Member Info for addicknt

Erm, is this news to you? We've known since the transaction was announced.

to one side the various questions which have arisen, now we've got the prospectus out with completion on Monday, has this assuaged the concerns some people were expressing the other day?

Fort, I think we needed 75% for the Specials, which we didn't get.

SM, the thought crossed my mind.

SM, yes, we are exposed until the 27th. If BHP want to play really dirty, now's the time.
Of course, if they did we'll carry on as before, but CGP don't have any cash and will be up the creek sans paddle.
I'm guessing we cleared this with BHP before the event, but such is the poor state of our relationship with them, we can't be sure.

I see DC is suing us for unfair dismissal.

Bozi, I accept your point, but what if we're talking about BHP or any of the other majors? Why take the risk?

To turn the argument on its head, if someone was looking at doing an off-take with us, don't you think they'd have second thoughts, given they'd know the likelihood is a change of ownership? In other words, why go to the cost and bother? Indeed, this may explain why we haven't already seen one.

Fort, personally I would see an off-take deal as an impediment to a transaction. Sure, there may well be a buyback clause, but it'd come at a cost and any potential buyer would adjust their price accordingly. Best steer clear.

rcgl, indeed. I think most of us who've been investing for a while understood the difference.
SOLG have been talking about potential off-takes for as long as I can remember, but none have emerged...thankfully. They would be extremely bad news and would diminish our attractiveness to a major, who would have no interest in seeing our production going into the hands of a trade competitor.

Sorry, Q, I hadn't realised you were 'seeking clarification'. Your comments appeared to be statements of facts, not questions. Perhaps it's best to read the company announcements?

Perhaps you should tell them they got it wrong - twice.
Can you show me where in the agreements there is any reference to off-take? I'm assuming you understand what an off-take agreement is?
Sorry old boy, you've got this completely wrong and have gone down the rabbit hole of google whilst looking for a definition of a royalty agreement.

Q, I suggest you look at the RNS dated 1st Dec - its heading specifically refers to a royalty agreement. Neither of our two funding arrangements are off-takes. The observation about intellectual property rights is a irrelevant in this instance.

Q, which offtake? Our facilities are royalty deals, not offtakes.
As others have pointed out, this 'article' is nonsense. For example, they appear not to aware the interest is being rolled-up (which is another reason we need to sell) and does not currently affect cash flow. Sure, it worsens the balance sheet, but is not an immediate concern.

Bozi, I agree with all of that.

Bozi, of course, we won't know the answer to that until the issue arises...if it ever does. And I absolutely agree with you that the jury's out until they deliver.
I suppose the difference between us is that I'm more prepared than you to give them the benefit of the doubt than you and feel it's still too early to judge them.
Will you feel happier once the merger is completed?

Thanks for the replies.
On balance, it seems more people feel, to a greater or lesser extent, more positive. There were some interesting reasons given by those who feel less optimistic, although I struggled to see how some of those observations are serious enough to warrant pessimism. It's also apparent that some people don't agree with washing our dirty linen in public, whereas others think it was long overdue. The one thing I do know is that it's a common management practice and places an even greater degree of pressure on a new team to deliver, which is no bad thing.
The next few months are going to be fascinating and critical.
Btw, I think it was either Bozi or DM who suggested it's looking as if we're heading towards the asset spin-off and, in due course, sale of Cascabel. I feel the same way.

Bozi, by the time the new team got their feet under the table the merger process was well under way, so I'm not entirely sure they can bear all responsibility. Having said that, they are partly culpable. On the broader point I'm pleased we now have a better understanding of just how poor the previous regimes were. The evidence was there to see and it's refreshing to have my view confirmed.

I've made the same point about giving them time on several occasions and have urged them to make sure they deliver on their promises.

The main reason for my optimism is that I gained a real sense of urgency from the RNS. They know they've put their heads above the parapet and they simply must deliver. I've never felt that before. They've committed to a timetable for the merger completion, but I feel it's a pity they couldn't do the same for the SR.

Overall, the RNS confirmed the change in style and hopefully, substance of the new board and gave a commitment to tackling the profligacy, waste and dithering of the previous regime. It feels like a breath of fresh air. I hope we're not disappointed.

new format is rubbish and makes the discussion more difficult to follow.

Bozi.
1) I'm please he made it public and it seems quite a few people on here agree.

2) Low volumes and small private investors getting spooked. Irrelevant.

3) Fair point and there is a risk.

4) As I've said previously, I would have preferred complete clarity on this point.

I'm not sure why your comments should add up to greater pessimism.