeless and will think twice before voting for him in December)

Point three: It's difficult to believe nothing is going to change. No, it's inconceivable that nothing will change.

Point five: In a way I agree with you, in as much as Caldwell is the representative of the Cornerstone and Maxit interests who are now in control.

Good heavens! AgArCu the peacemaker! There's a turn-up for the books.

You're right about NM, and as someone who voted against him at the fateful AGM, I hold no candle for him whatsoever. But I'm not obsessed about him and am capable of understanding how things started to change here as soon as the merger talks began with Cornerstone. Life has moved on and so should nal.

Nal.

1) The balance of power has shifted decisively.

2) He has been heavily diluted and does not have the resources to stand his corner in future fund raises.

3) The company is engaged in a strategic review which will ultimately change the shape of the business.

4) Australia is almost an irrelevance as the influence has shifted to Canada and Quito.

5) Caldwell is quite clearly his own man - unlike the puppet Cuzzubbo.

I could go on, but as long as you retain your infatuation with Mather you will continue to spout total BS.

As I said, you're delusional. If you can't see what's changed, you are beyond redemption.

Anyway, feel free to carry on railing about Mather, although it appears to be affecting your mental health.

Sid, what email address did you use for Scott?

Nal, you're labouring under the delusion that Mather is still running the show. Life has moved on.

Incidentally, are there any Canadian ex- Cornerstone shareholders who use this site? I'd be interested to get your view of the situation.

Q, there's a huge difference between saying "Yeah, we could be interested. Come back to us when you're further down the track and have something tangible for us to look at" and actually handing over the readies. I've sat in enough meetings where this sort of thing has been said and learnt through bitter experience not to place any faith in the comment.

No evidence ever emerged to confirm his statement and I'm of the opinion it was misleading - to put it politely.

Honestly, I really do wish this was fundable, for the simple reason it would add value, but as it stands I just can't see it.

Q, he didn't have $1bn. How could he? There was absolutely nothing upon which to base a lending decision.

I've said it before, he may have had expressions of interest, but no more than that.

Couldn't agree more, Bozi.

So, how much will the slimmed down new mine cost? $1bn? $1.5bn?

How much new equity? $250m? $500m? Think of all that lovely dilution!

Royalty deals are a non-starter, so how much will the debt cost us? 10%? 12%? More? Do the maths on the compounding effect of the rolled-up interest.

Convertible bonds? aka death-spiral financing.

An opening balance sheet that would look truly awful.

I'd love to think financing was a realistic option, but I'm struggling to see how on earth it'd work.

I wonder what the Minister for Mining makes of all this? He must be as confused as we are.

AgArCu, I agree that virtually everything he said was ambiguous, but, given the context, that quote was one of the less opaque comments.

It's funny how no one thought of this new interpretation until this morning (at least I haven't seen it). It strikes me as being somewhat contrived in order to suit an argument and doesn't wash for me.

Actually, I've reached the point where I don't much care which route we go down - I just want clarity so that I can decide what I want to do with my holding.

DM, when you take into account the government requirements, another royalty deal is a complete no-no. We're already committed to giving away too much of our top line. Add to that the fact that debt would be ruinously expensive and you'll see why funding of any description looks highly unlikely.

A perverse interpretation of what our CEO has actually said and quite clearly not what he meant.

"We are not mine builders"

Confusing, isn't it?

Eloro, there's a difference between those like you who raise some reasonable concerns and are quite clearly shareholders, and those who are obviously not shareholders and are here for whatever weird reason. Additionally, I assume you can see my point ; if someone posts something which outlines x number of reasons not to hold, why on earth do they continue to do so if they believe they'll never get a return? I know I wouldn't.

Bozi, assuming that was aimed at me, it was an uncharacteristically pompous comment.