Member Info for addicknt

Interesting that Bozi remembers it then, isn't it smickster? And he is right...unlike you.

Bozi, I didn't answer your final question.
It is vanishingly rare for a CEO of a public company to publicly state his company is vulnerable to takeover and I've never seen one say it simply to create 'competitive tension' in order to attract investors. More often than not a CEO will deny that this is the case, even if it's true. The reason for this is that it often reflects the fact he's run the business badly, and which CEO wants to admit that?
A CEO's job is to persuade investors of the strength of the investment case based upon it's prospects for success, not that it's in a weak position and vulnerable to predators. Clearly, there are investors who will only show interest as a result of the prospect of a takeover, but they tend not to be the type of investor a company wants on it's register...they are fickle and unreliable.
Mather and now Marshall's comments were simply a recognition of the truth; we have fantastic resources and others want them. Their honesty is to be admired.

Bozi, I have previously explained at length why I considered the CGP offer was ridiculous and there's no need to do so again, other than to say it was a truly awful deal for us and thank heavens they rejected it.
My concern about the Franco deal was that it would lead us into conflict with our main shareholders, which I considered to be ill-advised. I was right as NM found out to his cost. And please don't forget, I voted in favour of Mather's re-election.
Smickster you simply don't merit a response.

By the way, Quady is also wrong to say I was one of the people who argued that a bid would immediately emerge at the termination of the standstill agreement.

Bozi, my comment today referred to the refreshing new approach that KM appears to have brought to shareholder communication and how this is an improvement on what we had bevome used to from NM. This appears to have been the unanimous opinion of contributors to this bb. And yet you single me out for criticism.
The fact is we see the world very diffetently and you seemingly take this very personally.
I note that Quady has just popped up saying I don't listen to the company. Perhaps he'd care to admit just how wrong he's been. The diverse book argument has been destroyed by KM's own admission and production will not start in 2025. Has Quady admitted the error of his thought processes? No, of course he hasn't - he never does.

Okay Bozi, tell me exactly what I have said today that has upset your sensibilities or is factually incorrect.

You know what to do then. Follow Quady's lead and filter me.
By the way, it's not based on experience but common sense - something you sadly lack.

Bozi, by sticking the boot in I assume you mean stating the truth?
You'll eventually understand it.

Red, I most certainly am not implying he would lie, simply that he is in no position to say anything other than we're not in discussions. But that isn't and hasn't been my point; which is that we need to be. And just to confirm; I've like everything the bloke has said so far and he's a breath of fresh air compared to the previous incumbent.

Red, yes, I did, but then again I wouldn't expect to admit to the fact if we were...it's price sensitive information.
And if we aren't, it's my opinion that should we wish to retain a degree of independence, we should be talking to people, specifically BHP. The one thing we both know is that this isn't fundable on our own.

RK, you forgot one: Interim CEO admits company is vulnerable to takeover, thereby demolishing the "diverse book " drivel.

After years of fluff, how refreshing to be given a clear picture of where we are and what we've got to look forward to, particularly the Porvenir MRE. And thank you Zoros for the synopsis and timeline.

After the most recent RNS we were assured by the radical wing of the Productionistas that Alpala would be in production by 2025 and dividends would be forthcoming shortly thereafter. I can only hope this presentation finally puts that argument to bed. Even if we were able to fund the project to production, there is no prospect of free cash flow and therefore dividends, until the early 2030s - which is exactly what I and others had been saying.

In the meantime we are being asked to believe that we can raise and fund a vast sum of debt and the providers of said debt will be happy to employ their money in a high risk undertaking without any yield for over seven years. Well, good luck with that one.

If the company wishes to avoid being taken-over and isn't currently in any jv discussions, it should get on with it right now. We do not have the luxury of having time on our side.

As KM said, we are highly vulnerable to a takeover approach and in my view the company should tackle the issue proactively by opening discussions with potential suitors rather than sitting back and waiting for it to happen.

"They can wait for decades", and this where the production argument fails...for the simple teason that the company can't.

CD, agreed. This issue will have to be sorted soon and I guess it's the number 1 priority.

If anyone can explain to me how, given the extended timelines, this can be funded indepedently, I'm all ears.

"please let's not return to the bid nonsense". It will never go away...until the inevitable arrives. At which point we can all move on with plenty of cash to reinvest elsewhere.

In your opinion.
NCM appeared to reverse their thinking on their holding and publicly stated they would continue to hold...this decision appeared to have been made following a strategic review.
I don't know if a three way jv will happen or not, and neither do you, but all I'm saying is that NCM with their 14% stake, cannot simply be dismissed. Of course, it's possible they will eventually sell to BHP, or someone else, but that's not what they've said.

Red, the reason is that of NCM's current shareholding and stated long term interest.
Yes, I agree, BHP could buy us for a few months FCF - christ! I've been saying that for long enough, but the fact is NCM still have an equal shareholding and have not signalled any intention of selling. Therefore, and given this is an immutable fact, would it not make sense for BHP and NCM to consider a jv? In combination, our board would have no option other than to sit down and discuss a route forward.

Why not?

Okay, understood.
I agree with you - I think a three way jv with BHP and NCM is the most likely outcome on Alpala. Indeed, it's my opinion this is already being discussed - I have no factual evidence for this, but it makes a great deal of sense.