Member Info for addicknt

SM, I think there's something very strange about this and indicates that something else has happened/is going on. It seems very odd to leave a job of such significance when the skills for which he was employed are currently necessary. Additionally, if he were part of whatever it is that's happening in the background, it would be a considerable feather in his cv cap.
I'm baffled.

RK, do you know if he had a raft of options? And I assume he's being classified as a "good leaver" - does that mean he can keep any options he does have? If the answer to the questions is "yes" and "no", it seems a strange time to be leaving.

I wonder if NM's comments in any way reflect a split in the board? They do appear to represent a sea change in Mather's position of the last few years of his tenure as CEO.

SM, I certainly understand that argument, but BHP have clearly made their own connections in the government and given their heft I'm sure they're taken very seriously.

SM, I'm not at all convinced that a jv will happen at Cascabel. Since BHP are the most obvious candidates - by some margin, I don't understand why they would be willing to provide funds to develop a mine which would ultimately benefit another company's shareholders. Why would they?

WineGum, the key question is, what was the strategy which has been changed?
Was it to fund Alpala and head for production or, was it as Mather revealed last week, to head for a different outcome? Do we believe the company's most recent statements, or do we believe the most significant NED?
Confusing, ain't it?

It's interesting that he left without first having found another job. Was he given a pay-off as part of a redundancy package; was it involuntary (doesn't sound like it), or had he simply had enough?

rcgl, your final paragraph would fit neatly with Mather's recent statements.

Possible interpretations:
1. He didn't want to move to Brisbane.
2. The role has changed.
3. There is not going to be any action for which his skills are required. (this would imply fund raising/any other form of corporate transaction.)
4. The strategy doesn't need two people capable of executing corporate transactions - we have a CFO
5. Cost saving exercise.

Number 3 simply cannot be true.

Btw RK, I had always assumed he was your "mate".

Well, that is interesting! Good find RK.

pbow, I agree with you final sentence.

pbow, it's easy for anyone to differentiate between the two - the clue's in the description.

MF, sort of. I think he may be right about the main event - for the time being!

MF, of course your overall point is right, but on this occasion I'm not sure Q is wrong. The difference between us is that I'm 100% certain it will happen and Q is not. His insistence that because something hasn't happened in the past means it won't happen in the future is misguided and we all know the diverse book (sic) thing is simply a red herring, and these are the two main planks of his argument.

rcgl, I think you make a very good point about Mather. It does appear that he's much more active at DGR, which in some ways isn't surprising as he's never struck me as one of life's natural non-execs.
And I absolutely agree with you about a lack of clarity, which has been a feature of this company for a long time.

a record? One and half hours into trading and only three shares traded.

MF, I agree with that and although I admit to being a tad frustrated, I'm not tearing my hair out.
The fact is the company has no option other than to do something reasonably radical. If they wish to avoid further disruption they must deliver on their promise to CGP. As you say, yet more patience is necessary.

An ex-ceo and major shareholder says the strategy is to sell to a major.
The current ceo says he's open to conversations regarding a sale.
The current ceo, quite sensibly, says the company must progress "as if it's going to production" - my paraphrasing.
Despite telling us 18 months ago that companies were queuing-up to buy into our regional prospects and reiterating the fact recently, nothing has happened.
We have no money for continued exploration, which has all but stopped. A cash raise for this must be imminent.
More cash will be required to take us to the DFS.
The clock is ticking on Lasso's period in office.
Following the rapprochement with CGP and agreeing to work towards the delivery of shareholder value, they have been completely silent thus leading us to conclude our board is engaged in satisfying this promise.
$4.5m went walkabout and perhaps one of our best directors was ejected from the board.
BHP/NCM have also been silent for quite some time.
We were told over 2 years ago that we had lined-up $1bn of funding without breaking sweat. This was quite clearly a ridiculously premature statement - particularly as we were nowhere near even having a PFS.
Copper will recover once the Chinese stop pretending they can achieve zero covid. The long term prospects are undeniable.
We are hugely undervalued for all of the reasons Mather laid-out this week.
I do not like the fact our ceo has not bought a single share in the open market with his own money.
The agm could be uncomfortable - again - if our board have nothing concrete to say. We can expect to bid farewell to Mather.

As I say, just random thoughts. What are yours?

MF, ha! Touching idea but I'd rather pull my own teeth.

Q, do you ever get lonely living in that strange little world of yours? You invent and distort almost everything and then deny having said things. You appear incapable of understanding your own posts and yet expect us to do so. And when you're challenged to support some of your statements - as I did this morning, you simply refuse to answer and then deflect by making totally irrelevant comments.
And as for your attempt to re-write what NM said, it was simply laughable. Everyone else understood exactly what he was saying, but yet again you attempted to deny it, although it's impossible to misinterpret his comments. Doesn't it ever occur to you that perhaps you get things wrong?