Member Info for addicknt

Ship, that's a different question. I would like more clarity and I've made my views on the options perfectly clear. However, I haven't seen anything which is illegal.

They have given a deadline...end of H1.

Bonkers, I can't think of a single law which has been broken and unless you can name one I'd suggest your comment is pretty daft.

Why? What laws do you think have been broken?

It's interesting to have a read of the 2023 Priorities section of the presentation. It gives the impression work is continuing at Cascabel, including relocating the community, but no drilling, and the section on other targets is no more than a wish list.

Q, you forget we were at total loggerheads with CGP/Sangha and the animosity was such that they could have made life very uncomfortable.
As for a jv, it's the very worst outcome for us - unless you like the idea of losing control and being reduced to a bit-player?

Fort, indeed - it had better turn out to be worth it!
It's likely that over time we could have starved them into submission, so why do it now? Because it makes us more attractive and makes it easier for a buyer to deal with. The feeling must have been that the SR would prove less effective without them on board, and for that we paid a heavy price.
However, on balance, I'm pleased we did - provided Caldwell is true to his word.

In fact he's so good he even got us to pay his fee.

I think it demonstrates what a good negotiator Sangha is, and how poor DC was.

As per last weeks comment from Mr Robinson, I think the presentation has been updated.
Shareholdings:
Cornerstone+Maxit 23.7%
BHP 10.4%
NCM 10.3%
DGR 6.8%
Jiangxi 5.2%
Tenstar 4.0%
NM (direct) 3.0%
Other 36.6%
No mention of Norges/BR.
Caldwell is described as CEO.
Other than that I'm not sure there's much else - although I'm sure the eagled-eyed amongst you may spot something.

What's the betting his salary is 'reviewed' upwards now that he's full-time?

Orthern, never a truer word!

DBW, he's going to have to pull a very large rabbit out of the hat to justify this award. Putting to one side the principle, I'm staggered at the exercise price - frankly, it's appalling and sends a very poor message. And even worse, we've got more to come as they re-write the long term incentive plan, which you can absolutely guarantee will be more generous than the existing one.
I've always been opposed to option arrangements and have a slightly old fashioned view that executives get paid to do their job to the best of their abilities; so, are we to assume unless someone gets a vast amount of shareholders money they will not do their best? If that's the case they shouldn't be in the job.

Quite simply because they are not the only show in town and a good corporate financier will persuade them of that fact.

Fort, I agree with all of that and also that the Chinese are the front-runners - despite the fact I loathe their malign influence on the world. However, if I were an advisor I would most certainly seek to avoid giving them the impression they're the only show in town, regardless of my previous relationships with them.

let's assume Maxit/Citi have received a number of informal approaches from companies wishing to do an 'off-market' deal i.e 'give us exclusivity and we're here to do a deal.'
Quite obviously this would not be the most effective way to maximise value, so the response has been 'thank you for your interest, but we're currently examining a number of options and if we conclude a sale is the best route forward we'll be in touch'. As a negotiating tactic this makes complete sense. We know we're going to sell, but play hard to get.
Up until fairly recently BHP held all the cards, but this has now changed and we are in the position to be able to do what many of us have hoped for, which is to sell the company/Cascabel via an auction process once the SR has concluded.
Now the unpopular comment: if I were a buyer I'd want to see the various licences in place before offering. Indeed, if I were selling I'd recognise that this is as an essential value-enhancing step and would hold back until I've got them. As we know, we're in detailed conversations with the authorities, who've been making all the right noises, but we do need the signature on the dotted line.

SM, no, that's not how these things work and my take on Irwin's comment is that he was stating the obvious i.e lots of DD WILL be required once we enter formal discussions.
Fort, I agree with your last paragraph but don't believe we are near that stage yet. We've been given the timetable for the SR and whilst it would be great to think we're closer to the completion of the process than we've been told, on this occasion I'm inclined to believe they were not trying to fudge matters - but who really knows?
The one caveat to my thinking is the question of why the company rushed out the statement about his options without first having worked out the detail and why did they suddenly decide to appoint him full-time? I suggested yesterday that a cynical view could be that his appointment was solely so he could receive options - I hope I'm wrong, but wouldn't be surprised if I'm not.

Options cannot be granted to directors if they are in possession of inside information. In other words we are not currently in discussions.

You sure about that?

In effect, they value the company at £2bn.