Member Info for addicknt

mister, that argument falls down as soon as you ask, 'why would they not want other investors to be diluted?'. If they put up the cash they will want the votes which go with it.

CD, couldn't agree more and as I've said on countless occasions, it became obvious from the moment they appeared on the share register.

mister, indeed. I guess they key question will be, how much of the cash has been spent on the PFS which is now no longer relevant and will need to be repeated? And at what cost?
Additionally, I don't think anyone should believe BHP/NCM will allow another element of a streaming deal, nor do I think they'll let anyone else get involved in a placing. Of course, this is merely conjecture, but they went to a lot of trouble last year to make sure they were heard at the agm and I think we can infer their position from that.

very few certainties surrounding this share at the moment, but there is one; the need for cash.
My guess is that the option for $50m was dropped at the insistence of BHP and or NCM. It's likely discussions took place and both of them agreed they would stump-up the cash in due course, provided the option was allowed to lapse.
This is both good and bad news. Obviously, it's good the company knows it will have sufficient funds to see it through to PFS, but the bad news is that it will come at a cost; and that cost will be pricing. The placees will be in a strong position; they will know the company needs money and they'll also be able to leverage the uncertainty surrounding the outcome of the PFS. They will employ this argument to insist upon a significant discount to whatever the prevailing price is at the time. It is to be hoped the price has recovered by then and we will have seen a steady flow of good drilling results.
But no one should be under the illusion that significant dilution isn't on the way this year. Mather made the mistake of ignoring our major shareholders, albeit I think it was done with the best of intentions i.e to avoid dilution. However, he should have realised the true nature of the major's shareholdings and their power to prevent him from doing what he wanted. Had he engaged constructively last year, he may have been able to raise the money via a placing at a decent price, perhaps in the high 30s. Anyway, that's all history and the new guys have to deal with the situation as it is.

Lunch, I may have mis-remembered which RNS it first appeared, but I do recall that when I first saw it I was surprised. It had not be employed previously.
As to your other post, the 'financials' are a key part of the NPV/PFS. If they cannot be reduced for technical reasons the NPV will reduce accordingly; this I believe, was the central argument of the Crux report.
I certainly agree with your final point about a new caution being expressed by the board. It's to be welcomed and needs to be expanded by being far more open with shareholders.

I'd feel altogether more comfortable if we had technical input from one of the majors and an announcement to that effect would be most welcome.

Barry, the word was first used in the announcement last year about the formation of the committee. We had not seen it before.

sire, I have too much at stake here to risk a "no go" decision. We have ten months to wait until that decision becomes public and I will sit tight until then in the expectation that something will happen - either positive drilling results or something of a corporate nature.
I do not intend holding in anticipation of the PFS and the risk it may not be favourable, no matter how small that risk is. It's my view that if it's a "go", I'll be able to buy back at a reasonable price. Of course, we may see additional results from Alpala or Tandy in the meantime which may make the outcome of the PFS seem inevitable i.e positive, and I will adjust my thinking accordingly.
The announcement of the formation of the committee and the use of "if" for the first time, is undoubtedly a prudent move but, like it or not, it introduced an element of doubt (probably for good regulatory and governance reasons) and as private investors we need to be cognisant of that statement.
Obviously, this is simply a personal view and I'm certain others will think differently.
In the meantime, it's a case of sitting back and watching things unfold and I'm certain we are going to see many interesting developments before November.

of the word "if" into our corporate lexicon has completely re-shaped my strategy.

Novice, I'm not sure I'd even mention EUA in the same breath as us, let alone regard them as one of our 'closest peers'.

Jerry, as you know, the problem with Quady's way of thinking is that he never looks at external influences or the motivation of others. He makes the assumption that a company operates in a bubble and that whatever they say will trasnslate into reality.
Companies never work like that, but I'm afraid his lack of experience means he doesn't seem to grasp this rather obvious fact.

nice one mistermeister. Thanks.

rk, the point is we are much weakened right now and, absent some strong news, will continue to be so.

FTJNY, I take your point, hence my reference to the new board. However, this is still fresh and the repercussions will be lasting. And what I mean by that is that our situation has been considerably weakened and we are horribly exposed at the moment.
Obviously, I want this to succeed and I echo Irwin's comment that I hope the board now does "the right thing", and that does not include the parroting of the mantra "we're going to production"

Quady, as ever you are completely wrong. I've now come to regard you as this board's equivalent of Mr Bean...although nowhere near as funny.

FTJNY, shareholders have every right to criticise a board when it makes such a hash of things...it's called holding them to account. Particularly when, with the exception of Mather, quite a few of us have invested far more of our hard-earned than most members of the board.
The idea that we should all be "positive" and heap praise on a board which has failed is palpable nonsense, as is the idea that a few of us on here have any influence on the value of the company.
The good news is that the new board has realised what the situation is, has got rid of Mather and will no doubt be focussed on delivering shareholder value.

"it's just news"...indeed. News which led to the end of Mather's career, countless millions of dollars spent pursuing the wrong route, a more-or-less clear out of the board, a whole wasted year, a massively impaired degree of credibility and hundreds of millions of pounds of shareholder value.
So, yup, it's just news!
Rose tinted spectacles doesn't even begin to describe the mis-reading of what's happened.

How does no sound?

Rich, BHP, either on their own or in jv with NCM. And I'm afraid I don't think it will be a "knockout" number. 50p?

DBW, we'll never know. It won't get as far as producing a PFS. And obviously, there won't be any sign of a CFP.