Member Info for addicknt

copper, this is not 'one upmanship', it's a rational debate about the situation with shareholders expressing their own views, which, as far as I am aware, is what these chat boards are all about.

Okay, so you now recognise we cannot do this on out own, so that option can be dismissed, and you now say you don't want a jv. Erm...what does that leave us with?
Re: ENSA. Please see my point number 1.

Q.
1) It hasn't already been sold for the simple reason that until recently no one had a clear picture of what Cascabel actually contained. In other words, they need proof.
2) I understand the diverse 'book' perfectly well. I also know that every takeover, whether hostile or not, faces the same picture. Our register is not unique.
3) I agree with your point about the balance of our portfolio, which is why a deal is likely to focus only on ENSA,
4) We do not know what either our board or potential buyers think it's worth. Therefore the question of 'fair value' is unanswerable.
5) The sale of ENSA will be an agreed deal...as I've maintained for a very long time. Therefore your point is not relevant.
6) Your reference to a jv being 'the cheapest for the company interested in Alpala', unwittingly hits the nail on the head. It's the cheapest for the bidder i.e it's no good for us. Perhaps you hadn't considered that?

Q, how do you know it's the most likely outcome? Everything we've heard suggests otherwise. Sangha, CGP and DGR have made it pretty clear haven't they? And let's not forget Mather always maintained he'd never get involved in one.
As I said earlier, a jv is a possibility ( no more than that) but I simply cannot see how it would deliver what they want. In fact, no one on here has outlined a compelling argument for the benefits of a jv...mainly because there are none.
So, far from being the 'most likely outcome', I see it almost as being a complete non-starter.

why we haven't seen a raft of TR1s which reflect the diluted shareholdings of our main investors?

Q, you now appear to accept that we cannot take this to production ourselves and are now of the opinion that we will end up entering into a jv - which I don't deny is a possibility, albeit one that has zero appeal for me.
The one thing which is not clear to me is why you think this is a good idea and how it delivers what our new management team and their supporters have stated is their intention.
A while back I laid out what the financial implications of a jv may look like, both in terms of both the short and long terms and concluded it wouldn't make any sense at all. I also recall asking you to outline why you thought it was a good idea and how the financials may work...you didn't reply.
As far as I can see, a jv would not deliver what Sangha and co want and therefore I struggle to see why they'd pursue one.
I understand why you're hanging your hat on a jv, but I simply cannot understand why you believe it's the best route to follow.

DBW, I agree - he's undergone a sea-change in the intervening years.

DBW, one thing to add to you list is the fact that for the first time in three years we've emerged from the AGM with a clear plan and seemingly, without the board being in chaos - albeit I do have some residual concern about the voting pattern relating to board appointments.
At last we have a board who recognise we can't stumble on as before and radical change is needed and it's ironic that this has been brought about by a corporate transaction which, when it was initially mooted by Mather, would have prevented us from getting to this point. In other words, had our hostile bid been successful we would have had the same management structure and the same aimless groping around in the dark. CGP, our sworn enemies, have become our saviours (hopefully!) Weird, innit?

SM, in as much as I like the idea of rinse and repeat, I broadly agree with you.
The only thing that seems pretty likely is that one way or another we are not set to own Cascabel. For me, the unwillingness to appoint a permanent CEO and CFO and the disappearance into the long grass of the DFS, are the surest signs we have of the intentions. The former may imply a complete disposal of SOLG whilst the latter may suggest rinse and repeat.
Either way, these two developments tell us what's on the cards. I'm also of the opinion that the new team will not be interested in anything which does not produce some form of cash realization - too many promises have been made, and a jv doesn't do that.

The only thing I do know with absolute conviction is that this has been a bloody awful year.
So, here's to a much better one in 2023.

Bozi, people are making assumptions about value, and personally I can't see the point, particularly as it seems to be leading to a lot of depressed individuals.
A load of people saying "we won't get this...we won't get that"...to repeat, no one's got a clue.
I've never given a view of valuation and I won't start now. I'll form an opinion when something tangible appears.
Btw, you're absolutely spot-on about the 50m. It'll be gone in a flash and one thing I can guarantee - we won't be any further down the road to production.

Bozi, I guess my point is that we don't know yet and it seems a bit odd to start making assumptions about what someone may be prepared to pay when we have no idea one way or another. If we discount DC's comments, we also have no idea what our board thinks we're worth...so we really are in the dark.

Q, have you worked out how much of that 50m will be spent on keeping our people employed? And what happened to the DFS? It's been firmly kicked into the long grass...hardly an indication of us preparing for production.

The fact that a bid hasn't emerged does not mean there's no interest.
There is now a formal channel through which to express an interest and our advisors will be keeping a very tight lid on things (that's not to say leaks don't occur, but so far it hasn't happened)
The company has signalled it's open to all approaches and if there are any interested bidders out there they'll be throwing their hats into the ring now.
I find it interesting that some people seem to be of the opinion no one wants what we have. It begs the question; why invest in something nobody else sees as being valuable. It also makes me think our trade investors must have made a tragic error.

I'll second that!

You wish what, Frog?

Dart, we do know - the timeline of the discussions was laid out in their circular to shareholders.

Bozi, one quibble: We don't know that they weren't able to sell the company - it may simply be the case that they realised they'd get better value by being part of the larger entity. From a corporate finance perspective this makes perfect sense; you rarely receive full value by selling a minority stake. It's also worth bearing in mind that it was us who approached them, not the other way round. This hardly indicates desperation on their part.
The other side of this coin is that we realised we'd be making life more difficult for ourselves by having them outside the tent if we were to enter discussions with an interested party.

Orthern, bear in mind they are about to be diluted, which they obviously knew about, so the 16p reflected that fact.

Fort, I take your point about the shares CGP currently own, although we don't know what the intention is at the moment. As long as they're held in Treasury they count towards the total number of shares in issue.