Member Info for addicknt

RK, my hope and expectation is that the share price will have moved north before a process starts, but in order for that to happen the company is going to have to pull its finger out and deliver some interesting news; heaven alone knows there's plenty out there, or least there should be.

Come on RK, you've been around long enough to understand situations like this.

RK, why do you assume it would be less?

rcgl, that's why you always hope to get an irrevocable undertaking from the directors/other major shareholders and, for obvious reasons, it isn't easy.

Btw, I should add that to me this explains why no one else has bid i.e because thus far it's blatantly obvious BHP remain wholly committed. Were there any indication they weren't I suspect someone would have made overtures.

BBG, it's done all the time. A deal would be agreed and announced, followed by an acceptance period (assuming its for the entire issued share capital). It would come with a recommendation from the board and a commitment from those directors that they'll be accepting the offer.
Of course, during the Offer Period, anyone can still bid and the directors, unless they've given irrevocable undertakings, can change their minds. However, any third party bidder will have to take into account the percentage of shares owned by those parties who've agreed to the deal as to whether it's worth their while. If it's BHP bidding and let's say NCM have accepted, as well as NM, it's game over.
As for the director recommendation, they would be duty bound to test out the market via our advisors, as to whether there is any serious interest from other third parties. My view is that unless BHP had signalled they were no longer interested, any potential bidder would consider it a waste of time and money.

DBW, I agree. But as I've said repeatedly, I don't think we'll end up in a bidding process (I hope we do, but I just can't see it at the moment). I'm convinced it will be an agreed deal of some form.

It's my belief that the charm offensive launched by the company after the agm defeat was aimed at preventing a cheap offer, but it came at the expense of Mather's job, a promise not to seek any more funding from Franco/others and a demand that we repair the fractured relationship with CGP. From our point of view I suspect we extracted a commitment to support the next funding round and to give the company space to move towards the pfs. I have no idea how the shareholders feel about the inability of the company to fill the roles of CEO and CFO - they either don't care because they don't believe it's necessary or, they are not happy, which may explain the CG roadshow.
As far as the big picture is concerned the main dynamic remains - BHP are not here, and neither did they participate in the last funding round, simply to hold a minority stake.

'the truce was forced on the company by BHP and Newcrest...' Sounds about right.

rcgl, you're right, NM is not up for re-election and decisions about committee structures are a matter for the board. However, just as technical point, a large shareholder can table any motion it so wishes. If someone wants a vote on any NED they can table a motion accordingly. Personally, I'd be astonished if we see this at the next agm, but reading between the lines, my guess is that there may be some dissatisfaction with the current situation.

BBG, are you wholly unable to understand what people are saying? Or are you pis*ed every time you post? Or maybe you're simply deranged.

Bozi, I'm hazarding a guess that your post was directed at me? If not, I apologise.
I'm sorry to say I disagree with virtually everything you say.
There is something fundamentally wrong with where the company is at the moment and specifically with the governance of the company. We are leaderless, and have been for most of this year - this is totally unacceptable and perhaps you could give an example of another main market listed company which has failed similarly.
The announcement of shareholder engagement on the issue is simultaneously a recognition that something is amiss (normal, happy companies don't feel obliged to do this sort of thing and particularly not in response to a public letter from a small disgruntled shareholder) and was also mishandled very badly indeed.
You may be critical of my/others analysis of the situation, but I'd suggest our criticism is absolutely justified.

RK, thanks for the reply.

anon, good post. As far as NM is concerned, the moment it was announced he was staying on I raised the concern that his continued presence would muddy the waters and would make life difficult for anyone taking on the role. This seems to have come to pass.
He must resign his NED position and the sooner the better.

We all know there's only one thing which will move the share price significantly, and it isn't the PFS, another MRE, drilling results, jvs on the unexplored tenements (whatever happened to those?), or any reassurances on corporate governance.

CD, actually it wasn't; I really don't know the answers. I can guess, but that's not the same thing.
I should probably let this rest as I know I'm flogging a dead horse ( I don't mean RK, but the company who seem intent on keeping us in the dark)

Question: what do you think is the real reason for these governance roadshows? And why does the company feel they are necessary?

mog, exactly!
At the time of the last agm there was supposedly an opportunity to ask questions, as there always should be. When I tried to lodge a question the tech didn't work and since there were no other questions, I can only assume other people faced the same problem. My cynical mind made me think this was deliberate, but that would just be a conspiracy theory, wouldn't it?

RK, no I'm not. Institutional presentations are different and are necessary. There are other ways of communicating with small private investors which are less open to misrepresentation and confusion. I take it you accept that yesterday rather proves the point?

RK, I hope you understood my position on this? I was not critical of you nor of your efforts over recent months to talk to the company. My concern was entirely directed at the company.
As for the next time - I hope the company no longer indulges in this form of shareholder communication, that it heeds the reaction on here and adjusts accordingly.