Member Info for addicknt

Monte, indeed. I think it was a friend in Shore Capital last time, or was it Cannacord? He'll get it right one day.

Bozi, the problem I have with what the company tells us is that I struggle to believe them.
At the agm I asked about the relationship with BHP and after a bit of waffle we were assured everything was fine and dandy - which obviously explains why they voted against the key motions and had canvassed other shareholders to remove Mather. In fact, what Twigger said contradicted his own public statement about BHP a month or so earlier. I think we would all have preferred a bit more honesty and transparency.

Bozi, by the way, were we to extend your comparison we could ask "why does anyone listen to Buffet? He's only a fund manager and has never run an industrial company".

Bozi, how about it's because they are talking sense? And for that matter, how do we know what Mather is really thinking?

Stukey, with regard to CGP's holding we only have first right of refusal. In other words, we'd have to match what someone else is prepared to pay and as it stands, we don't have the spare cash to match a decent offer form a third party.

CD, I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with Q that a January bid is unlikely (his other comments remain wrongheaded) and think it likely we'll need to see the PFS before any action.
Q, why would CGP sell now? The company made a promise to them to deliver shareholder value, which thus far hasn't happened.I'm guessing they've been given some guidance as to what the strategy is and are happy to wait until they see evidence emerge. Having said that, they are clearly maintaining pressure on the board - as the voting pattern at the agm appeared to demonstrate.
There's an awful lot of news due this quarter and this alone should make people content to sit and wait...if they don't, they're fools.

I guess the average age of people on here is somewhere in the late 50s, or perhaps even older. You'd never guess, would you?

LM, that's right, but if either of them didn't take part it would signal the end of their interest, which doesn't seem likely. The way things stand they're in a very strong position.

LM, as I understand it that power can only be exercised on a preemptive basis.

We've now had two years of shareholder discontent (despite the cease fire agreement which lasted about five minutes). The company finds itself in the difficult position of knowing that it cannot get anything through which requires a special resolution without the agreement of the main shareholders, which has been withheld for the last two agms. No company can operate like this, at least not if it wishes to flourish.
Therefore, to my way of thinking, there has to be some form of significant corporate action this year. In fact, I'd say it's a nailed on certainty.
By the way, despite this week being the dullest of the year for the market, we've actually seen a decent degree of interest - at least in the recent context of this share.

All this seasonal goodwill is most disconcerting. Surely there's still time to tear chunks out of each other?
Anyway, happy Christmas everyone and let's hope the story becomes clearer next year.

rcgl, that's exactly how I see it.

jam, thanks for the reply. It always looked like a highly unusual arrangement and not one suitable for a plc.

of this several eons ago, but just out of interest, did they ever sort out the royalty arrangement?

Rich, that's a question I've asked myself many times. In recent months it may have been that they didn't want to run two bids at the same time, but their hands are now free (btw, I'd be very happy with the 360% premium Noront achieved)
However, I think the main reason is they've got us exactly where they want us. They tied our hands at last years agm and have done so again this year. They know they can control matters and are probably happy for us to progress with de-risking the assets.

RK, was your message directed at me?

Zoros, 905 new admissions versus 919, not 3000 is it? The total number occupying beds relatively stable at 7500, as it has been for some time - in other words, people are being discharged at roughly the same rate as new patients are being admitted. It's not great, but it isn't the doomsday scenario some people portray.

zoros, you didn't read my post properly. I said an INCREASE of 14. And the graphs you've just posted tell you all you need to know and I think you'll find the figure of 7500 is the same as I suggested. If I were you I'd get some new specs.

Gino, I refer you to my earlier post about the twitter exchange between Medley and Fraser Nelson. Medley inadvertently lets slip exactly how they go about their modelling, and it ain't reassuring.

Zoros, just to put your 3000 into context, yesterday the figures reported an increase in hospital numbers of 14. The total is just over 7500. Again, to put that in context, the NHS has 150,000 beds.
I'm most certainly not saying this thing is unimportant, but people are misusing statistics horribly and for all the wrong reasons. It's worth reading an exchange which took place on Twitter yesterday between Fraser Nelson and the head of SAGE, which was reported in today's Telegraph. It demonstrates quite clearly how they are manipulating forecasts and is genuinely quite shocking.