Member Info for addicknt

Bozi, I'm quite surprised to see you descend to BBG levels of inanity.

orthern, the problem we and the market has, is that there is no real measure of value. The PFS will provide a guide, but even that will not reflect what this is worth to someone like BHP. Ultimately, it will come down to the age-old willing buyer, willing seller argument. And of course, the Alpala PFS will not include any of the hope value attached to our other interests.

RK, it doesn't matter what Mr Waite says, the RNS says something else and is quite specific. I suspect he didn't give it too much thought.

CD, I suppose the way to have dealt with the Tandy issue would have been to include it in the DFS? Unless, of course, they intend to use the PFS as a valuation benchmark for a sale?
I think the CEO thing is, to a degree, a red herring and even the company didn't cite it as the main reason for the delay.

Monte, there's a bloke on ADVFN who's been suggesting your last point. Of course, the reason they've had to spend a whole year re-thinking was that the numbers didn't work first time round and the "improvements" were designed to make sure they did. So, why revise the thinking now?
This is why I made my point earlier this morning: they've provided no narrative to explain this and as a consequence, yet again, the market is left guessing - which is never a good thing. I'm afraid our board is clinically incapable of being open and transparent.
By the way, I see Rio has excited Liberum so much they've simply re-iterated their 44p target.

Or maybe they've realized they were completely barking up the wrong tree?
They didn't simply mention one element of the potential "improvements", they included the whole lot.

DBW, but that wasn't what they said. They have directly referred to the appropriateness of including the revised elements they've spent a year investigating.

I find it interesting that none of you appear to be asking the most basic question: what lies behind the reasons given for the delay? What precisely has stopped them in their tracks when we were apparently so close to it being completed?

I thought he'd been too quiet. In one pithy statement he has summarised the situation perfectly.

all been trying to interpret yesterday's announcement and there have been numerous variations on the theme. However, perhaps we should instead simply take at face value what the company has said ( given the track record, I know this is very difficult).
The original reason given for the delay last year was so that a raft of additional factors could be included in the PFS which would enhance the outcome. We have now been told that the decision to include them or not is now under review. This is what the announcement amounts to. It doesn't appear to suggest the company wants to include more results from Tandy, but is more of a fundamental review of how we can go about producing the best result from Alpala, if indeed we can.
Obviously, the key questions are why has this arisen and why has it taken a full year to reach the point where such a critical re-think is necessary? What has happened? Has the revised approach been deemed to yet another wrong tree to bark up? Has our new man had a look at it all and suggested it's not the best way to go about things?
As ever with this company, and to be fair this is also true of many companies, the announcement left a great deal hanging out there. There was no supporting narrative and consequently the board has left itself wide open to criticism.
Yesterday was an opportunity to be crystal clear, but they chose not to take it and I confess i'm completely confused by the whole sorry saga.

Some people seem to be saying BHP will simply sit back and wait for us to lose the license. If that were the case, why have they invested millions so far? They wouldn't have bothered, would they?

RK, I mentioned the board re-election thing the other day and the fact is it's an appalling decision and flies in the face of everything they've been saying throughout this year. It is little wonder they had to traipse around shareholders begging for support on governance issues. This is no way to run a company and Twigger will no longer get my vote.
I noted that yesterday you said news was coming and you bought more shares. I assume this came from your source? If I were you, I'd stop talking to the bloke - he keeps feeding you total b***shyte.

copper, of course you are right, this is a long term project, but can you not see why today's announcement throws the board's competence into question?

Was this the boardroom narrative over a year ago?: "Okay lads, it looks as if Crux had a point and we're going to have to come up with some better ideas. Let's spend a whole bunch of money and time investigating all sorts of bells and whistles which will undoubtedly improve the PFS.
One whole year later: "Okay lads, it appears those excellent ideas weren't so excellent after all. We'd better tell our shareholders the bad news. Anyone got any ideas on what we can blame this time? We've used the covid one a bit too often and we got away with that translator nonsense for long enough, so we'll have to think of something new"
A voice from the back: "I told you this would happen if you kicked me out of my job. So why don't we blame it on that new bloke who hasn't even got his feet under his desk? By the way, I'm still available if you want me"
"Great idea, no one will mind, let's go for it"
This crew are proving themselves to be wholly inept and I'm with CD about re-thinking my voting intentions.

What a surprise! Not.

RK, one of the businesses I ran was up on Tyneside and I spent two or three nights a week at the Grand. The view over the beach first thing in the morning was stunning and a good walk after work cleared the head. Sad to say, the food at the hotel was crap, but there was an excellent Indian in the town. It always amazed me to see the surfers out there even on the coldest of winter days.

I should declare my current thinking: I am definitely voting against Moller. I do not like the relationship he has with the company and can see no further need for his presence at the boardroom table.
As far as the Specials are concerned I haven't made up my mind. As a matter of principle I dislike handing directors these powers as I feel shareholders should always be consulted (this applies to all companies, not just SOLG). However, in this instance, if it's passed and BHP are against (this implies the company knows it has the support of NCM/CGP) it may provoke them into some form of response i.e a bid.
It seems very unlikely to me that on this occasion the company hasn't consulted the main shareholders - if they haven't it would be madness; unless they were looking for a fight. If they have to withdraw the resolutions again, it would be beyond embarrassing, therefore I'm sure they have. I'm also guessing that they have something specific in mind; perhaps they're going to issue the Chinese with another 5/10%? Again, this would surely get BHP off the pot? So, I'm still uncertain which way to go.

SM agreed. In fact and for some reason, when I thought about it I'm pretty sure we'd already been told about it.
Separately, how are you guys going to vote at the agm?

the signing of this deal/understanding is so important it doesn't even warrant an RNS?

fair to say this announcement has caused more than a little confusion. Let's hope we have an RNS tomorrow which gives us the full details.