Member Info for addicknt

SM, again I agree. If I were buying I'd want to have as much watertight protection in place as possible.

"We are not mine builders"...we should not forget this comment, even if some of us have known it for years.

SM, agreed, if the intention is to sell the financing is largely irrelevant. The politics is not. I'm unclear as to the extent our understanding/agreement with the government provides a level of comfort which a third party would be happy with. Any clues?

You are right, Quady, Rule often speaks sense. However, I'd point out that a few years back, when he stated SOLG was a takeover candidate in the shorter term - which he did on a number of occasions - there were people on here saying he was talking through his hat.

It's funny how people's views of him change according to which song sheet he's singing from.

In the meantime, we wait patiently for the Grand Reveal. Let's hope it delivers on the promises made.

DM, good point, although I guess Cornerstone is, or will become, a non-operating subsidiary.
As I said earlier, this really is a red herring.

DM, not only are we not incorporated in Canada, we don't have a single subsidiary company which is.

Q, thanks. I guess you agree it would be easy for us to circumvent the law?

Q, as I said previously, it's incredibly easy for us to get round it. In any event, I thought the regulation was enacted to prevent firms selling Canadian assets, not those overseas - although I may be wrong about that.

Q, what's a criminal offence?
This is a UK company and even if the Canadian regulations presented an obstacle, which, in my opinion they don't, there are plenty of ways around it...all legal. One example; an asset sale and cash distribution leaving behind a shell company which would be liquidated and de-listed. Absolutely bu**er all the Canadians could do about it. We are also perfectly entitled to de-list in Canada as and when we want - in fact, I'm not sure why we bother to have the listing, it's just an unnecessary expense.

Ah, rain, the curse of gardening. Mind you, I find it a convenient excuse if I can't be ar*ed.

Thought you were looking after your veg, copper?

Total red herring.

I imagine I'm not alone in having emailed the company in the past few weeks and failing to get a reply.
It seems to me that since the departure of Fawzi they've decided not to bother any more.

NAL, I understand your situation and I imagine all of us have been there at some stage in our investment career. However, there's always a point when one comes to believe that something's such a basket case you may as well sell and preserve at least some of your capital. It seems to me you've reached that point.
From a purely objective position your logical course of action would be to sell and mark it down as a bad experience. There appears to be no rational explanation as to why you'd continue to hold.
By the way, although you may believe you're doing us a favour by "calling-out" the more enthusiastic posters on here, we are all seasoned enough to draw our own conclusions and it could be argued that you've become somewhat obsessional in your determination. I suspect a shrink would advise you to move on.

NAL, a genuine question: why do you continue to hold shares in this company? (assuming you actually do)
You have no faith in the management; you don't believe they'll deliver anything via the SR process and perhaps most critically, you believe Ecuador is a basket case which will never allow anyone to develop Cascabel.
Surely, any rational person holding these views would accept their losses and run a mile?

Wishful thinking on my behalf, Bozi!

news blackout's going well, isn't it?
Time for the release of some good news, I think.

Indeed, Quady. That's what I was referring to.

I see these two articles as representing separate issues; the specific i.e as it directly relates to Cascabel, and the general i.e the broader political environment.
As far as the first is concerned, we know we are not in a protected area and have been assured repeatedly by the company that there are no issues. To a certain degree this lies within our control and we have spent millions ensuring the local community is on side.
As far as the political issue is concerned, there's nothing we can do about it other than hope the powers in government recognise that without mining they are consigning their benighted country to yet more poverty and instability. Do the politicians wish to leave their nation in perpetual Third World status, or do they actually want to lift it into the 21st Century? Lasso knows the answer, but do others?
Are the anti-mining interests resigned to the fact that Cascabel is covered by an agreement with government and is therefore not a target of their activism, or will they attempt to halt all mining throughout the country, regardless of location outside a protected area?
We must never underestimate the stupidity of people and their governments, but in a country with little going for it, you'd hope common sense would prevail.
Should we be worried? It would be absurd to brush it under the carpet, but we are not in the same situation as other projects and we have little choice other than to trust what the company has told us many, many times. Will it deter outside investors? So far the answer has been no, and the evidence is there in terms of the investment we've received so far.
We mustn't be blinkered, but nor must we ignore the specific situation of Cascabel. As for the rest of our prospects, I've completely discounted them as having no relevance and no value (I hope one day we'll get a pleasant surprise and I'll be proved totally wrong)
In the meantime, I'd like to know who bought the shares on Friday!

PI_W, in Apollo's pitch to MM and the team there will lots of guff about wanting to work together to realise full potential, blah, blah and that Apollo are uniquely positioned to help achieve this. If other pe houses are involved they will also want to push this line and ultimately, MM will go for the offer which gives most control to him. This is how pe houses flog their wares to management teams.
I should add the controls a pe house attempts to include in the Investment Agreement (the document they and management sign up to) are always highly contentious and often lead to a breakdown in negotiations.

Just as a technical point, the offer has to be for the entire share capital as it's a public to private transaction which will be facilitated by a 'newco'. The management team would receive a consideration for their existing shares and then immediately roll them into newco.
So don't be confused by the wording of that RNS, this will be an mbo.