Member Info for addicknt

What I want to know is why he's wearing my daughter's wellies.

Italian, I'm inclined to think the same, with one caveat. I reckon they will have a pretty good idea already as to how they'd go about the project, although it would be an act of faith to make any assumptions about additional resources. How much is this de-risking worth to them? £500m? £1bn?

Today I had a re-read of the 2nd June RNS which set out the detente with CGP, as, despite the fact they appeared to vote against the board at the agm, they have gone very quiet.
As we know, the RNS made it very clear all strategic options were to be examined and yet there has been little evidence which demonstrates this is happening. However, it seems to me the final paragraph, which contained a quote from Macdonald, may provide the clue. He says words to the effect that they are content to wait until the PFS has been completed, in the full expectation that it will add considerable shareholder value. This seems to make sense to me and it would certainly help CGP. However, it achieves exactly the opposite for BHP, who are considerably more important in this equation.
So, we can understand CGP s position (although why they appeared to vote against the board is a bit of a mystery), but it's difficult to understand BHPs view on life. Why wait for us to become more expensive?

You're right. They were jerking around.

RK, HL has dropped the price back to 25.50. It looks like it was a momentary aberration.

RK, precisely! The whole "stooge" argument was nonsense from the moment it was first aired.

BNC, agreed.

Bubble, they've been the same for ages and just to reiterate, apart from those declared by the company as significant shareholders, the rest are nominee holders only.

Bubble, they've been the same for ages and just to reiterate, apart from those declared by the company as significant shareholders, the rest are nominee holders only.

Bubble, what interest?

Bubble they didn't buy in December, the date is simply the reporting date. Additionally, they are not the beneficial owners, but merely nominees.

BBG, in answer to your first question, yes I have...many, many times (I was a corporate financier for half my career and a principal for the other half) So, unlike you, I actually understand what the Takeover Code and dd actually are.
Like so much of the rubbish you post on here - people being de-rampers and not being shareholders, your latest contributions are complete tosh.

LM, you are completely correct about the dd issue. At the corporate level we are only a small company , therefore, assuming there aren't any nasties lurking around, the dd would be straightforward. One of the things which always takes a long time during dd is tax, however, given we don't have any revenue and have never incurred tax liabilities, this should be fairly easy to square off. Our corporate structure is relatively clear and, in the absence of any revenue, our p&l is easy to understand.
The key area, and the one which will be most important to a buyer, is our asset base and legal position revolving around rights, ownership and licences etc, and in this respect we are, in effect, doing the dd ourselves and have been for the past x number of years. The permission/tacit agreement from the government will be of critical concern, but I imagine BHP have developed high level contacts within the government and may well have broached the question already (it's difficult to see why they would object to the world's biggest miner who will be able to deliver what the government wants as opposed to the uncertainty which inevitably surrounds a small explorers capabilities)
DD will take time, it always does, but to suggest two years is quite clearly wrong.
When an offer emerges it is likely to come in one of two forms; an indication of an intention to bid or, a firm offer, the details of which will have been negotiated and agreed with our board. It will not, as BBG suggests, come with dd having been completed and all pre-conditions having been met.
My guess is that depending how quickly a bidder wants to move, it could take six months - max.

DBW, I was referring to his comment about a deal not being announced until it's all done and dusted. And yes, I can say he's completely wrong. Read the Takeover Code.

BBG, you are totally wrong.

Copper, if they're sitting on news such as this they are breaking the rules, so I very much doubt it.

Citi are retained as corporate finance advisers. BR are investors and fund managers. I'm surprised anyone would confuse these two entirely separate functions.

Copper, Franco are not shareholders and, as it stands, have no influence in determining what goes on. Incidentally, BHP could swallow Franco without even noticing.

Bozi, yes, you'd think there was a limit, wouldn't you. But, it'll be interesting to see what happens when we need more funding. As we know, BHP et al, have to be offered the chance to participate; will they do so, or will they pursue a different strategy? Will we get that far?
As I said the other day, the company is in a dangerous situation and as it stands, it doesn't have any friends amongst the large shareholders, which is not a great situation to be in.

Bozi, you make an interesting point about the likelihood of a friendly deal. We know that after last year's disastrous agm the company went on a charm offensive, which appeared to be fruitful. We also know that six months later the detente had collapsed. What we don't know is why. Sure, Mather's ongoing role appears to be an obvious candidate, but I'm not sure that's significant enough to warrant a full-blown melt down - or maybe it is?
Whether a friendly arrangement is possible seems to rest on whether Twigger has picked up the phone to BHP or not. He effectively told them to butt out in that rather extraordinary RNS, but what is the attitude now? Was he goading them deliberately? Or was it a precursor to another love-in?