Member Info for addicknt

Bozi, a far more eloquent response than mine and you're spot-on.
Thinking about it, perhaps the Osisko money is being used to allow us to keep people on at Cascabel, thus avoiding the need for redundancies and the resultant unpopularity.

Q, the royalty money is being used to address the issues you describe and I imagine the board believes they are value-adding, thus making the asset more desirable for a bidder.
The 36m is to advance porv and may suggest we really are looking at the rinse and repeat process. Of course, it's also being used to keep the lights on.
As DBW suggests, there have been many indications of what the plan is and, on balance, I believe he's right.

Bozi, I guess BHP will have been talking to various shareholders again and it will be interesting to see if we get another missive from Twigger on the subject.
If anything, the upcoming AGM is the most important we've had so far and it will certainly dictate our strategy.
Others have already said it, but us private investors MUST vote. If we allow ourselves to be dictated to by BHP we may as well kiss goodbye to a decent return.

Couldn't agree more, Bozi!...he says modestly.
Thank you for your comment, it's kind of you. And I share your observation about the others; they all make valuable contributions, as do several others - yourself included.
Anyway, enough of the mutual back-slapping...is this the week we see BHP get all ansty? Will they release a pre-agm attack on the management? (I don't mean takeover bid, but a public statement seeking support to defeat the resolutions)

Q, the problem with a jv is that I don't see how it provides quick value creation and distribution, which, after all, is what CGP/Sangha/NM want.
If we sell say 75%, we will not get a particularly good price and the proceeds will have to be put to one side to stand our corner of the development costs.
I'm not saying a jv isn't possible, just that I'm not convinced of its benefit.
I'm maintaining my stance of a sale of Cascabel and a repeat process with porv etc.

copper, I very much doubt CGP have a People Officer, or whatever they call personnel monkeys these days.
DBW, agreed...obvs!

BNC, and in turn the media are interpreting what has emerged from the key players in this saga. The SR is also a fairly large clue.

I wasn't asking you to convince me, I was asking for the rationale behind your opinion.
The fact you've failed to do so may suggest to some that you're posting simply to pick a fight.

SH, I understand your point about definitive statements, but the fact remains their argument is more logical than yours and thus far you've failed to provide a reasoned reply as to why December 2023 is more likely.

You say that people who are saying a sale is imminent can't possibly know that, but neither do you know it won't.
In fact, given the announcement of the SR, there's more logic in their argument than yours.

Sh, why Dec 2023? It's simply an arbitrary date pulled out of thin air and has no logical basis.
And why won't a buyer appear now? What is it that will stop them? Certainly not our board, that's for sure.

Bozi, of course your point about not replacing key people is spot-on. How many companies looking towards the long-term decide they don't need a permanent CEO and CFO? Answer:None.
As to the general point about value, my view is that we'll got a good price based upon where the company is now in terms of its development. We will not get a price based upon potential value in 10 years time, obviously. But the fact is, and always has been, the company will never be able to deliver that long term value because it cannot deliver a funded, independent future.
Once this has been accepted as a statement of fact, it's easier to come to terms with the reality of our situation.

rcgl, yes, I remember that article and the reference to the advantages of having a major onboard.
In our case, the downside has outweighed the upside.

copper, yes, they have been outplayed...so far. But I don't think their hands are tied...they have a great deal of cash at their disposal.
They've been backed into a corner and are angry. How they react is going to be fascinating.

copper, that was my point. But the question is; how do they react to the new situation?

1) Accepting their money was a significant strategic error and we've suffered the consequences ever since. But I do understand why it was done.
2) Their own strategy soon became apparent and NM tried to kick back. This cost him his job.
3) The boardroom unrest can be linked to the competing demands of trying to satisfy all shareholders simultaneously. It cannot be done and we have paid a very heavy price as a result.
3) BHP now face the prospect of constant dilution, or the real possibility of losing the asset completely.
4) It's inevitable they will vote against most if not all, Resolutions at the AGM. If they succeed in marshalling sufficient votes from NCM etc, there's a chance we could see further disruption. Hence my call yesterday to ignore the corporate governance code...a simply majority will suffice.

So, what do BHP do? Throw-in the towel; continue to disrupt from the sidelines, or turn aggressive? Do they wait for someone else to show their colours, or do they lead the charge? In my opinion, we won't see any action until the New Year. They will want to see how the AGM turns out and how many allies they can count on...they will not get a better opportunity to gauge support for their cause.
Personally, having come this far, I don't see them throwing-in the towel, and surely the tension must come to a head soon?

Thanks DBW, we can breathe a sigh of relief.

Sh4, a good contribution but I would say one thing: there are various people on here who have practical experience of some of the issues involved and although every circumstance is different, there are plenty of common threads which run through all of them.
In other words, some of what appears on here isn't simply opinion.

It's an absolute certainty that BHP/NCM will be voting against various directors.
I hope this time around the board doesn't remove them unless they secure 75% of votes. A simple majority should be ok , and from where I sit the governance code can be conveniently forgotten. In this instance and somewhat counter-intuitively, contravening the best practice code actually enhances shareholder democracy.

Spot-on rcgl. It seems strange to me that some people appear not to have understood this.
As Irwin replied to one of is twitter people the other day; "if you think that, you really don't get what's happening".