Member Info for addicknt

My apologies, I should have said so. However, it does chime with my thinking.

I don't believe JCC will come up with anything which our Board will recommend. In turn, I can't think why any other bidder will enter the fray at this stage. The offer period will lapse, the lads will continue with the job in hand, various critical milestones will be achieved and in 12 to 18 months the serious bidders will emerge with whom our lads can have a proper negotiation.

For the avoidance of doubt, this is speculation!

Eloro, I was only speculating!

Jiangxi have improved their indicative offer to 35p and have said it's their final punt. It's been rejected out of hand and this info has been leaked.

Eloro, not a chance.

In the interests of balance, this interview highlighted the issues facing the copper market.

1) Copper demand will rise.

2) The major's existing resources are insufficient and the pipeline of new projects is weak.

3) Major's want producing assets.

4) There are very few producing opportunities out there and simply shuffling the deck i.e mergers/takeovers of each other, won't address the problem, although shareholders who want short term gains are drawn to these mega mergers.

5) The majors are very risk averse.

6) The costs of development are huge and are rising considerably. The consequence is that recent history has shown feasibility studies to be way off the mark when a project actually reaches production. This is deterring investment.

7) What choice do the majors actually have other than to venture into far greater risk territory? The question is, when will that happen?

From this summary you can see why our boys are all about de-risking. If we want a reasonable exit price, in current market conditions and with a risk-averse industry, we must present a project which is almost gift wrapped.

Eloro, yes, he failed to mention the most obvious reason for the rejection.

I thought it was interesting he spent the much of the first half of the interview giving reasons why new mines are not being built, but went on to say Cascabel would be.

There's a very interesting new video from Kitco titled Barrick and Newmont Romcom. It's well worth listening to as it explains a great deal about the conundrum the majors are confronted with, specifically related to developing new discoveries.

Q, to be fair, you have said production isn't a certainty, but that only started a couple of years ago. Prior to that I think we could find many posts in which you stated quite categorically that we would definitely become producers.

But that's not the point. Every company is a dynamic entity and circumstances change. A sensible investor adjusts his views accordingly.

A typical mid-offer period price move. Because nothing's emerged so far, people start thinking nothing will. Of course, no one actually knows if it will or won't.

Eloro, it's simple really. He's made an interesting point - at least it's interesting to me - and his responses have been civil.

The DGR announcement may appear to be arcane and irrelevant, but if I'm right it's of real significance for us, and all I'm trying to do is get to the bottom of it, so all thoughts are welcome.

SH, according to the original loan documentation DGR owns 204m shares of which 149m are pledged, so it's not 27%.

The reason I question the refinancing suggestion is that the announcement says a Deed of Variation to the existing loan facility has already been executed.

They are already pledged. Incidentally, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm simply trying to understand something which seems to me to be interesting and potentially of relevance to our current situation.

SH, a couple of minor problems with your suggestion: 1) under the terms of the existing loan facility, the shares are already pledged to Samuel, and 2) pledging shares does not qualify as a disposal.

1) DGR has arranged access to a further A$1.5m.

2) The stated purpose is for working capital and explicitly, funds required to pay for the process of gaining shareholder approval under Rule 10.1 of the ASX listing rules.

3) Rule 10.1 relates specifically to the disposal of significant assets.

4) As defined by Rule 10.1 DGR has only one significant asset...its shareholding in Solg.

5) NM and related parties cannot vote.

What can we conclude from this announcement?

I've just been reading a bit more about Rule 10.1 and its implications.

It states that the connected party i.e Mather, cannot vote and I suspect, neither can his other connected interests - Samuel etc.

A1 says retail investors own 59% of DGR's equity (I think this may be wrong). However, if it's right it means their retail holders will indirectly decide whether to support any deal we structure. In turn, this may suggest NM doesn't have the final say. Is this really the case?

I also find the timing of today's announcement fascinating.

I'm guessing the company didn't have to say the funding was required for gaining shareholder support under Rule 10.1, it could simply have said it's for general working capital purposes. So why was it mentioned? Given the funding is readily available from Samuel and doesn't require shareholder approval, why announce it now?

Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but was this some form of coded message?

Sorry for the repetition, Gardie. I must have missed your post.

I'm not sure if this has already been mentioned, but Smith's latest post about the copper market and specifically M&A in the sector, is very interesting.

It falls short of actually naming us, but not by much.

If you haven't done so already, have a read. It'll cheer you up.

Q, the key issue is about conflict of interest. Because Mather would quite clearly be conflicted, the question arises as to whether their shareholders would need to be consulted.

As I say, I don't know the answer and in any event, it's probably only of academic interest.

Perhaps of greater interest is why their board felt it necessary to act now? Is it merely a contingency, or is it in advance of a known transaction? It's all grist to the conspiracy mill.

Given Mather's control of DGR, Rule 10.1 requires Mather to ask himself if he approves of a transaction. However, is there another side to this Rule?

What happens if a formal bid for SOLG is tabled to which NM objects, but our Board recommends? Do the ASX Rules require DGR to consult its shareholders? Obviously, the outcome would be the same i.e Mather wins. Does anyone know the answer?