Member Info for addicknt

RK, surely if demand is there but no supply is available, the way to satisfy the demand is to raise the price thus flushing out some sellers?

Bozi, obviously I'm not saying this is the case, simply that it's an alternative possibility...no matter how remote.
I'm sure you do as well, but when there's a corporate event I always play every scenario through my mind, no matter how unappealing they may be.
Anyway, you can turn your car away from Beachey Head - I'm sure positive news is on the way.

Sangha and Irwin have agreed to this deal because they were told we were unable to raise cash in the market and were in danger of failing. This would also bring down CGP meaning their holding was in peril.
Both management teams promised them a disposal or full sale would be initiated the moment the merger was completed and that in fact, certain discussions are already ongoing but are not "oven ready".
In other words, the merger was presented to them as being the last throw of the dice.
Before anyone flies off the handle, I'm not suggesting this is the case, merely that it's a possible alternative explanation for why we are where we are. I'll don my tin hat immediately!

Hubris, your question about why they would sell at one price i.e a lower one, if they know a bid is on the table at a higher price has been puzzling me since the deal was announced.
The only explanation I can think of is that it's being done as a sweetner. However, even then such an arrangement exposes their board to allegations of fiscal impropriety. I suppose their argument would be that they had to sell at the lower price to ensure a deal of much higher value could be concluded.
Whatever the situation, one thing's for sure, this has a good deal of complexity and there are many twists and turns to which we have not been made privy.

DBW, re Sangha and Irwin I agree completely. As we know, they've agreed not to trade the shares (why would they?) but I'm guessing they've also been made insiders.
The AGM notification is looming and surely we can expect a raft of announcements beforehand?

SM, yes, it's perfectly possible, but unlikely.
Before spending a lot of cash, my guess is that a bidder would want absolute certainty the merger was a done deal.
I think the first step will be the announcement from CGP that it has sold the shares, followed shortly thereafter by a holdings announcement from us. The mystery for me is why CGP hasn't yet placed our shares.
It seems odd that this rather clever scheme to raise some cash wasn't already agreed prior to the merger announcement. Both parties have placed a great deal of faith in this and failure to deliver would be terminal for our team.

DBW, I certainly agree with you with regard to skin in the game. As you know, and to put it politely, I'm very disappointed DC hasn't put his hand in his pocket. Equally, his remuneration borders on the scandalous.

RK, I sort of agree with you, but would make the following observations:
NM lost track of what this company should be about and he did us no favours by pursuing the production rhetoric.

It's clear he has many detractors in the industry and it's equally clear he went out of his way to fall out with our main shareholders (people will have their own views as to wether that's a good thing or not)

He appeared to get struck by an unappealing degree of hubris.

His performance at his last agm as ceo was lamentable, but then again so was Twigger's.

He made a huge mistake by bringing BHP onto the register.

We don't yet know what DC is going to deliver. Should it lead to the delivery of shareholder value I suspect your opinion may change.

I'm not so sure it's that easy to judge who is the best of these two and only time will tell.

I agree, Quady. A couple of million shares a day changing hands between private punters. No selling or buying from any institutions. Anyone sensible is holding tight for the Big Reveal!

Sean, good to see Frankie Howerd is alive and kicking on this board!

You are right Daren, the next two months are of huge significance for the company. Will it be more of the same or, we will see a something completely different?
Notwithstanding some of the observations made by a few people on here, it stretches my credulity to think that CGP and their key shareholders would have signed up to the merger if the menu was simply more of the same. Indeed, after recent statements from DGR, it's difficult to believe they are interested in the status quo either.
Having said that, it's perfectly possible that DC will pull something out of the hat that none of us are expecting - just like he did with the merger, which took all of us by surprise. For example, has he persuaded CGP that the best way to improve shareholder value is in fact to get the DFS on the table? As a quid pro quo, has he promised that he will sell Cascabel once the DFS has been produced? Do they trust him sufficiently to allow that?
All the while, lurking in the background saying nothing, is BHP. Wouldn't we all love to know what they're thinking?

Pity! I was hoping you were bribing someone on the inside.

DBW, that's intriguing. Dare I ask how you gleaned that snippet?

DBW, I'm don't buy that. There have been plenty of opportunities to acquire some shares during the last financial year.

The other thing that annoys me is the choice of date for the AGM.
I have much cherished Christmas lunch in London with some of my oldest mates on the 22nd. How dare they not consult me before setting the date!

Earlier on I mentioned DC's ongoing failure to buy any shares. For a while I assumed it must be because he didn't have any proper cash hanging around, but having trousered $1.2m last year, that's no longer the case.
Frankly, this annoys me. In this day and age it's expected that directors, particularly CEOs, invest some of their own money - putting money where their mouth is. His refusal to do so whilst earning this amount of money is completely unacceptable.
At least I won't have to agonise as to which way to vote with regard to the remuneration report. It'll be a straightforward NO!

David, yup, he most. certainly would. In fact, after he retired he was around long enough to witness the management team balls it up. But as you say, he was too cautious for the gung-ho '80s and '90s.

Okay, hands up, who's going to read this cover-to-cover?
It's funny how life has changed since I started out as a graduate trainee for what was then the world's largest bank (Citi). One of the lessons which was drummed into us was how to read a report and accounts and to be very wary of companies who produced hugely glossy and lengthy versions. The mantra was; the glossier they are, the more likely it was to be a poor company.
GEC, then run by Arnold Weinstock, was held up as the exemplar of how to do it properly. He eschewed anything glossy and kept it to a bare minimum and yet his company was then regarded as a paragon of stability, probity and profitability.
Nowadays, it seems everyone wants page after page of ballcrap and the more pictures of smiling employees, the better.
Anyway, changing the subject, how lovely it is to see DC earn $1.16m, including a bonus of $638K. Anyone of a slightly cynical disposition may ask what he's done to earn that bonus, particularly as he still hasn't spent one penny buying shares.

BNC, your question asking why the CGP nominees have already been appointed is a legitimate one, even if the language is a bit hyperbolic.
I suggested yesterday that the reason is that it was agreed with our board in order to allow the CGP team to have access to the discussions which are obviously going on at the moment, and for them to have their interests represented. In other words, those negotiations which do not relate directly to the merger - whether they be a sale, part disposal et al.
Rather than seeing this as a negative, I regard it as being very positive and it tells us things are moving rapidly towards some form of conclusion.

I sincerely hope that's the case, Fort.