Member Info for addicknt

iceberg, the answer to your question is that a company cannot operate efficiently without the support of its main shareholders. And that is a fact.

optimus, couldn't agree more. The idea of any Chinese entity being a saviour is simply laughable.

DBW, just think, on Tuesday there were loads of people on here saying that the Bloomberg article was all fiction and was complete nonsense. I'm guessing they'll take a similar view of this article, particularly those who regard yesterday as a great triumph for Mather.

much discussion about dilution. Unless you are in the extreme camp and believe everything can be debt funded (there are some), you will recognise that dilution will occur. It doesn't matter who we partner with, the level of dilution is likely to be high.
The solution is, to some of us, blindingly obvious ; sell Alpala and use the funds for our other developments.
Clearly, our board will have thought long and hard about this and have dismissed the idea, stating that the tax implications would be too significant. We have never been told what they are and can only take the board's statement at face value. (had I been able to work out how to submit questions yesterday, this was the one I wanted answering in detail)
The question is, what would be the net proceeds of a sale of say £1.5bn? For the sake of argument, let's assume it's $1bn. How many people would accept this in order to allow us to proceed with our other projects? Or is it merely postponing the inevitable i.e if we intend to eventually develop a mine we will have to be diluted at some stage?
Of course, if the surplus funds were only used for exploration and the development of a PFS, $1bn would take us a very long way indeed.
This would mark us out as being an explorer and one with no ambitions to mine and strikes me as a good alternative to our current strategy which so clearly has no support from our main shareholders. Will this be the consequence of yesterdays meeting? Or will NM stick stubbornly to the current strategy, which almost inevitably will lead to a hostile takeover?
Personally, I can't see how NM can stick to his guns. A great deal changed yesterday and the company needs to adapt and adjust to the new reality.

Erm? Which two were withdrawn a.k.a defeated?

Iceberg, they haven't got js, as you describe it.
The problem folk on your side of the fence have is that you don't appear to understand what the most important resolutions were, nor the implication of their defeat. You all think Mathers reappointment was the key issue - it wasn't and he is now effectively a lame duck CEO.

To the agm the Mather fan club spent weeks telling us there was no revolt amongst the main shareholder base. They also ridiculed the suggestion that the lobbying of shareholder was an act of desperation - apparently it was all part of enhanced shareholder communication.
Now, after todays complete humiliation of Mather they are telling us it was a great triumph and that nothing has changed and we're now on our way to production.
The fact is they've been tragically wrong for months and yet are incapable of seeing the facts of the matter. Rarely have so many ostriches stuck their heads in the sand at the same time.
Were it not for the fact Mather voted for himself he'd be packing up his desk and organising his farewell drinks party.
Get real lads- the world changed today and you need to recognise it.

Iceberg, you're in the wrong job. Have you thought of becoming a government spin doctor?

eyesblue, your analogy doesn't apply in corporate situations.
A board of directors needs the support of its main shareholders and today we have seen what most of us have known for a long time - they don't have it, or at least Mather doesn't have it.
And as for drawing a line, this is only the beginning.

rcgl, I appreciate the comment - it's far more than some have been prepared to admit.

smickster, I think you could be right. Institutional investors rarely go against a board at an AGM, but they may have abstained.

TBTT, quite right. I very much suspect that was our last AGM.

iceberg, how on earth did they 'lose'? They've stopped him from doing what he wants. Did you notice his body language...he looked utterly dejected. Incidentally, that's the first AGM I've either chaired or witnessed where there was no overview given by the chair and supplemented by a contribution from the CEO.
I know you're much more capable than the Q bloke, and I'm sure you can see that this was actually a very bad day for the board. Polishing the proverbial turd will not change the eventual outcome.

Why would they bother? But the direct answer to your question is, yes. Although why Einstein thinks it's funny for his darling to be humiliated again is beyond me.

shipright, I'm afraid that just isn't how public companies work. He has lost the support of our major shareholders and that simply isn't tenable. He must now engage with them, agree a new strategy and implement it. Failure to do so will have an inevitable conclusion - as many of us on here have been saying for ages.

iceberg, just to add another fact to your summary (conveniently forgotten by you); the company was defeated on the most important resolutions.

It's a pity those who are posting on here saying that today was a "fail" for CGP and the others fundamentally fail to understand the implications of todays outcome.
NM's wings have been clipped...no, that's not true, all of the feathers have been pulled out one by one. He is now totally hamstrung and has been stopped in his tracks.
His task now is to continue delivering excellent drilling results and start negotiating a decent exit price. Forget the other stuff - he'll never win a vote on it.

Jeez! this bloke Quady just doesn't get it at all, does he. The resolutions that would have made production more likely were withdrawn because they were defeated. NM's position is totally compromised, but in any event, his presence on the board will not make a bit of difference if someone chooses to bid.

Colonel, how have they done a wonderful job? They've just completely failed.
I agree absolutely with your final sentence.

My guess is that BR voted to keep NM but rejected the specials.
As for all the speculation about BHP, that can now be put firmly to bed. All of our main, non-aligned shareholders are in opposition to the strategy being pursued. Perhaps even Quady will recognise this and stop all his total tosh about "no evidence" etc, etc. He has just be proved to be completely wrong, although I note he's trying to spin his way out of it.
We are in for a very interesting post-New Year period.