Member Info for addicknt

As ever Quady, you fail to apply any interpretation of what we are being told.
Why did they produce the RNS? They've never done it before and to say it's unusual is a gross understatement.
Why did Berry Street refer directly to it? They would undoubtedly know far more than you and I.
Why has the FT referred to it?
Why have two people, including someone who occupied a key role, left the company?
Come on Q, wake up and smell the coffee.

It most certainly is not a "non-story". The company was obliged to issue a highly unusual RNS, which was clearly done in order to calm nerves and deal with market rumours - which were obviously correct.
It is not me and most of the others on here (and Berry Street) who are guilty of confirmation bias.

schlem, that is the very real danger.

Our board has over-played its hand and has placed itself in a precarious situation, which could easily be exploited. The saving grace is that we have Norges and BR on the register, and I don't see Norges in particular, walking away from this.
The Berry Street letter was spot-on and if the board fail to take note we should join them in agitating for a sale.

RK, did your information source have any idea why the fund raise failed?

It's been a fascinating day with some great insight from folk on here, but where does this leave us? Looking pretty stupid is my view.
This company has a long history of mis-steps and my hope that DC would move us away from that was clearly too optimistic.
How is it that virtually all of us small shareholders, market analysts and pundits, plus several of our more significant shareholders, can see the way forward with piercing clarity and yet the board appears intent on ignoring the bleedin' obvious.
If this carries on until the agm I think this board will need to consider dusting down their cvs.

RK, thanks. That would make sense and explains a great deal. Pretty damn hopeless and you'd have thought the company would have learnt its lesson.

RK, very interesting observation about the failed fund raising. Is it the case that the company was trying to raise money whilst by-passing the existing shareholders?

RK, I'm not sure what you meant by the comment that Ingo's hands are clean. I was merely speculating that if we've had a failed fund raise, and it sounds as if we have, he may have been held responsible. Alternatively, he got fed up with senior managements failings, and who could blame him?

Bozi, "learnings"! Good grief man, go and stand in the corner until you drop the illiterate management speak :)

As an aside, exactly the same thing happened at BCN.
They made a terrible ****-up whilst trying to raise cash and failed miserably. I got wind of this and sold out (I'm not going to do the same here). The company was forced into having to accept money from Gangfen and that was the beginning of the end.
We are by no means the copper equivalent of BCN, but their story is a clear warning about "strategic investors" taken on-board when a company's in a desperate position.
I wonder if Ingo's departure is related to all of this? It certainly raises suspicions.
Right, come on CGP, start firing a few broadsides - it's time the gloves came off.

From the tone of their announcement it looks as if the suggestion of a failed fund raise in London my be true.

Great find coldcut. The shareholder unrest begins! You'd think CGP will feel the same way.

Other than serving as a heads-up, this was an utterly pointless RNS. They've never issued anything similar prior to previous cash calls and I really do wonder why they did so this time.

One thing which was interesting was the mention of "strategic investors". Was this mentioned in order to get BHP in line? I'm not sure how happy they'd be if another major popped up on the register.
I wonder at what stage will BHP say enough is enough? Surely they're going to have to make up their minds at some point and perhaps the potential emergence of a competitor as a significant shareholder would be it?

Pretty straightforward, isn't it? and confirms what we already knew.
Effectively, it says we need cash and we're talking to various people about that issue.
Strange that they felt obliged to release this statement.

snowman, me too.

snowman, yup, looks like it! Whoops! Still, nice to be able to put a face to the name.
There was an interesting comment from the bloke at Boliden. "Thanks for your co-operation, Ingo".

Woody, good email. It will be interesting to see if he replies.

"Well let's see a sensible bid come in.
We won't, so we continue to production"

In those two sentences your entire argument collapses. You have no idea what represents a "sensible bid" in the eyes of shareholders and similarly, you have no idea if someone will bid. In fact, given the importance of Cascabel, it's inconceivable someone won't want it.

to see the impact China's futile attempt to achieve zero covid has had on Rio's results.

SM, I can only assume he wouldn't have left of his own choice if there was something going on which would have been of financial benefit to him.
Similarly, the company wouldn't have got rid of him if they currently need his skills.
Conclusion: he doesn't stand to make any money in the short term and the company no longer has a need for his skills.
I remain baffled!