Member Info for addicknt

Q, I won't get into the age old conversation but I'll make one observation about your post; the company has never said it will defend against all offers. It is patently obvious from what they have said that they will entertain any serious offer.

ET, agreed, but the headline of this thread seems to be misleading.
The article implies the money will be invested/lent over a ten year period. If this is indeed the case, it will form only a very small part of the required funds.
We await full details with great interest.

This is really interesting news, although heaven knows how/why the company allowed it to leak.
Obviously we need full details, but one thing's for sure; if the government is putting up the cash then it will much more difficult for BHP/NCM to complain in the way they did when Franco came on board. So the question is, how will they react?
As has been said many times, the next few weeks are going to fascinating.
Schlem, I simply don't believe the new CEO is a BHP stooge. Think about it, we are in a very public spat with them, so why would we appoint someone who would take their side? The contention makes no sense whatsoever.

Novice, get a grip. If significant equity is involved it will require shareholder approval. If it's debt, what is the structure and cost?

Fascinating stuff but what does it actually mean? How has this been leaked without an announcement from the company? Does it require shareholder approval?
So many questions.

DBW, do you think a fight is being lined up between the company, CGP and possibly others against BHP? If so, do you think CGP are using this as a ploy to get BHP to react?

Quady, agreed, and although it is the case that something strange has been happening with regard to the trading patterns, it does only appear to be normal trading. I'm certain if the company thought something was going on they would have reported it ages ago.

Bozi, I agree with much of your post at 17:44, but I'm not sure about the comment suggesting some people may have malign motivations.
I've been reading financial bbs' since 1999 when I signed up to iii and over the intervening years it's become relatively easy to spot those who are trying to manipulate a stock, whether acting as ramper, or the reverse. There have been some pretty spectacular examples in that period: there was one on the QPP board who was very obviously in the pay of the company and similarly a bloke on SOU was highly suspicious. However, I don't see it here.
Sure, there are some who may post critical observations; indeed, I have done so many times. But from where I sit these are not motivated by anything other than a wish to protect their investments and a general frustration with the company. It seems to me that everyone on here is interested in one thing only - to make money, and although we may have different views about the best way to achieve that ambition, we are all rowing in the same direction. So I'm really not sure how helpful it is to suggest people are "in the pay of BHP" etc, etc, particularly as the concept of BHP resorting to such infantile behaviour is completely laughable.
Many of us have a great deal of money tied up here and our only hope is to ensure we get a decent return.

No Grim, I'm not. If you thought carefully about the reason given you'd understand that the 'destabilisation' he refers to has been caused by the constitution of the board. Therefore, if they are not put up for re-election the issue will not go away and we'll continue to see this destabilisation will continue for the next 12 months.
Surely, it's better to get it all out there and get a definitive answer?

Grim, they're typically used to transact a large trade which the market would not absorb all in one go. If this is indeed the case, we've had a large seller who's been liquidating their position over a lengthy period. But it can't have been someone who owns a declarable stake because we haven't had holding notifications.

It's interesting that Twigger, in his opening sentence, states that the UK Corporate Governance Code best practice is that every director should face re-election every year unless there are 'clearly articulated and compelling reasons not to do so'.
His 'clearly articulated and compelling reasons' are that the directors who are not being put forward for re-election were elected 12 months ago. Well, yes, they were. But under the code they should also be up for re-election this year as well. That's the whole point of the code.
In essence he's claiming we are meeting the governance code when quite clearly we are not. Surely he understood that when he penned this statement? Is it any wonder he was forced to conduct a governance roadshow?
This issue is damaging us and really needs to be resolved once and for all. Whatever good work was done earlier in the year in terms of repairing our relationship with BHP has been undone and is exposing us badly. I can only conclude he's very worried various directors would not get re-elected, which in itself is concerning.

smickster, as he will as a shareholder. Regardless of whether he's on the board or not, it's inconceivable that he wouldn't be closely consulted by the board - as indeed will all main shareholders.

smickster, I've mentioned this before, NM will influence the valuation by virtue of his shareholding, not his presence on the board.

Bozi, indeed he did win the re-election, but that was never the point. A public company CEO cannot have 46% of shareholders opposed to his continued involvement, particularly when those shareholders are the largest on the register. This is a fact.
With regard to the lobbying issue, your memory is failing you. It was said loudly and often. I did not suggest you'd said the re-election was a triumph - I simply said others most certainly did. I'm not conflating your comments with those of other people - you're more intelligent than that.
Anyway, this is ancient history and I'm much more interested in how events are going to unfold in the coming weeks. We had all hoped we were working collaboratively and to me, it's a great shame we are so clearly not.

Bozi, I have no memory of what you may, or may not, have said about NM's removal, but it is disingenuous to suggest that Quady and others merely stated he had won the vote. They spent months arguing it had been a "triumph" (that's direct quote, btw) and even when he "resigned", they continued to argue until blue in the face that it had been voluntary and was all part of a grand succession plan. Bear in mind the same people were saying that the lobbying we were subjected to this time last year was all part of "normal investor relations" and most certainly wasn't part of an attempt to get us on side in a bitter battle which was so obviously being waged.

CD, I'm not sure Twigger was seeking sympathy, but I do believe he was trying to provoke some form of reaction from BHP. In fact, I can't think of any other realistic reason why he did it. Was this the moment he was effectively saying to them "p**s or get off the pot"?

BBG, your idiocy is a work of wonder. I know this will be a struggle for you but, for the second time of asking, please explain what you think I meant by my comment in which I congratulated Twigger for revealing the details of BHP's conversations. Try to engage the very few brain cells you have floating around in that vast void between your ears.

RK, you describe 'the mess the chairman has made', but in my opinion he very deliberately released the details of those conversations. The decision to do so would not have been taken lightly and would have involved all of the directors, our lawyers and Citi; so the question is, why did he do it?

That's because you consistently misunderstand what people say.

In terms of smoothing ruffled feathers he's going to have his work cut out. I imagine BHP were less than happy that Twigger mentioned their behind the scenes conversations with other shareholders, but well done for doing so. Repairing that damage will take a lot of work and I guess BHP will be in no mood for compromise.