Member Info for addicknt

RK, erm? Of course it's our money.

At some stage over the past 35 years it became accepted wisdom that directors of businesses should be able to enrich themselves at the expense of shareholders - the argument being that share options incentivized them so much that all shareholders would benefit. I'm afraid I've always been sceptical about this and have seen far too many situations whereby directors have exercised options, pocketed the cash and the sat back and watched the company fail.
In our case, if our lads manage to extract £1 from a bidder they will benefit to the tune of nearly 50m quid, and what exactly will they have done to deserve that? The assets are already in the ground and all they have to do is pick up the phone to an interested party and say "do you fancy buying us?" Is that really worth 50 m of our money? Not in my book it isn't.
If directors want to benefit they should invest their own money and take the same risk as the rest of us. To me, options stink.

DBW, I think the rationale is that this is more in-line with standard corporate governance stuff and that the company wanted to get it out of the way asap.
It's interesting that the benchmarks for performance and therefore remuneration, were not detailed - at least not that I could see, although I'm happy to be proved wrong (I admit, my eyes glazed over after a while). It will be in the hands of the remuneration committee to establish those metrics, which is normal, and although some companies provide full details, we appear not to have done so.

RK, they are nominee holders.

Ha, ha, ha! Oh well, it was fun whilst it lasted!
As to the motions themselves, what do people think?

Bozi,I don't define BHP/,NCM as institutional holders...they're trade investors.
Of course, subject to the right of first refusal, CGP can sell to whomever they wish, but I do wonder about the details of the detente agreed last year and whether what we may be seeing is us delivering our side of the agreement. However,I'm not sure it's going to be us buying them out, and the reason I think this is that I don't believe it would require shareholder approval.

Bozi, you make a very valid point, but it doesn't take into account the demands of CGP and institutional shareholders for a significant return from the realization of our main asset. I simply can't see them accepting something which fails to achieve that ambition.

SM, unsurprisingly, I agree, although I'm feeling a bit more optimistic on the valuation, particularly after the recent Tandy news.

Sjn, great detective work.

Q, I take it you understand the difference between an EGM and an AGM? The clue's in the letter 'E'.
Second, I've never seen an EGM with the sole purpose of appointing a director, let alone a CFO.
I realized my gender mistake immediately, but thank you so much for correcting my appalling error.
The fact is Q, this has absolutely nothing to do with the CFOs appointment...no matter how much you wish it was.

Q, first of all it's an EGM, not an AGM. Second, the board doesn't need our approval to make appointments and third, he's already been appointed.

1) The EGM is to do with fund raising. (Since we don't have a DFS/BFS, we are not in a position to raise the amount of money needed. Additionally, the company has sufficient existing powers to raise what it needs for the next stage)

2) The sale of the entire company. (This would not be announced in this way. An RNS would have been issued specifically concerning such a transaction. This most definitely isn't happening)

3) Something to do with the fall-out of the fraud revelation. (This is a distinct possibility. It could be certain shareholders have demanded NM's head and the company disagrees and wants to put it to a vote)

4) The separate listing of ENSA. ( I'm not sure about this one. I see it as a remote possibility, but unlikely)

5) Something to do with Cascabel. ( By a country mile this is my favourite and I see a full sale as a real possibility)

6) The introduction of a new third party to the register and at a scale which requires our approval (I'm not sure why this would require approval unless it has been demanded by BHP/others)

Have I missed anything?

It's strange that Canadian company law appears to allow a business to post notice of a general meeting without simultaneously providing an agenda. I may be wrong, but my memory tells me in the UK both have to appear at the same time. The Canadian situation allows for far too much speculation and is not helpful to shareholders.
As far as the delay here is concerned, I can only conclude it's due to the fact the agenda hasn't been settled yet. In other words, whatever it is we will be asked to vote on is still in discussion/finalization.

They really are a bunch of pr**k teasers, aren't they?

I suppose it's possible our lads didn't realise we have a two day bank holiday and they've lodged the RNS for release tomorrow.

LM, so do I.

LM, in theory the notification doesn't have to be announced via RNS until 16th June. However, given we've been told it was due this week, it would be very odd if they now waited until the then.
If it does appear on the 16th everyone will need to act quickly to register their votes, particularly as people like HL are not exactly on the ball in these matters.

are obviously still ongoing. Still, "this week" in Solgold language could mean anything from today until about two years from now.

rcgl, indeed. It exposes the myth that we can simply "buy these things in". We must let this be someone else's problem.

Q, quite possibly, but two things make me feel otherwise: the fact that, one way or another, we're due some important news and, that it's taking a long time to release it.
Still, who knows? I'm engaging in nothing more than idle speculation, as are we all.