Member Info for addicknt

That's as maybe Q, but it's completely hypothetical as it ain't gonna happen.
My worse case scenario here, apart from production, is for us to sell 70/75% of the project, divi out say 30p per share and keep the rest for further exploration etc. If a vote was required for this, I'd be voting against.

'...value creation you mention'...actually those are DC's words, not mine. And, as you know, we must never doubt anything he says!:)
You are right, let's get some cash in the bank first.

I should add that by outlining his views on valuation he has made a rod for his own back. This suggests to me he's confident he can achieve something approximating to that value range.

Bozi, I think DC gave us a pretty clear steer as to his view of valuation and I'm damn sure that's how he explained things to Irwin et al.

I don't think it's possible to over-emphasise Sangha, Irwin and NM's response to the situation. Anyone who harbours any doubts as to what's likely to happen should focus very carefully on the reaction of these three and, in the case of Sangha and Irwin, their willingness to sign the lock-up agreement.
They simply would not have agreed to this if they were not happy that a pay-day is on its way. You can forget all about production etc, etc, it's not going to happen. Were they presented with production as being the preferred route they wouldn't have signed and I think we could pretty much guarantee they'd be tweeting away about management incompetence etc.

sean, I'll let you know.

TheItalian, clearly they are completely confident it's going to happen. These premature appointments confirms my view that something will be announced prior to the completion of the merger and, quite rightly, CGP want their voice heard around the table.

Putting the confirmation bias to one side, nine board members for a business of our size strikes me as excessive.
I know the new guys are the CGP nominees, but this number of directors are not necessary over the long term...which leads me back to my own confirmation bias.

As soon as I read the RNS I just knew that you'd focus on Caldwell and ignore Vujcic. I suggest you read his cv as well - you'll get a more balanced picture.

Q, how do you infer that?

there were nine.

RK, when I said placing I meant selling the existing shares to one or two pre-arranged buyers, not selling new shares in the market.

JM-I, I'm not sure 500,000 shares constitutes a "sell-off".

Were any of you caught up in the Worthington/Whetstone situation?
If so, you may not have seen it but the FCA has eventually got round to prosecuting the perpetrators - it's taken them eight years!
I wasn't a holder but became fascinated by the story. It was even more blatant than the QPP saga, which I was caught up in.
Apologies for the O/T, but it crossed my mind some of you may have lost money in WRN.

Q, agreed, but it's not beyond the wit of man and will not take that long to organise.

No disrespect Q, but I've been involved with far more complex transactions than this. In fact, by comparison, this one is a doddle.

Bozi, agreed...I meant to say several parties. I wonder if the delay is due to the fact a potential buyer(s) wants to see all doubt removed from the transaction first?

rcgl, yes, that may be the explanation. As you know, NM has always said the tax situation is tricky, but he never provided any detail as to why.

rcgl, that seems unnecessarily messy and costly when we already have the structure in place to sell Cascabel separately.

Q, I certainly agree that a part disposal is a real possibility, particularly as much of the rest of the portfolio is a mish-mash of unexplored concessions which, even to the largest of companies, looks like an unfocussed and undeliverable mess.
Copper, not sure I agree with that. In fact it could be said that under your scenario the CGP shareholders are simply jumping from the frying pan into the fire.