Member Info for addicknt

Couldn't agree more Woody. I've said it before, but that agm was lamentably poor and the only comment we've seen implied we should be grateful that he's doing such a good job of looking after us.

RK, I've concluded the same thing - it's rather difficult to see it any other way.

amy, that's my interpretation. I think if we had we'd have been told.
We may have requested an extension whilst we talk to BHP or, we've declined the option.

DBW, we are awaiting news about the drawdown - the option expired yesterday.

or didn't we? Still no answer.

RK, I had endless months of this from Q. The fact is he's incapable of comprehending anything which doesn't conform to his own preconceptions - all of which are wrong.

RK, of course, you're spot-on with your analysis. BCN is another good example of what can happen in these circumstances, although it hasn't enjoyed the same performance as GGP and the sp is still massively below where it was before the deal was announced. As soon as I saw the deal they with the Chinese I sold and despite the recent improved performance, I don't regret it one bit.

Precisely, rcgl. However, as one of the leading commodity, minerals and energy houses, they clearly believe there's money to be made in our stock and that decision is unlikely to have been made based upon our normal low levels of transactions.
Great foresight, or simply a decision which recognises the importance of our assets? Either way, it isn't bad news.

With Christmas and the New Year getting in the way, the timing for discussions has been problematic. Let's assume Mather has been good to his word and has spoken to BHP, pointing out that the deadline was looming and if they're truly interested in either providing funding or something more interesting, then now is the time to either pish or get off the pot.
If BHP say. 'yes, we're happy to provide more cash', the discussion then comes to down to pricing.
BHP would say 'well, the prevailing price is x, so we'll divi-up at x + a small premium. Mather would say, 'No, this undervalues the company and the days of cheap equity are over'. This is the point at which it gets really interesting.
Walk away and face the consequences, or do a deal? This is probably too binary, but it may open the discussion to something else.
I believe this is why today is so important.

Whichever way it goes it seems to me it will be of great significance. Against the backdrop of the agm and the interview, it should reveal the direction of travel.

I'm unsure of the rules on this, but think we'd have to make an announcement if we have, although I don't think we are required to do so if we haven't.

The RNS we thought may be issued hasn't appeared.
Have we drawn down or not? Answers on a postcard.

BBG, I don't disagree. They will not let it happen.

"Nick knew by bringing bhp onboard they would back him into a corner and playing the game Nick has progressed without issuing more shares". Erm? So the various placings, including to BHP, didn't happen?

rcgl, I tend to agree. I've often wondered about this tax argument, particularly as we are all completely in the dark as to what the impact would be.
At the time of the agm, had I been able to work out how to ask a question (I couldn't see any way to do so, despite the chairman telling us there was), I would have asked for some detail of the implied tax cost.

rgl, I guess that's possible and we'll never know what conversations have taken place between the company and BHP/NCM, nor how far either side wanted to push things.
However, the situation is crystal clear; if we want to hold onto Cascabel we will be diluted - either at a project or company level, and it doesn't matter whether it's BHP or the Chinese...although I have my own preference.
If we genuinely wish to avoid dilution, we should sell Cascabel. This route has so many benefits, not least of which is being able to avoid this discussion when it comes to Porvenir/others. It's my sincere hope this is where we end up.

Bozi, following the interview it seems to make far more logical sense that he will be looking to BHP rather than the Chinese - he said as much, did he not? Or do you believe the interview was a ruse, as some have suggested? How do you think a discussion with BHP would go if he told them he intends to deal with the Chinese? What do you think their reaction would be?
A question: why do some on here think that doing a deal with some Chinese outfit is preferable to doing a deal with BHP? Do you believe they will offer better terms and be easier to deal with? Many people on here will have spent part of their career dealing with Chinese companies and the fact is it's far from being easy. And the days of them over-paying are long gone.

iceberg, of course it was made up! Do you think I have a recording device in the boardroom? Mind you, I wish I had.

Quady clearly believes BHP and or NCM will fund $2.5bn by way of debt. 'No more equity for them!'. Clouds and cuckoos yet again.

iceberg, not so sure it would have been that blunt. More along the lines of " come on, Nick, this can't carry on. You damn nearly lost your job and you've completely peed-off our main backers and that just isn't sustainable. What future do you want? It's time for us to revaluate the strategy and we must include BHP in those discussions".