Member Info for addicknt

Bozi, stupid comment, as per.

It seems to me that this is a clear indication the two parties are in dialogue again -which can only be a good thing.

RK, I agree with all of that and yes, I was fully aware of the timing of Anglo's intervention. I've referred to BCN in the past and in many ways it's a more appropriate comparison and the outcome looks a lot more like the type of thing we could see here.
My point is the streaming deal is no longer repeatable. Our options have narrowed, but that does not mean we will get screwed...provided we get the timing right.

RK, if I've read you correctly you believe that the commodity makes all the difference, which is fair enough. However, BCN owns assets which are very much in demand and they too had a real problem. Additionally, SXX had off-take agreements coming out of their ears and yet they were still unable to get the money.
Look, I'm not saying we are like SXX, simply that financing for mining projects is far from easy. Yes, we have great assets, after all that's why we are all here, but the structure of our share register and the recent demonstration of shareholder influence restricts our ability to manoeuvre, which I think is something you've recognised previously.

smick, that's exactly the point...others can no longer join the party. Or more precisely, they can probably do so for relatively small sums, but when it comes to the big picture BHP/NCM will dictate who gets what.

DBW, agreed. They will undoubtedly know more than we do and, having looked a gift horse in the mouth once, I'm sure they had good reasons.

By the way, if our board doesn't utilise this current opportunity, it could only be regarded as a dereliction of duty towards private investors. It's very easy for a board to look at current cash balances and feel relaxed about it (I'm sure our guys aren't, but it happens all too regularly). There is no room for complacency here and timing is critical.

DBW, I'm not sure that's still the case.
The agm demonstrated the extent of their influence and the inability to get Resolutions 13 and 14 through has curtailed our ability to finance elsewhere (that's why BHP et al made sure they weren't even put to the meeting). But I absolutely agree with your comment about the need to be careful, hence my suggestion that we should be talking right now.
I think we have to accept the direction of travel here. We are now significantly exposed to the whims of our major shareholders and we MUST negotiate from a position of relative strength which, as I said previously, is now. Each day sees our cash resources dwindle and we can't let that go on for too long.

One other thing. I know everyone gets very heated whenever a comparison is made to other explorers, particularly SXX, but the fact is there is one element of commonality - the need for finance.
Because they were desperate, SXX got bent over a barrel and were rogered senseless. BCN managed to avoid the same fate, but, to all intents and purposes, they fell into the hands of the Chinese. The common feature of both these situations was that they companies were desperate.
We find ourselves in a tricky situation. Currently, we are not desperate for cash and appear relatively well financed, but that won't last. If we leave future financing arrangements to the last minute we can guarantee a solid rogering. Therefore, we must enter into discussions, whether they be of a financing or disposal nature, while we are in a position of relative strength i.e now.
Surely this imperative will set the timetable and agenda over the coming months? Needs must.

TBTT, in regard to timing, I think it will depend upon the appointment of the new ceo. Will the board wait for his/her arrival, or has a path to monetise/finance Alpala already been agreed? Will the new person be inheriting the company without Alpala, or will the task be to review the whole picture and evolve a new strategy?
Although I'm convinced discussions with BHP/NCM have taken place since December, we obviously have no way of knowing which way they are going.
Other questions:
BHP/NCM have the company where they want it. How long do they wait before making a move? Post-election? Post-pfs? Will they be asked to get involved in the pfs? We could do with their technical expertise. The counter position to involvement in the pfs is that they'd want to do their own work.
I've no doubt Twigger and the team have adopted a much more conciliatory approach to our main shareholders and the mutual hostility is a thing of the past. The question is; how to skin the cat? There are so may possibilities - none of which involve us going it alone.

copper, not that long ago you'd be on this page getting involved in every ruck. So I don't think I need a lecture from you about "sad lives".

smick, if someone talks nonsense, I'll respond.

Quady you really are an ocean-going fool.
1) Wrong.
2) Wrong.
3) Wrong.
4) Wrong.
And as for your ludicrous assertion that I'm not an experienced investor! Truly pathetic. I don't think I need to remind you of the fact you've never sat in a boardroom nor have you ever worked in the City. You don't have the first clue about corporate finance (at least you've admitted that) and yet, day after day you appear on this board to give us the benefit of your genius.
I first joined a financial bb site in 1999 (iii) and have, over the years, seen many types of posters. There are the good ones, the really nasty ones who make threats of violence, those clever and persuasive rampers (the best was some bloke at QPP) and then there are the total fools. There are many people who don't have much experience and ask for guidance and there's nowt wrong with that. But the special type of fool are those who profess knowledge of everything and are as stubborn as mules when proved wrong. Quady is the exemplar of this category. The Number One. The Champion.

As ever Quady is wrong. I did not say that once BHP were released from their restrictions we would get a bid. In fact, and as I've said previously, I have not put a timeline on things. It's simply my belief that it is inevitable - as appears to be the majority opinion both on this bb and amongst industry and City experts.
As for the 'retirement' situation, it's as plain as the nose on your face. Throughout last few years Mather has been full of pomp, and in a sense, justifiably so. People on here and specifically Quady, boldly dismissed any idea of him retiring and argued forcefully that he was 'only 68' and had plenty of juice left in the tank. But then he made the mistake of thinking he could ignore our major shareholders.
Quady and a few others thought his 'triumph' of gaining re-election demonstrated how he'd given the majors a 'bloody nose' and how they would now 'skulk off with their tails between their legs' (these words were actually used immediately after the agm.) This was a classic misunderstanding of boardroom and shareholder dynamics, particularly when a new board had only recently been appointed. The expressions of disquiet uttered by NCM publicly were a clear indication of what was to come, and sure enough it happened.
I don't believe a man like Mather had any wish whatsoever to walk away from his position. He was on the verge of a triumphant end to his career and people in those circumstances don't simply walk away. But the most telling reason of why I am right is this; if he was planning his retirement for the past 12 months, why did he put himself forward for re-election, only to 'retire' a month later? You really don't need to think much beyond this fact.
Anyway, this is history and we are moving towards a very different approach to our interaction with our main shareholders. Personally, I think Mather's NED situation may become difficult, particularly for a new CEO and, consequently, may not last long. But who knows? He may prove to be an ideal NED and will offer full support to the new incumbent, but for me, the jury's out on that one.

We have all the evidence we need Quady. He no longer has his job and if you think he voluntarily 'retired' you are more naive than I thought.

DBW, the only problem with your comment is that his approach cost him his job.

crew, I couldn't see anything in the report to frighten the horses.
The cash situation is a bit unclear, other than the fact we're okay for the time being. But being an explorer we have a constant need for cash, so it's hardly surprising. It's simply a case of how much, at what price, when and from whom?

smickster, yes, I agree. I can't see why they would orchestrate the departure of our CEO and insist upon the removal of the Resolutions unless they were prepared to support a fund raise. After all NCM said exactly that last year.

"Resolutions 13 and 14 were withdrawn...therefore the company will work closely with existing shareholders in financing the business during 2021, while continuing to assess alternative financing avenues".
I find this a bit ambiguous. Does it imply cash will be required in 2021, or does it imply, as RK has suggested, none is required but the company is making preparations for a fund raise next year? My view is that we'll need cash this year.
The mention of existing shareholders (which I know post-AGM has now appeared) did not appear in various announcements last year and it seems to me the balance of probability is that the money will come from existing shareholders.
The company obviously negotiated an extension of the $50m option and was prudent to do so (pity they didn't tell us at the time), but, given the fuss made by our main shareholders and the consequences wrought upon the business as a result, I find it vanishingly unlikely that we will actually draw-down those funds.
My own conclusion is that we will see a fund raise, perhaps even before the summer, and that the money will come from BHP and NCM - which is what shareholders are for. I hope we are also given the opportunity to take part.

Words of wisdom from Mr Rose-Tinted.
"I haven't seen such tacit approval...etc, etc".
Not sure he really meant that.