Member Info for addicknt

copper. agreed, although I'm not sure about the timeline.

iceberg, I wouldn't disagree with that. Obviously, we know they've been working on a package for some time now and one assumes they've made some progress, although I don't imagine we'll see anything until the PFS has been released.

iceberg, wasn't the Franco deal announced on a conditional basis? It was subject to various conditions precedent which took a while to satisfy.

A direct quote; "no one is to going pay a fair price". He then has the absolute temerity to deny having said it. He makes these definitive statements and immediately says he didn't. And he makes the same assertion day in ,day out.

I see Q is still saying with absolute certainty that BHP will not pay a 'fair price'. How on earth does he know this?
For good measure he tells us they will go somewhere else and buy a distressed asset.
Of corse they will. Despite having invested millions and despite the fact we are sitting on one or more of the best assets in the world, they'll go after something else.
Make up your own mind as to whether this makes any sense whatsoever.

iceberg, that's a good point. Many pundits look at the UK market and say "it's the most undervalued market in the world". Perhaps it's more the case that the others are all over-valued.

has been an extraordinary year for private investors. Fortunes have been made in covid stocks, mining stocks, green energy and tech. Even those who had available cash after the market crash have made extraordinary returns on FTSE companies. My own favourites have been AFC and GGP. I cannot recall a period when so many small investors have been turned into millionaires, which is excellent news.
2021 will be our year and on that note, I wish everyone (well, virtually everyone) a very happy and prosperous New Year.

iceberg, I get your point but that would have involved speculation. The board would have looked at the absolute numbers and as soon as they saw how BHP had voted, they pulled the plug.
But the key issue here is the way this affects the future and it is profound.

iceberg, BHP had every thing to do with the specials. NCM and CGP on their own would not have defeated them.

iceberg, I understand your point, but I'm afraid I don't buy it. I reckon BHP had refused to reveal before the vote which way they would jump, although it seemed pretty obvious. NM decided to test the water and when the votes started to appear it became obvious which way BHP had gone, the decision to withdraw was taken.
As you say, it is a distraction, but it's one with profound consequences and will shape the way this year unfolds.

iceberg, you make a fair point, although the "evidence" part is a bit of as non-sequitur. And from where I sit, the personality issue is at the forefront of all of this. You don't vote against a ceo without reason and it's obvious that the tensions which have been lurking finally boiled over with the introduction of the Chinese.
I hope NM can swallow his pride and enter into discussions with BHP in order to reach a conclusion which benefits us all.

rcgl, it's one of those excuses people come up with when they can't see the obvious. Others include, MM manipulation, big shareholder selling so they can buy back cheaper etc, etc.
In reality, it's normally a case of Occam's Razor being applicable, which in this case is the vexed question of strategy.
TBTT, your post last evening was spot-on.

Lafitte, yup.

iceberg, if that was indeed the case, why do you think the company tabled them and then went to huge expense to persuade shareholders to vote for them?
It was a total farce, tactical error and major egg-on-face for the board. A very silly miscalculation which has laid bare the discord which exists between our main shareholders and NM.

CD, 1) how is stating that I won't vote for NM again (not that he'll be here in three years time) inconsistent with my clear and consistent views on strategy? 2) He's not the only one who can negotiate a deal.
Your attack on me this morning came as a surprise because I'd thought historically we agreed on strategy...as it appears we do. Where we disagree is on our interpretation of how the agm went and to honest, I'm mystified as to how you can see it your way - it's as if we were watching two entirely separate events. I suspect the divergence exists because I know how a chairman and ceo should behave at an agm and I also understand the implications of the defeat of the specials and perhaps you don't. Mather did, and it was written all over his face.

Drake, simple. I want NM to either sell the company in its entirety via a formal and competitive process or, I want him to recognise he's never going to get this to production on his own and to sell Alpala and move on to the next one which, of course, was the original intention.
I have been wholly consistent about this, but I guess you already knew this.
As for your belief we can move to production without huge dilution...you're in cloud cuckoo land. Still, you'll wake up one day soon and I can't wait to hear how you respond.

"look forward, not back". The significance of the agm has completely passed you by, hasn't it? The future has been re-written by those votes and there's no going back.

CD, I'm not unhappy with what we have in the ground and I'm not unhappy about how we've gone about proving the resource (although I'm concerned about the Hannam report). Similarly, I'm not unhappy that I'm currently sitting on a six figure profit.
However, I'm extremely unhappy that our CEO is now pursuing an undeliverable strategy and appears impervious to the reality. I'm also unhappy at the lack of respect which was shown towards shareholders who supported NM (me included) and at the abysmal performance from the chairman.
Perhaps you can see the nuance in my argument?

CD, that's your opinion and fair enough...you're wrong, but you're fully entitled to be wrong.
Perhaps you can tell me, how many agms have you attended and not heard the Chairman do his job properly? Or perhaps you don't know what is actually expected at an agm? This seems more likely to me.
And as for the chairman appearing to be chuffed! You must have been looking at the wrong person. And I don't need to mention the humiliation involved in having to withdraw the two most important resolutions on the agenda.
"give the rest of us investors a bad name..." what a clown! It's you docile dopes who simply accept what's put in front of you who are the embarrassment. These people are the guardians of your cash, they are paid by us to do a job and, whichever way you look at it, that agm was a total disaster.
Feel free to carry on with your grand delusion, time will reveal just how far adrift from reality you really are.

I think about it, the more outrageous the performance at the agm appears.
I have NEVER seen a chairman refuse to provide an annual update, nor have I witnessed a ceo fail to give his view of the company's prospects/major developments/strategy details etc, etc. A chairman who looked like a startled rabbit and a ceo who was clearly in high dudgeon and was obviously disengaged, disinterested and bored.
These people begged for our support and repaid us with an utterly abject performance. It marked the last time I will vote in favour of any re-election of directors.