Member Info for addicknt

RK, of course you are correct, hence the mea culpa from NM.
Had it been the 'massive vote of confidence' which some on here think, would he really have said what he did in the interview?
And people refer to the 80% vote and automatically assume the 20% would have supported him. But none of that matters, the number of small shareholders supporting him was and is, totally irrelevant - as has been proven.
And I love the latest theory - that the interview is just a massive ruse to keep BHP off his back whilst he butters-up the Chinese for the odd billion or two. Great thinking!

RK, I tend to think it was the board who told him to call a truce.

iceberg, you appear not to understand the difference between a private equity fund and an 'investment arm'. They are not synonymous.

iceberg, they are a $300m fund, which is tiny by comparison to virtually all UK pe companies. Sure, the original funders could put more money into the fund, but as it stands it's insignificant. If the investment had come direct from the parent, I'd be more inclined to agree with you.

So, NM has the choice of teaming up with a small private equity firm with no mining experience or, it takes advantage of the money and expertise of the worlds largest miner. Difficult choice, isn't it?

Colonel, sorry, one other thing. Yes, a placing could come with a lock-in agreement, but if it was to BHP it wouldn't be necessary; they wouldn't be sellers. A Rights Issue cannot have a lock-in attached.

Colonel, I don't disagree with your analysis and the answer in my opinion is, dilution or run the risk of a hostile takeover bid. Of course, a third route exists; sell Alpala to BHP.
NM has opened the door to BHP to continue funding the business and it's just a question of how they skin the cat.

We have five days to wait to see if the option is exercised. In the light of the interview I'd be surprised if it was. Why offer an olive branch and then immediately inflame the situation?

medar, you are not wrong.

Optimus, you are absolutely right. I have no doubt NM realized the problems related to introducing them to the register, but for reasons unknown, decided to push the boundaries. Everything changed when he struck the Franco deal and he now understands that he went too far. The AGM proved the point. And why he decided to table the Special Resolutions is a complete mystery. As has been said many times, a company simply cannot operate efficiently with the two main shareholders united against the strategy.
The article is a very public olive branch and I sincerely hope both sides sit down and engage in a constructive dialogue.

Jerry, that's a possibility, particularly as he's raised the white flag. However, I believe he's likely to be a tough negotiator...at least I hope so.

Bozi, that's not what I said. I agree with Mather, a jv would not be the way forward.
Get the PFS released and put it up for sale. Divi some cash out to shareholders and perform the same trick with the next prospect.
The problem with this route is it's unlikely to be palatable to BHP.

Bozi, my preferred option has always been to pursue the rinse and repeat route and see this as being the best way to deliver shareholder value. I don't believe a jv route on Alpala will be good for us private investors as we'll be diluted out of sight.
I have also been consistent in my opinion that if it comes to a full company sale NM would be the best man for the job.

Bozi, I've been crystal clear on what strategy he should pursue and have been totally consistent for a very long time. It now appears as it this is the route we will now pursue.
Time for a mea culpa from you and your fellow travellers.
And by the way, this is a public board and I have no intention of 'giving it a rest'.

Mather, for ages before the agm I was saying that he had antagonised BHP and it was a huge error of judgement. I seem to recall you were one of the people telling me I was totally wrong. The assertion was also made that he'd, and I quote here, 'humiliated' , BHP, which was palpable nonsense.
From his own words we can now judge which of us was right.

Bozi, and my opinion has been vindicated. And yes he should give two hoots - his failure to do so damn near cost him his job.

Et, I'm very happy the new board appears to have persuaded him to change his approach.

Bozi, indeed, it's just a great shame he pushed it so far, the consequence of which has been for people to question his judgement. He's learnt his lesson.
He now needs to deliver something positive which enhances shareholder value asap.

It seems pretty clear to me the board and quite possibly Citi, have put pressure on him to swallow his pride and accept reality. He made a huge strategic mistake, came close to paying the price and is now sitting down to a large bowl of humble pie.
Let's hope he hasn't left it too late.

Novice, thanks for sharing. This is exactly what I said was necessary the moment we heard the results of the agm. He has no real alternative and his behaviour has led us to this situation.