Member Info for addicknt

DBW, not sure your theory holds water. There are numerous folk on these financial bbs who have multi - million pound investment pots. I know four or five personally.

DBW, why do you think that?

Quady asks for one example of where he's got his facts wrong. No point going through the numerous occasions but I'll just mention one; his statement that the agm was a success. He's quite possibly the only person on earth who believes this 'fact'.

Re:Quady's last post...ha, ha, ha!
He talks about facts being observable events and yet he's so astonishingly blind that he cant see Mathers departure was as a result of the agm result and the outcome was a raging disaster. How many more 'facts' does this bloke need before he opens his eyes and realises what's going on?

As Quady says, the agm was an astonishing success. In fact it was so successful the ceo lost his job and the two resolutions which would have facilitated his wish of independent production were withdrawn as a result of impending defeat.
Brilliant! A stunning success all round!

to return to the Crux report, but amongst the many rather strange claims, they also suggested BHP won't mind being diluted in the short to medium term.
I wonder how they square that statement with the fact that the agm demonstrated just how much they aren't prepared to be diluted?

Bozi, yes that's right, I'm head of M&A at BHP.

Bozi, put your emotions to one side and focus on the reality of life.
This company's destiny was sealed the day we took money from BHP and NCM. And the best way to get good value is in cooperation with them and not by pishing them off.

Bozi, shock horror, our major investors want to get their hands on the assets. I'd never have guessed. Mind you, there's a few on here who genuinely believed BHP would simply roll over and play dead.
I'm afraid you'll find I've been stating the bleedin' obvious on this for ages.
Mather's refusal to engage with them is exactly what exposed us and made us vulnerable, and it cost him his job. It has to be hoped the board and new ceo will work constructively with our main shareholders in order to extract good value.

What a daft comment. Do you honestly believe that there's a single small private investor on here who wants a low share price or giveaway takeover?

One of the great mysteries of the Universe is how anyone can fail to see that the 18th December changed everything for this company. It's a bit like having a conversation with the last bloke on earth who continued to think the earth is flat. Or perhaps a more contemporary example, a QAnon believer.

Monte, new CEO, new strategy.
There's nothing a new guy likes more than to get an easy win under his belt and to see a rapid appreciation in the sp...suddenly, and despite the fact all the hard work had already been done, he gets the credit. I simply cannot see anyone, including the current board, thinking that pursuing the old strategy is a good idea.

CD, how I'd love to see your corporate description appear on the web site! Share price a quid in the blink of an eye.

CD, I agree with much of what you say. It's been interesting to note that since the agm there has been a considerable shift in opinion towards the view you express.
NM was an impediment to the obvious and sensible strategy, and his removal (sorry, 'retirement') has removed the blockage.
As ever, Quady fails to understand the importance of BHP and the nature of their holding (the same applies to NCM) and why they will dictate what comes next.
I remain convinced we'll see the disposal of Alpala as being the first and most obvious step and I think you may well be right that a "strategic review" of our ownership will be announced.
Where I disagree is with your assertion that the agm was a 'success'...it was anything but. In fact, the NM vote wasn't the really important bit, even though it's led to his departure, it was the failure of the Specials which really mattered. This was the moment our future was defined.

I really wish there was a lol emoji on this site.

Irwin agrees with shareholders, shock horror. He must have been reading this board today.

One of the other nonsense elements of their analysis was the accusation that because the consultants are paid by the company to produce the PEA/PFS etc, they are not independent and can easily be swayed. This is total ballsheet.
The whole industry depends upon this modus operandi and a consultants reputation would be shredded in an instant if they did produce total fiction. And if these folk at Crux think they are in a better position from behind their desks to judge than the folk who've spent ages on the ground doing the real work, they are totally deluded.

TBTT, I take your point, but I like to look at what everyone says about my investments, warts and all.
This is not in the same category, but I was an investor in QPP when Gotham (or was it Muddy Waters?) exposed the fraud. Fortunately, I was online at the time it began circulating and the sp started collapsing. I took it seriously and sold. Although I ended up losing 50k, had I not reacted it would have been far, far worse.
Of course, there is no equivalence between us and QPP, but I do feel it's important to read things properly before dismissing them out of hand.
And now I've had a re-read, I think the areas where they are probably right relate to the complexity and cost of Alpala. To me this confirms my view we are not capable of going to production on our own (that's probably confirmation bias on my behalf !) Turning this on its head and where I see it as a positive, is the fact that our board must recognise the fact (they may already have done so) and sell the project to the highest bidder asap.

I need to re-read the report again today, but on first sight one of their supposed Red Flags struck me as being a complete mis-interpretation.
They argued that the NCM NED may have stood down because they came to recognise the technical issues associated with Alpala. This is nonsense and is disproved by the fact that Biswas subsequently said they had no intention of selling their shares. We all know what the real reason was.
This element of the report was a classic example of confirmation bias, as I suspect, much else will be.

Barry, very interesting and thanks for posting. Needs a second or third reading.