Member Info for addicknt

CD, agreed. If NM wins all resolutions BHP will have to act before he makes use of them.
I also agree that we do want a board stuffed with BHP/NCM placemen.

mister, BHP and BR will determine how this pans out.
As for the market reaction? it's difficult to predict. A defeat for the company could easily signal to the market that the company is in play. Alternatively, a defeat may upset the market, as it doesn't like uncertainty.
My guess is NM will keep his job, but the Specials may well be defeated.

iceberg, to repeat, I'm not complaining - why would I ? I'm sitting on a decent six figure profit.
Who knows, you may be right and in about 15 years time the first mine may be up and running and delivering a dividend. But somehow I very much doubt it.

iceberg, perhaps you can show where in this exchange I have moaned? I merely pointed out the truth about the market reaction to various recent announcements and my view that the market has little faith or interest in the stated strategy.
I'm afraid you are guilty of confirmation bias based upon the fact that you and I don't share the same opinion of the way to maximise shareholder value in an acceptable timeframe.

iceberg, a few short term holders? Afraid I don't fit that category. And, as much as this may disappoint you, all shareholders have the same right to express their opinions, regardless of whether you like it or not.
And I most certainly wasn't complaining about the announcement, I merely stated the market wasn't remotely interested - there's a difference.

iceberg, I was referring to my belief as to how the market perceives things and the price appears to support my view. So you can prattle on about 'we're going to production' as much as you like, but the market isn't remotely interested.

ohwhat, agreed. I think the problem is the market simply doesn't believe NM's strategy for realising shareholder value in anything like an acceptable timeframe. Hence, the complete ennui every time an announcement such as todays emerges.

sensibles, you won't need a blue dot to see if a takeover approach has been made, the share price will tell you all you need to know.
But to be serious, no, it will simply appear as a normal RNS. But I'd advise you not to rely on LSE - look at the Stock Exchange web site and set up an alert.

Can anyone explain to me why Quady (he can't see my messages) fails to understand the most basic problem with his argument? It's not what NM or the company says that matters, it's what others are likely to do which is critical.
He repeats his mantra endlessly, but absolutely fails to grasp the really simple point that our future is not in the hands of NM or the board.
This is not a difficult "cooperate" (sic) concept.

rk, we'll find out when someone waves a big cheque under his nose.
Btw, I think he's 68, although I may be wrong. In any event, he isn't going to be in the chair whether this goes to production or not.

sensibles, so he was right, then. We were almost out of cash and we raised more. Your point being?

Good find, schlem and the guy is spot on.

We had an interesting discussion yesterday about the merits, or otherwise, of a bidder being the first to make a bid for a company.
The G4S/Garda World/Allied situation is a prime example why it makes sense to wait and see what competitors do first before launching a bid.
p.s a thank you to PGE for his efforts in explaining the various results to someone like me who has no real knowledge of geology. I found it very helpful.

good discussion today - thanks guys.

Pad, that's true, but they really don't know what they're talking about. They need to speak to our resident corporate expert.

ToS1963, there you are, Quady's told you all you need to know about everything. You've no need to worry yourself anymore.

DBW, yup. But they can buy the proven resource at Alpala and wait to see how the others turn out. And yes, I share your view of the CGP belief.

Dart, there's an alternative view: the market may see NM as being a block to the type of action it would like to see and his removal may open the flood gates. Who knows?
I want to keep him because when it comes to it, I reckon he'll make a good job of negotiating the inevitable deal.

Miagi, absolutely, but I do sometimes wonder about his ideas about value creation.
For me, I see the best route as being selling-off Alpala and moving forward with a "rinse and repeat" strategy. But what do I know?

"There is no guarantee that the resolutions will pass without your support..." (this goes without saying, in fact the resolutions will self-evidently NOT pass without shareholder support. But I'll let that pass). The circular then goes on to list three things it feels will not happen unless the board gets shareholder approval. I would contest that hypothesis.
The two resolutions which appear to be the contentious ones are the re-election of Mather and the proposal to allow the board to dilute existing shareholders without any form of specific approval.
1) Is it really the case that the that the three ambitions could not be achieved without Mather? Does this not imply we are over-reliant on one man? Is he the only person capable of creating shareholder value? It seems to me he's very good at creating enemies, but surely his other skills also exist elsewhere?
2) It's suggested the board needs the ability to dilute without specific shareholder in order to achieve a conditional finance package. I fundamentally disagree. First, because it's conditional only, there'll be plenty of time to get our approval and second, if it's a good deal it should be able to stand on its merits and will get the approval.
As I've said before, I've voted in favour of NM's re-election but I am fundamentally opposed to the Special Resolution which I believe, is being proposed for no other reason than to frustrate our two main shareholders. And whilst some people may think this is a worthy ambition, I do not. It is never good to have two disgruntled significant shareholders, as it's disruptive and creates uncertainty...two of the markets pet hates.
One more thing: The second paragraph of the letter opens with the sentence "it is very important that all shareholders vote to support the board..." The word "very" is the critical one and should act to persuade anyone who doubts the board is under fire.