Member Info for addicknt

Stuckey, my knowledge may be a bit out of date but wouldn't this qualify as a Class 1 transaction which would require shareholder approval? After all it's our main asset by a country mile.

Stukey, that's what makes me feel this has something to do with Cascabel rather than a bid. We would need to vote on the disposal of our main asset.

Q, the company most certainly would require an egm for a bid. As for a jv, it would depend upon which asset was in play.

Almost certainly not the sale of the entire business.

When I said jv I meant a jv of the non-Cascabel assets.
Possibilities:
Major fund raise.
Sale of Cascabel.
JV involving Cascabel.
Sale of entire business.
Or, something really boring.

BTW, a jv would be unlikely to require a shareholder vote. This is something significant.

Quite right FTJNY. By definition we will be asked to vote on something outside of the course of usual business. Can't wait to see the agenda. Fascinating stuff.

Bubble, you're not wrong. This stock is chronically undervalued and not just by a small amount. It's as if the market simply don't "get" what we're sitting on.

very encouraging results which provide further options for Cascabel in terms of earlier mining. All good.

jgallagh, it depends on how the sp reacts. It's often the case the quoted price will remain below the offer price due to the fact there would still be an element of risk that the transaction may not happen. Similarly, it may go higher if the market believes another offer could be tabled by a third party. Shareholders will almost certainly be advised to hold the shares until the deal completes.

out of the bottle - it cannot be replaced. A deal will happen.

LM, I may have mis-heard, but didn't that chap Lambert (?) say the other day that Porv was being lined-up for one of the jvs?

Bravado? In any event, this is about deliverability and whichever way you look at it, any major ticks that box far more effectively than we do.
When you say 'Mather and his people', who are they?
We can go round and round on this discussion - you have your opinion and I have mine and never the twain shall meet. However, we both understand the importance of the issue and I'm certain everyone else does.

Copper, I agree the locals are extremely important, a fact I'm certain BHP, or indeed any other potential buyer, understands full well. My point is that the element of local and governmental support is part of the intangible assets we "own" and no one in their right mind would do anything to upset the apple cart.
Over the years I've lost count of the number of bid situations where this type of concern is raised and I'm struggling to think of an example whereby it has actually led to a bid being stopped. Sometimes a buyer messes it up, but generally life carries on.
Quady, I'm 100% certain that ever since Mather was defenestrated the company will have taken steps to spread the depth of their exposure to both the government and locals. The new board would not allow themselves having to rely on one person...the old "what happens if he falls under a bus" strategy. If you are relying on this argument to support your "no bid" thesis, I fear you'll be disappointed.

Q, BHP will be buying those relationships and will obviously keep our staff who are responsible for maintaining them.
Ask yourself a question: if you were in government and your priority is to generate tax revenues, would you prefer a company with all of the cash required to build a mine or, would you run with a small company which promises it will find the cash but can give no guarantees?

Copper, why do you assume that BHP don't have good relations with the government as well? The world's largest miner with clearly stated interest in the country, will quite obviously have developed contacts at the highest level and, should they decide to buy solg, will give all necessary guarantees to the government that they will maintain all existing ESG conditions. They wouldn't buy an asset and then go out of their way to disrupt the status quo...that simply doesn't make sense.
The work we've already done over many years is part of what any buyer would be purchasing, they wouldn't derail the situation.
It is wrong to assume only we can deliver what the government wants.

rcgl, I think it revealed the company's finance function was woefully inadequate and that remedial steps were essential, and is not indicative of anything other than that fact.

Incidentally, for those of you who get excited about these things, Fawzi is out of the office this week attending conferences in North America.

The investigation has been completed - the employee dismissed and efforts are being made to recover the funds.

In what way is it "sensitive". The bloke's either being prosecuted or he isn't and would be a matter of public record. If he isn't being pursued, why not when it was most obviously a crime.
Mine was a perfectly reasonable question to ask and suggest you spend more time concentrating on your stellar investments in Russia.