Member Info for addicknt

lostagain, that was also my thinking.

been an assumption by some that the company is holding back good news. Given that none has arrived, aren't they leaving it a bit late? Quite a few people have already cast their votes and to issue any news now may be a case of the horse having already bolted.

Bozi, I think we need a team who recognise reality and set about maximising value via monetization. As far as we're currently aware, the incumbents show no signs of understanding this. The strategy appears to be; carry on pushing ahead with something that won't happen and which the market very obviously doesn't have any faith in, and let's see if someone has a pop. In their shoes I'd be discreetly sounding out the obvious suitors in an attempt to get some competitive tension going.
Putting that issue to one side, the past year cannot, under any circumstances, be seen as a success. In fact, the past two or three years have been pretty awful.

Bozi, absolutely I understand your argument, but I'm just not sure the current team is capable of delivering what you want.

Bozi, regardless of who was on our share register, the management was always destined to be on the 'defensive', as you put it. A small and insignificant explorer doesn't make a discovery of this magnitude without attracting the attention of companies which have the where-with-all to fully exploit the assets. If it wasn't BHP, it'd be someone else.
The key question about this team is, can they deliver a good deal to shareholders? I'm afraid I see no evidence to the effect they can.
Btw, interesting comment about people wanting to 'line their own pockets'. Just out of interest, what other reason is there to take risks in the stock market?

kat, according to Quady's argument Fauci is simply another of the 'buffoons' - along with many other scientists who are keeping an open mind.
It's interesting that Q's style of debate is always for him to find someone who supports his pre-disposition and to then roundly rubbish and insult anyone who may have an alternative opinion. And rather oddly he seems to think all scientists are expert in all branches of science, when quite patently they are not. It's a pity really - he is sometimes quite right in what he says, but he diminishes his argument by an arrogant and aggressive style which reveals himself as being anything other than open to reasoned discussion.

Cd, to be fair I think zoros was quoting a post on ADVFN and I'm not sure it's his post. There's been a guy on there posting this sort of stuff for a while.

Sorry, smick not stick.

I should add I've voted for the new bloke.

Stick, I understand your point but I also feel management of any company should be accountable and this is our opportunity to demonstrate our opinion. I'm not happy and believe they've had their chance. I know I'm probably in the minority and respect others views, but it's just the way I feel.

smick, I love the optimism! The last RNS stated an "update" would be provided at the agm; this clearly implies it won't be ready for release.
I took that announcement to mean they were having to undertake another fundamental review - whether they were barking up the wrong tree with the bells and whistles, and I wouldn't be telling the truth if I said this isn't worrying me, it is.

The simple fact is the board have failed to deliver the most important target they set for themselves - the PFS. And they've failed not once, but twice. I'm sorry, but when a board fails to deliver what they've promised, and this ignores the essential process of creating shareholder value (they've failed at that, as well), they no longer deserve the support of shareholders. My votes at the agm have been cast to reflect my opinion.

SM, it's a reasonable question but I'm guessing that if it was indeed a BHP motion, we would have been told.
My view is that this is a re-run of last year, but the company is far more confident of getting it passed, which in turn suggests it has the support of both CGP and NCM.

at the moment and to summarise the situation as it's emerged this week, we are sitting on an absolutely vast resource but we have a board who don't know how best to extract it. They've had two years looking at the question and yet are still unable to reach a conclusion.
Unless something else emerges before the agm, this observation is the most important one to make to the board.

RK, Twigger's comment was most definitely a "put up or shut up" call, so it'll be interesting to see how they respond. Personally, I don't see them slinking away with their tail between their legs - it's not what the world's largest miner does. Twigger has decided to take them on and a fight is looming.

SM, anyone with a 5% shareholding can demand a resolution be added to the agenda. It's often the case a company may choose to ignore the request in which case the shareholder can demand an EGM, which cannot be ignored.
As you know, Specials require at least 75% support.

SM, my understanding was that BHP were simply trying to force NM to stand for re-election. I do not equate NM's position on the board with BHP 'taking this company away from us'. I've said it before, NM's ability to prevent a low sale price lies with his shareholding, NOT with his position on the board.
It's patently obvious that BHP know far more than we do about what NM has been up to for the past year and it's equally obvious they don't approve. Sadly, we have no way of knowing what the reignited dispute relates to and, unless BHP decide to send an open letter to either the company or all shareholders, we won't know. I'd have though if they want to prevent the company from winning the Specials they would try to engage with us - so perhaps we'll see something from them next week.

Bozi, I won't disagree with that, but surely the Berry letter was merely a symptom of an underlying discontent, not the cause? As for the activities of BHP, I completely understand them. Equally, Twigger's letter will not have solved the problem; they will have exaggerated them. Perhaps he thought that was a good idea? Sorry, that shouldn't have been a question; he most obviously did think it was a good idea.

way you seek to polish this particular turd of a week, it's not been a good one for a board under fire and approaching an agm.

Bozi, I said "inanity", not "insanity". I was referring to you childish comment about RK and his "sidekicks"