Member Info for addicknt

Anon1977, have you read any of Quady's posts?

Q, they had always appeared to be blissfully relaxed about the cash required and said so on a few occasions. (personally, I think their optimism was wildly misplaced)
However, I disagree that they don't care which way this goes...I think they care a great deal.
To my mind, they know exactly what's on the table and I'd suggest it meets their requirement for the realization of shareholder value - I can think of no other plausible reason for them signing-up to the merger.
But who knows? I may be way off kilter.

Q, I've only just seen your reply to my post of yesterday morning.
Yes, I agree that the merger makes the task of raising funds easier, including the interim funding we currently require. However, let me ask you a question: Do you believe CGP has agreed to this deal in order to take this to production? Given everything they've said in the past and the agreement they signed up to with us, do you think they've had some kind of Damascene conversion?

HFM, I agree and DC virtually said as much.
The question is, why announce the deal with CGP? Indeed, why do it at all? My take is as follows.
If an interested party is in discussions with us, clearly the issue of CGP would need to be addressed. If they only wanted to buy ENSA, they could come to arrangement with CGP to sell their SOLG shares and to give up their 15%. We would simultaneously drop the various contractual obligations associated with the agreement. In essence, this gives the buyer a clean entity of which it owns 100%. It would be relatively simple and not particularly expensive.
However, if the interested party wanted to buy all of SOLG as well as needing the CGP stake, it would in effect, have to conduct two takeover deals - of us and CGP. This would be more complex costly and could run the risk of CGP shareholders saying no thanks (unlikely, but possible).
Therefore, we're conducting that part of the process on behalf of the bidder and are making it a much simpler, less costly and cleaner transaction.
My brain is pretty muddled at the moment - thanks covid - and I may be barking up the wrong tree completely, or I may not have expressed my thinking clearly. Actually, I've just thought of a couple of holes in my thinking, but what do you lot think?

Thank you for your kind good wishes.
I have to say both my wife and I are feeling pretty wretched...this thing really is a bit of a bugger. I'm grateful we had our booster a couple of weeks ago as I suspect it may have been far worse without it.
Again, many thanks.

your individual view, this has been a fascinating week. We've waited a long time for this and regardless of the outcome, we know that in the next two months the shape of this business is going to be determined.
There's been a great deal of interesting discussion and many bases have been covered, but there's still the scope for something to emerge which is completely left-of-field. I don't think many of us were anticipating the merger, so has DC got something else up his sleeve?
One way or another, we are are now firmly in play; we've been promised a value creating event and wouldn't it be marvellous to receive an early Christmas present?
On a personal note, I've been fighting through the fog and grimness of covid this week, but events here have provided me with some light relief.
Have a good weekend everyone.

I'm afraid to say ,Q, your thinking is getting incredibly muddled.

"...if BHP had acquired BHP..." erm?

Q, let me see if I've got this right.
The diverse book always meant we would never be taken over, but now it's become more diverse a takeover is more likely?

Q, with the greatest respect, you have not always said there may be a bid. Many of us have memories which exceed the capacity of the average goldfish and will recall that your position only began to shift about six to nine months ago.
Anyway, putting that to one side, I agree with you about the chances of a hostile bid, but have never understood your comments about an agreed deal - specifically because you've never been able to define "full value". It will be an agreed deal - whatever "it" is, and it will sail through the process of winning shareholder support.

smick, I think the pivot point was when DC was appointed. It didn't take him long to suggest openly that he'd listen to all approaches, which of itself was a sea change from the nonsense the company had been pushing for the previous two years.
I'm absolutely with you on the BHP point and hopefully this weeks events have reinforced the argument. Wouldn't we all love to be a fly on the wall in their boardroom?

smick, indeed, but a process has now started, or rather it's been going on for a while, and I'm pretty damned sure the CGP deal is all part and parcel of making us look more attractive for a bidder. As you say, it's an expensive deal for us, and I can't see us wanting to do it without there being a juicy reward on the table.

smick, how does your position square with the actions and observations of Irwin and Sangha? Or do you think they're not relevant?

Q, surely a sale has now moved from being a "possible" to being a "probable"?

I do however, agree that there are still many options, but it's the Irwin/Sangha thing which seals it for me.

Zoros, not everyone ignored it, but you are right to re-emphasise it - it's of huge significance.
44% of the equity holders in CGP have entered into such an agreement, and bear in mind Irwin is not even a director, so was under no obligation to do so. We know all of these people have been agitating for a sale for a long time and for them to commit not to sell to anyone else clearly means they like what has been put on the table. You simply don't give away your freedom to sell in the open market unless what's being proposed meets your expectations.
When you combine this with DC's comments about other corporate events not being linked to the merger, or rather that something may be announced prior to the completion, you get a good understanding of what's going on.
As you say, Irwin wouldn't in a million years give away his rights if the story he was being told was "this is another step on the road to production". In fact, if that were the case, he's be all over Twitter arguing against the merger, and so would Sangha.
This has been the most interesting week we've had for years.

Sorry DF, one other point. You say if we're up for sale now that means we're trying to sell cheap. Personally, I don't think it means anything of the sort and yesterday DC gave a pretty clear indication of what he thinks we're worth. It was almost as if he were advertising the fact to both investors and any potential bidders.
Mind you, having said that, I don't know what your definition of cheap is.

DF, it seems pretty straightforward to me; we needed to agree the merger in order to deal with concerns from interested parties and to get a transaction completed.

Q, I didn't say they were - just that they will exert a lot of influence...or do you disagree with that? Indeed, they've very obviously influenced the process so far by agreeing to the merger...there will be strings attached.

rcgl, he's going to be a powerful voice in this process. By the way, has anyone heard either him or anyone else associated with CGP, say they want this to go to production?

The thing to bear in mind about Boliden was that they visited when IH was in situ. Is it not possible that his departure was in part due to the company moving away from a deal with them?