Member Info for addicknt

I note you appear to have changed tack. You now tell us they'll try to get as much as possible through placings, whereas previously you've always maintained they will be happy with their minority stake. You've been telling us for donkeys years we can fund this without BHP - it seems the scales have fallen from your eyes.
As for a bidding war, I think you'll find I've been of the opinion it'll never happen, and have said so on countless occasions. Bhp will end up with either the whole thing or at least 80% of Cascabel. Frankly, it would be a total disaster for us to keep 20% and we'd get a far better price by selling the project in its entirety.

Quady, what is it about the bleedin' obvious that confuses you?

Thanks for posting, DBW.
Does anyone else think BHP have shifted their stance in public pronouncements? Not long ago i.e a few weeks, they were talking about cheap production assets, refusing to overpay, etc. And now here they are seemingly prepared to take significant risks in dubious regions (Congo).
I recall posting something along the lines that they would have no choice other than to take more risk and, in my opinion, if they were serious about wanting more "future facing " minerals, their strategy looked weak an unsustainable. It really didn't take a genius to see the fatal flaw and, since I don't think they are stupid, it's pretty obvious that their previous statements looked to be an attempt to assuage any market concerns that they were about to pursue another reckless acquisition spree. Life has moved on pretty quickly.
In any event, as if we needed any further proof of their intentions concerning SOLG, this is yet another plank in the argument.

DBW, I'm sure you're aware that the stats produced in that article are not proof of institutional buying; two of them are nominees.
Periodically this info is produced and remarkably some people still take it seriously.

As you say DBW, everything hangs on that "understanding". The very fact there was one tells us something's bound to happen soon (ish)

SM, if they had no interest in pursuing this further they wouldn't have stood their corner in the last placing.

Talatum, as each day passes and more and more industry experts give their views on the copper market, the more obvious the outcome here becomes. It not's a question of if, merely one of when.

mogg, I can hear Q's mind whirring ; "Ah, but two weren't"
Q, I'm afraid you last post makes no sense. The answer is, if you were preparing to sell you'd establish the most tax efficient vehicle via which to conclude the transaction. And before you say anything, I accept this is the vehicle they wish to use to raise finance. But raising finance is not synonymous with not selling.

Ha! Good point!

RK, so they say. My problem with this, apart from the obvious need to have a CEO who will stamp his authority on the company (an interim can never do this), is that it's yet another example of the company making statements with regard to dates which it never complies with.
Over the years I've lost count on the number of times this has happened, and it's not the sort of behaviour the market forgets. I'd hoped the demise of Mather may have changed the corporate culture, but it appears I was wrong. It would be so much better if they kept their mouths shut until such time as they can actually release news. The handling of Mather's departure was poorly managed and we are still trapped in the same cycle of missed deadlines. It does little to instil confidence. I also feel that one of the problems is that too many staff members make statements in public - at various conferences etc, which do not appear to be endorsed by the company. Again, there are too many to count. And I mean no disrespect to you, but this drip drip of information your source provides is, quite frankly, outrageous. Mind you, I take my hat off to you for putting in the effort.
This pattern of behaviour MUST stop.

RK, whilst I agree the various theories about a takeover preventing the appointment are a bit far-fetched, I do not agree that the delay in announcing is being caused by 'gardening leave'. As you'll be aware, it's a very regular occurrence for a company to announce an appointment and to add the caveat that the new candidate is bound by the terms of his or hers current employment. In fact, if an agreement has been reached under such circumstances I'm pretty sure it's counts as being price sensitive and needs to be made public. As I say, this happens on a very regular basis.
My view is that we've struggled to find the right candidate, which in part may have been caused by the very buoyant conditions within the mining sector.

The announcement is now on the company's web site and it looks very promising indeed. It also states that the assays are due in the "coming weeks".

DBW, the CEO situation is a strange one. It's either a result of the company not wanting one (seems a bit unlikely to me), or they've really struggled to find someone, which in my opinion, is far more likely. As to why they've struggled - who knows?
Either way, taking nearly nine months to find someone is not helping us at all.

ToS, I've just checked the Stock Exchange site. The highest price appears to have been 28.9p on 2nd Jan 2011 and it fell throughout the year.

ToS, not according to HL it wasn't. Of course, they may be wrong, in which case I'll retract the comment.

Let's assume you bought some time in 2011. Throughout that period the sp was sub-10p. So, pray explain - how have you failed to make money?
If you want to come on here and spout bullsh', I suggest you pick a topic which is less easy to verify.

Q, the AG relates to funding already in situ. Hope that clears it up for you.

RK, quite right! And good work on the AG.

Re: Mr Bushell.
I note that if you establish a company in Switzerland you have to have at least one Swiss national on the board. I guess he has Swiss nationality and fulfils that requirement.
I also see that Bluecrest appears not to trade in unprocessed ore. Its main interests are in refined products such as cathodes, anodes, copper cement and scrap. I would have thought trading in unrefined product is difficult when you're competing with the likes of Glencore and Trafigura.
None of this gets us any further forward in trying to understand this very interesting development, but it provides a bit more background.
Again, many thanks to rcgl for spotting it.

I agree, BBG, this has all the hallmarks of a clever move to circumvent some of the tax issues suggested by Mather as being an impediment.
I seem to recall BCN did a similar thing when it was thought they could raise the funding for Sonora.