Member Info for addicknt

The only type of business managers, at whatever level, who rely solely on facts and evidence are the bad ones, and we've all worked with that type. Dull, bureaucrats who spend their lives frustrating you at every turn.
You need imagination and forward thinking to either run a business, or to invest in one. Probabilities and possibilities must be constantly weighed and gut feel is similarly important. How else does a company thrive?

These BR trades are of absolutely no relevance whatsoever and have no impact on the real story and why people obsess about them is somewhat of a mystery to me.
p.s BNC, you may wish to check your spelling of "medalling". (wink emoji)

With reference to the Czech feeling towards Russia you need only bear one date in mind: 20th August 1968.

rcgl, I suspect your last paragraph is spot on.
CGP have been crystal clear in their views for a very long time. In the RNS they obviously extracted a compromise from the company which reflected their preferred solution and it's difficult to imagine that they will have had a sea change of opinion and are now content with the production route.

Quite right Jerry. Value is in the eye of the beholder, and as far as this situation is concerned, I can't see any circumstances whereby BHP will have to overpay...sadly.

some hope for you guys after all.
I see the company has lost the claim against the Orr-Ewing estate, which in turn may make the Chinese think twice. At least I hope so for your sake.

Excellent and thanks again, rcgl.
It reads as if the director option is carved out of the rest of the agreement in as much as there is no reference to the "Shareholder Support End Date" which applies to the other restrictions. I confess I find this very odd indeed and I'm surprised the company agreed to it, particularly as in all other respects the company got a damn good deal.

Thanks, rcgl.
I tried to find the relevant Sedar announcement and found their web site, which must have been designed in 1892, impossible to navigate.
I have no reason to doubt you, but what I find interesting about a broader agreement such as this i.e not time limited, is that it's so unusual in public companies. It happens in every private equity backed deal and similarly in private companies with several main shareholders, but I'm struggling to think of other examples in the public arena.

rcgl, the right to appoint a director are described by the company as "Rights under the SSA" Is it your opinion the SSA remains extant, or did it expire in October? Does the SSA describe the director option as being open-ended?

If such a situation pertains i.e ANY shareholder with 10% can nominate an NED, it will be contained within the Mem & Arts. I do not believe it does and in my experience it would be unique. These things are always separately agreed in a shareholders agreement and are not an automatic right.

Bozi, agreed, the wording was mis-leading and I've taken it to mean the whole agreement fell away in October, including the NED clause, although it's certainly open to an alternative interpretation.
However, I've no doubt if both NCM and BHP wanted an Ned they'd get one.

Q, you are genuinely hilarious. Let me correct you on just one of your many errors. You state that I believe there will be a bid after the PFS and yes, I do - but not necessarily immediately after. The PFS will act as a catalyst - it will provide a solid base for a bid, in as much as any potential bidder will, at long last, have a clear picture of what it is they're buying. Thus far, they do not.
You have been consistently wrong about the corporate issues surrounding this company and you completely misunderstood, and continue to do so, what happened last December. (I even recall you saying the lobbying we received in the run-up to the agm was no more than normal shareholder engagement when it was most obviously not)
For some one who claims to have been a hugely successful investor, and much else beside, for the past 40 years, it's astonishing how readily you mis-read the situation.
Keep dreaming Quady, you'll get there in the end.

If I am wrong about the BHP situation I apologise - however, I recall earlier this year when I made an observation to the effect that they still had the right, another poster on here proved conclusively that they did not. So, who knows?
My other points are correct.

BNC, no, that isn't the case.

Q, the automatic right to appoint an NED fell away in October, as did all other restrictions. I am fully aware they didn't take up the option and had explained my reasons as to why a long time ago.
The reasons for the resignation of the NCM director are now fully apparent and again, many of us understood why at the time of his departure.
As it stands, neither part has an automatic right and my suspicion is that they will not wish to do so as it restricts the ability to act freely. They are more than capable of exercising influence without having an NED on the board - as we witnessed in December.

CD, I believe BHP's automatic right to have an NED fell away last October when the standstill agreement ended.

Bozi, I agree with you - anything is possible, but surely this is all about the balance of probabilities? In my opinion there are too many external factors at work which will prevent the independent production route. It's not possible to look at the question of production without considering the other factors.

Ha, ha, Quady. Your whole argument relies upon that mistaken fallacy. Sorry, it's not the only thing you rely upon, the other is your complete misunderstanding of the nature of shareholder registers and shareholder behaviour.

Bozi, that's a fair point, but I'm not sure we fit into their general observation. I've always read their statement to refer to existing producers where they have no existing stake. We are in a completely different category, in as much as they are heavily invested, both metaphorically and literally.

Quady, of course I ignore your diverse book argument...it's a complete fallacy.
As for the BHP position, we don't need your logic to attempt to prove your argument, instead we simply apply common sense, which is what business people do. Mind you, I've always admired your "it hasn't happened in the past therefore it won't happen in the future" argument. It's very popular amongst the business community, especially those who've gone bust.

Jerry, sorry to have put you to all that trouble, it must have been an exhaustive search.

Bozi, BHP's comment related to general market valuations and not SOLG specifically. I'd find it difficult, as I suspect would anyone, to argue that we are currently overvalued. By the way, BHP have been making the same statement for quite some time now - at least 18 months, and it's obviously a ploy. At some stage they're going to have to enter the M&A market and they'll end up paying whatever the market dictates.
As it stands, we are cheap and this was the point I made earlier. I should add, and this is where I agree with Quady, even at £1 we are cheap; but I have no doubt they'd manage to buy us at that level.