Member Info for addicknt

Quady, this is an honest question: Do you think the significant number of auto trades we've had over the past four or five days is a large shareholder selling? If not, what do you think is going on?

...or lack thereof.
There's no way this can now be classified as normal, is there?

Jerry, you and I have been singing from the same hymn sheet on NCM for some while and I agree this makes their long term involvement here even less likely.

Jerry, no they wouldn't.

CD re options. Well said.

2Luke, I suspect the answer is that in the very short term very little would happen. However, over the medium term it would be very interesting to see if NM then started acting as an 'activist' investor and put forward his own proposals, which may involve some type of corporate activity. Who knows, he may make an offer to buy out everything other than Cascabel?
One thing's for sure; he wouldn't just sit back and play a bit more golf and perhaps that's the reason the board wants to keep him round the table - they don't fancy the idea of him being outside the tent pishing in.

BBG, I realise rational discussion is not your forte, but why don't you have a go at explaining why my comments are wrong?

I confess that if NM were to face re-election, this time round, I would not vote for him.
Some of you express the view that his presence on the board is preventing BHP from 'getting the company on the cheap'. This is not the case. The thing which will help prevent that is his shareholding, not his position on the board.
The reason I say I'd vote against is that I see his continued direct involvement as a major distraction. I believe that ,for whatever reason, some of our major shareholders are using this as a stick to beat us with (they know more than we do about what goes on in the company). Additionally, I feel the market doesn't like the fact the issue keeps emerging and specifically doesn't like the uncertainty it's causing. Two key reasons for him to step aside.

Italian, that would be my guess as well.

Of this page it reports that Twigger, Moller and Ward will not put themselves forward for re-election. The report was dated today.
The alternatives are either I'm misreading it, the reporter has misread the RNS or this is a new development. Thoughts?

strange looking mass of AT trades in the last hour or so. I don't know enough about the technicalities of trading - anyone care to have a stab?

Rich, agreed. In my opinion the letter raised very many questions and provided none of the answers, hence my earlier comment about wanting complete clarity from all sides.

one sentence in Twigger's letter which screams out of the page; 'further destabilise the company'. Implication; the company was already destabilised.
Not encouraging, is it? And how long has this destabilisation been going on and how has it manifested itself?
Peace had been declared, but appears to have prevailed for only a few months and it now appears we have a split in the board to contend with as well.

TheItalian, BHP's interests were initially aligned with ours, in as much as they wanted to find out whether Cascabel truly was a great discovery...in other words their investment was effectively punt money and was designed to give them the toe hold if things turned out well.
Of course, once it was proven to be a really significant discovery their interest shifted and now they're seen as the obvious acquirer with an agenda which has only one objective...ownership.
The problem is that from the moment we took their money this was only to be expected. It's blindingly obvious they've never had any interest in being minority shareholders, and until they're ready to move they've been able to exert influence without being in control - as the last agm and subsequent events have proved.
I've lost count of the number of times I've talked to business owners about the pros and cons of taking a trade partner onboard as a shareholder and, unless there was no alternative, I've always advised against. I've also been down this route with my own companies and made the mistake once and vowed never to do it again.
I fully understand why we accepted their offer to fund us, but I do wonder if we ever really examined the downside? Anyway, the chickens have come home to roost and our board must make the best of a very tricky situation.

I should add that it's not just BHP who owe us an explanation, the board does as well.
The flow of information this year has been lamentably poor. As the year has progressed the impression is of a board all at sea (whether that's justified or not is immaterial, it's the external impression which matters, hence the unrest) It seems inconceivable that they are not sitting on a huge amount of relevant news and I can only conclude they're holding it back for defence purposes - what other explanation is there?
Once the agm notice is given, I'm hoping that both sides will release sufficient news/opinions to enable us shareholders to make a proper informed decision and that we don't end up having to rely on interpretation and reading between the lines. They need to come clean and the time for further obfuscation has long passed.

Quady, you're right, he's not standing, but that's exactly what this fuss is all about.
My view of his ongoing influence post-December last year appeared to be shared by our major shareholders - they said as much. However, it's quite clear it didn't work out that way. Therefore, I don't agree with your observation that this has nothing to do with him.
I'm also of the opinion that having him lurking around is one of the reasons we've found finding a new ceo so difficult. I wouldn't work as ceo in an environment with a backseat driver sitting around the boardroom table and I don't imagine many would fancy it either.
I'm also slightly mystified by the assertion that it's only Mather who stands in the way of a low BHP bid - I give the rest of the board far more credit than that and have no doubt whatsoever that Twigger is no push-over in this respect.
I've already said I'll probably vote in support of our board, but I'm really disappointed this issue has arisen again. I had hoped we had resolved our difficulties, but it appears not and the longer the discontent rumbles on the less chance we have of seeing our share price reflect anything like fair value.
The ball is in BHP's court and they have to explain their thinking and plans for the future. They can't simply expect people to support them unless they lay out in detail what their objections are and why they've arisen.

anyone have any feel for which directors form the minority who favour the re-election process?
I'm guessing their motivation is that they believe there's too much shareholder discontent with the ongoing role of Mather and it would be best to put his popularity to the test again. Of course, there's some merit in this approach as, one way or another, it would lay the argument to bed.
Whatever the reasons, having a spilt board on something as fundamental as governance, is doing us no favours whatsoever.

Q, indeed I did, although I think I was expressing my hope that they were working together harmoniously rather than what the runes were telling us. All we've had to go on this year was the RNS stating that we were now sitting around the table with them and were working cooperatively; self-evidently that wasn't the case, sadly. My hopes were probably naive.
As for the roadshow, my assumption is that it's already happened and BHP weren't happy - hence their lobbying of other shareholders.

BHP want to persuade private investors to vote with them, and they will need to, they will have to release some form of letter to shareholders explaining exactly what their concerns are.
For the past few months it's been patently obvious that all is not well, but we small investors have been kept completely in the dark, so now is the time for each party to lay their cards on the table. BHP should lay out in detail their plans, both for board composition and their longer term strategic thoughts. If they fail to do so they should not expect to receive our support.
I have no doubt we'll be hearing from Irwin and CGP in due course and it will interesting to see where they sit.
After twelve months of utter tedium we are in for a fascinating six weeks.

Thank you Bozi, he was a wonderful bloke and is hugely missed. He was a fairly prominent individual and had a very moving and splendid memorial service last week at Westminster Abbey. He was 64 and our regular friends lunches are all the poorer from his absence. It was great to have his wife join us today.
I accept your point about my production jibe, but I guess I made the comment because I've seen this coming for a very long time - as you will be aware.
I had hoped the company had managed to heal the rift with BHP, but it's quite clear the management were unable to deliver what they had committed to - what other explanation is there? This begs the question, what is it they failed to deliver which BHP expected of them? My guess is the timetable, senior management appointments, and I also expect they are not happy with Mather's ongoing role.
I know some people think I argue the BHP case, but that isn't true. I simply see it as it is - we a small and highly vulnerable company with several large and angry shareholders and our failure to placate them has spelt the end for this company as an independent business.
Although I'll need to consider the resolutions and arguments in detail - and I expect we will see some reaction from BHP to this very public fit of pique from our management, my immediate response is to say I'll vote with the management, for one simple reason - it'll force BHP's hand, and about time too.
Our management were given the chance to prove their case and, according to BHP, they have failed. It's also clear that quite a few of the investors on here feel the same way.
We cannot continue like this and one thing is absolutely cast iron guaranteed, we won't. We've had our chance and we've blown it.