Member Info for addicknt

Would it be asking too much to politely request that you two stfu?

Q, agreed - this weekend has been disgraceful.

I think it's safe to assume the 'we are not miners' comment, which has been made at least three times, also applies to joint ventures. In my opinion, a jv would only happen if we can't find a buyer.

Q, production is no longer the strategy. Caldwell has been quite clear about this.

Nal, they've certainly misled, as I've said on numerous occasions. As for lying, that's very much your domain.

In fact, I think I've worked out what's wrong with you. Your mind is incapable of distinguishing between posters - this is probably an age related memory issue - so your solution is to conflate whoever pops into your addled cranium and then accuse them of all sorts of nonsense.

I'm sorry to say there's no cure for this, and your children should be considering moving you into secure accommodation.

Anyway, enjoy your weekend and if you happen to go out, remember to take your alarm with you.

And for guidance, I've been around for years.

Your proposition is that Caldwell was lying when he talked about the data room, non-disclosure agreements and multiple parties. Interesting. I'd like to see you put that to his face.

Nal, I don't filter anyone.

Nal, so, Caldwell was lying, was he?

Fort, so, according to you shareholders vote against a director but that isn't a sign of frustration and disgruntlement? Hmm.

As for more general frustration amongst ordinary shareholders, you and I must read a different bb. The tone on here has changed considerably.

I share your view about the ultimate direction of travel, but I most definitely am not seeing it through rose tinted glasses.

Red, I thought Valuestone only had 11.9m shares. Jiangxi bought 30m. BR sounds like a more likely candidate.

Fort, Caldwell actually referred to some shareholders not liking him and wanting more information, and did so on several occasions. So it's not me relying on a few bb posters for evidence - it came from the horses mouth.

I maintain my view that he would rather have waited to make this presentation until he was able to say more - in his shoes I know I would.

As far as the data room is concerned, we know it's been 'open' for at least six or seven months, which in most situations would be ample time for an interested party to form a view. However, this is not a normal situation and the complexities are significant. To me, this explains why it's taking so long. Of course, the true cynic may argue it's proof nothing's going on, but that would imply Caldwell lied, which I'm damned sure he didn't.

Numerous contradictions have existed for some time and the presentation did little to clarify matters.

My own feeling is that Caldwell agreed to do this presentation having become aware of shareholder frustration, as DGI highlighted in his notes of their discussion. I suspect he would have preferred not to do it as he knew he had very little of substance to say. However, he went as far as he could.

The emphasis placed on the 'we are not miners' was important, as was the reference to the data room and the numerous parties with access.

I suppose what I'm saying is that I think he may have been pushed into doing this and would have preferred to wait until he could offer us some real news which reflects the work of the SR. We ain't there yet, but we're getting closer.

Q, I haven't seen anyone mention a hostile bid for some time, so I'm not sure who you are referring to. This was always going to be an agreed deal which will be put to shareholders.

His comments about BHP were interesting. Clearly, the relationship remains strained. I was also interested to hear him repeat several times that he appreciates certain shareholders don't like him. I wonder who he meant?

Woody, I agree, although it's disappointing that the SR is taking so long to deliver any tangible results.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry!

Anyway, he has repeated that we are mine finders, not builders.

'they're' not 'their'. Can't believe I did that...must be my inexperience.

Fort, "the more experienced investor", that really made me laugh. And as for you "knowing what their up to"...you haven't got any more of an idea than anyone else. Everything is guesswork and supposition, which, someone with your experience should know.

Fort, it's not about self-imposed deadlines - although the end H1 was mentioned - it's about the fact that if you set a piece of work in motion which, by definition, is meant to be definitive, it can't just drag on and on and on. 12 months to examine and set a strategy is enough for any company, let alone one like this.

As it stands, and again by definition, we don't have a strategy. How can a company operate in a void like this?

Fort, 12 months is more than long enough to produce something.

One hour waffle-fest on the way?

Caldwell will have been asked many obvious questions and it will be interesting to see how candid he is.

I've no idea if there will be an RNS or not, but one thing's for sure, we're due one.

They've been working on the SR for 12 months - surely there must be some output by now? If not, why not?