Member Info for addicknt

RK, but why has it been felt necessary?

I think this whole saga is completely baffling and am struggling to believe it simply concerns matters of corporate governance.
What have they done, or not done, which has necessitated a "roadshow" to certain investors and "other stakeholders"? (I assume they mean Franco) Have these investors expressed concern? Why haven't they been able to sort out the issues themselves? If there's an undercurrent of discontent, why have CGP been so uncharacteristically silent? Why did it take a letter from a very minor player to provoke the board into this response? Are there serious divisions at board level and they're responding by seeking the support of major shareholders in order to effect major change? How long is this process going to take and is it causing further delays in getting on with the real business of the company? Is the company proposing something completely radical and is actually using the roadshow to explain their intentions and garner support?
There are so many unanswered questions and in the meantime we private investors are left totally in the dark wondering what on earth is happening to our investment.

The idea that the company is talking to our major shareholders about whether the it's 44 or 50% compliant strikes me as being utterly unbelievable and frankly, rather ridiculous.
The must be other matters on the agenda.

Bozi, the other night you asked for evidence of shareholder engagement. I take it this announcement proves the point?

When it finally comes to revealing the outcome of these consultations, the board had better come up with something convincing, otherwise I think it'd be safe to say they're going to be looking pretty vulnerable. By releasing the RNS they've made themselves hostages to fortune, as failure to produce something meaningful, or nothing at all, which given the track record wouldn't be surprising, exposes them terribly.
Sadly, this is becoming a farce. We're sitting on something pretty damned amazing, but which is being managed by people who can't even address the most basic issues of leadership and governance. What on earth have they been doing for the past nine months?

RK, it does tell us something new. They are having to explain themselves to the major shareholders. But I agree, it's a disgraceful announcement.

Ship, a damn good question. Maybe it was an afterthought.

Oh dear, oh dear. What an awful RNS.
First of all they obviously felt so deeply defensive about a two-bit letter from some back street outfit that they felt it necessary to respond. Why? Well, I guess it must have hit a raw nerve.
But the key question is why they feel it necessary to talk to the major shareholders about governance. We had been assured that the new appointments were sufficient and now, at long last, the company complied with the various governance codes. Clearly, people don't believe they do.
And why, if we are only a matter of days away from announcing the CEO appointment (cough, cough), do they feel this needs to be discussed with shareholders? Perhaps it confirms the view they have no intention of appointing one because life is about to change and that they need to explain what's going on.
Frankly, this makes the board look like fools - rudderless, directionless and impotent. It's time for change. I admit, I'm appalled.

Quady, I particularly enjoyed the revelation that you're now engaged in a new project of such significance that were you to reveal its nature we would know who you were. Don't tell me - you're to become the new James Bond.
Anyway, you've promised to reduce your level of interaction on here, and despite having said this many times before, I'm sure I speak for many when I say I welcome the decision.

Bozi, you raise a good point i.e where is the evidence of greater co-operation?
I suppose we can only go on what the company has said in two rather unusual announcements; one relating to the major shareholders are the other specifically referencing CGP. Having gone to the trouble of making this public, surely it's safe to assume our management team are being true to their word? Equally, I also think it's reasonable to assume that had the company failed to adjust their behaviour accordingly, we would have heard something from CGP/Irwin.
So, although nothing tangible has so far emerged, I believe the board are adhering to their word.
Last year the board pushed our shareholders too far (whether we as private investors supported the approach or not - we are irrelevant) and they paid the price. It seems inconceivable to me they would chance their arm again.

Bozi, I'm afraid I fundamentally disagree. Everything has changed and did so in December last year. Slight correction; it changed the moment BHP originally subscribed.

Quady, you really don't understand the corporate world at all, do you? Amazing for a man who is supposedly as brilliant as you.

Interesting note from these people, but the fact is they are a small back street operation which made a loss last year. In other words, I can't see our blokes taking the slightest bit of notice.

Quady, don't be daft. The reason for the decision was patently obvious. Still, the obvious has never been your strong point, has it?

Bozi, I take your point, but do you not think matters have changed significantly over the past five years?

I'd say the copper price has a far more interesting long term future than gold and it'll be easier to justify a more bullish number in the PFS. ABN are predicting $1500 for gold by the end of next year. Anything over that in our PFS and it may open us to criticism.

DBW, neither do I think they'll get it for peanuts, but I'm taking a realistic view of where the influence now lies (in fact, it always lay with BHP, but some people didn't realise it).

DBW, BHP got exactly what they wanted and yes, they did stop the second drawdown of the Franco deal. Life has changed beyond all recognition from last year and the levers of power are plain to see.

One thing is absolutely for sure, the management are not sitting on their arses doing nothing. There are developments on so many fronts ; exploration, PFS, Porvenir MRE, etc. And most importantly, on the corporate front. We gave a commitment to CGP and I have no doubt the board are working hard to honour that commitment. This stuff all takes a lot of time, particularly with so many balls in the air and so many potential routes to value creation.
I'm as frustrated as everyone else, particularly with regards to the CEO appointment, or lack thereof, but I understand just how long corporate deals take.

RK, what has the share price got to do with it?

Their RNS was interesting for many reasons, but of particular note are the price assumptions for gold and copper. I suspect when our time comes we'll be looking at something similar.

Grim, to be fair, the translation issue wasn't a question of missing a deadline, it was simply a lie.