Member Info for addicknt

Shipright, how exactly do you think small shareholders can influence the outcome? The answer is we can't.
I fear you misunderstood the implications of the agm vote from the moment it was announced. As I said at the time, it was effectively game over and so it has been proved.

MFU, I said that the day Heddle resigned. His relationship with NCM would be very interesting.

iceberg, you describe it as "a two bit story". If it turns out to be true, what will your thoughts be?
Let's face it, there are a number of people who refused to accept the impact of the agm and saw it as a "triumph". Surely, that was the most egregious example of confirmation bias?
But you are certainly correct to say we only know a tiny part of the story.

iceberg, I accept that it looks odd, but also believe it to be true. I think we can all recall at the time of the NED appointments NM himself said that succession planning was one of the tasks he'd set. Perhaps, in the light of the breakdown of relations, this has simply been brought forward.

This is a tricky one.
I voted for Mather because I believed he'd do a good job of negotiating a deal - provided he'd been given the right direction by the board, by which I mean he dropped the fanciful notion of taking this to production.
The agm result was, as many of us stated, a real blow for him from which there was no way back. He obviously realised that (unlike some on here) and produced the belated olive branch.
Something has obviously happened in the interim which means BHP/NCM have not accepted the offer of peace talks. (or maybe they've had them and reached no acceptable way forward - which is more likely) I see this as being the catalyst for a board decision which said he must go - I do not believe BHP/NCM had any direct role; rather the board realized he simply cannot get on with them and know that the company needs the support of it's major holders (how many times have I said that?). Anyway, assuming one believes this report, and I do, what's the way forward?
If I were NM I wouldn't want a substantial portion of my wealth being run by someone else and would want to sell. So, will he attempt to sell the company before he's replaced? Or will he negotiate a deal with one or both of the majors for his own holding?
As a separate issue, how many potential ceos would want to take this on, knowing it may be a very short-term appointment? If there was a huge performance related exit bonus, I'd do it.
Is this good news, or bad?
The market hates uncertainty and may mark us down. Conversely, they may realize Mather has been the impediment to doing a deal in anything like the near term and therefore we get marked up. This is impossible to call. But what it will do is present the company as being open to discussions, something Mather has done his best to dismiss for the past 12 months. This will be an sp positive.
Mather's skill set includes bloody-mindedness and determination, but it appears not to include charisma and an ability to get on with key players, which are rather important attributes for a ceo.
So, is this news good or bad? Conclusion: I'm really struggling to make up my mind, but on balance I think it's probably good news. Mind you, if the intention is simply to find another ceo who'll parrot the same old production nonsense, then I'll take a different view.

Barry, thanks.

Barry, I've never filtered anyone before, how do I do it?

Previously I've refrained from sayong anything about your posting habits, but can I politely ask you to stop?
Many of us have disagreements with people on the board but do not feel the need to destroy it for everyone else.
We've just seen some potentially very interesting news and would like to discuss the implications, but you're making it impossible. So, please desist.

By the way, I particularly enjoyed Quady's comment that he had received the same email as the rest of us but didn't want to mention it because of the 'hassle'.
In other words, he was hoping none of us would have received the note and he wanted to keep quiet in the hope no one would notice. He knows the email completely refutes his previous claims, but is still unable to accept the fact - hence his latest comment about 'not needing' the money.
This man takes confirmation bias to its furthest extremes and then keeps on pushing.
I can't wait to read his excuses once some form of deal is announced.

I too have now received the same response.
It's very clear that this was directly a consequence of the agm and the subsequent interview. And despite what Quady may feel, it's equally obvious we need the money and are looking at alternative arrangements , which will almost certainly involve BHP and or NCM.

DBW, so, it appears we were right. This unquestionably means they are looking to source the funds in a different way.

"resounding victory at the agm"!!
Honestly, you couldn't make this guy up if you tried.

RK, of course you are correct. This character has spent years mis-remembering what he says and then tries to wriggle his way out of it. All of which would be fine if he stopped making definitive statements. Mind you, I have noticed a slight shift in tone over recent months and I suspect he has a lurking doubt about his convictions, which is also true of some other posters on here.

Perhaps one of you ask Quady if the company has 'done what it said it would', have they drawn down the additional funds? I'm sure he'll know.

You're wrong.
The 100 code means; "does anyone know someone who's capable of translating and RNS from Australian to English?"

previous occasions I've had cause to email the company I've always received a reply very promptly - often within a matter of hours. Obviously, I never ask questions which would be deemed to be price sensitive.
I sent one the Tuesday asking if we would be getting an announcement relating to the exercise of the option and have not received any form of reply. This struck me as being a perfectly legitimate question from a shareholder and I was not asking for any details - a simple yes or no would have sufficed.
The silence is curious and I know what it leads me to conclude.

copper, but there is news on the horizon "at the moment". It relates to the option/financing and I would say it's imminent.

copper, whilst I agree with your general observation, you are wrong about there being "no news on the horizon". There is a stack of news out there, not least of which concerns the option.

Lafitte, I'm sure it is, I can't see them wanting to break the rules.

is deafening.
The lack of news on taking up the option, which would need to be announced, surely tells us it hasn't.
The $50m was an integral part of our requirement and therefore, it would be entirely logical to assume a new path is being discussed. The question is; which one?