Member Info for addicknt

Q, your thought about DGR is an interesting one and I can see the logic. The other side of the coin is that it would be seen as an aggresive move by BHP and NCM and may provoke the sort of reaction you don't want to see.

Q, DFS and BFS are the same thing.

It's blindingly obvious their latest fund raise is to enable them to make it to our liquidity event. Otherwise, they are in a big hole. This is very reminiscent of the KDNC situation and their investment in BCN, most of which they were forced to sell.
Of course, if Q is right, they're finished - but at least they've bought themselves some breathing space.

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
If they were genuinely concerned they would make a provision.

Interesting you say you've never seen my response, because the last time you asked the question and I answered in the same way, you admitted you had seen it. Perhaps your memory is beginning to fail you?

I'm so sorry, Quady, I was having some lunch. I know it was totally remiss of me not to be available at your beck and call. It won't happen again.
As for your question, I've answered it on several occasions in the past and I'm afraid I'm not going to repeat myself.
It's interesting that a significant majority of the people who post on this topic think you are fundamentally wrong - indeed, I can't recall seeing anyone who supports your case. Does that not concern you? Does it not cross your mind that perhaps you you are totally wrong? Do not the events of yesterday point out just how mistaken you are? I guess not.

atg, yes, this may have come as a bit of a shock to a certain board contributor. Although from his latest comment it appears the penny hasn't dropped quite yet.

rcgl, all fair questions.
Yes, I was referring to a funding deal and it's the one third placing which concerns me.
As I've said, I'd support any deal which I thought was a good one - but I want the choice to vote on it.
I guess I'm slightly haunted (probably too strong a word) by the BCN situation, which was truly awful for ordinary shareholders.
As I've also said, I've voted in favour of the other motions and am not unhappy with where we are.

sorry, I should have included BHP in that list.

earthling, this is the first time I can recall the vote of retail investors being important and even now a combination of CGP and NCM will defeat Resolution 13.
I also agree the majority on here do seem to be in favour, which I find mysterious.

Q, I think the existing powers would have allowed him to issue up 5% of the total.

CD, let's assume he wins the vote. What would your view be if he then did a deal that you really didn't like the look of ?(I refer again to BCN) Would you feel aggrieved? Would you not have preferred that shareholders had been consulted first?
If it turned out to be a good deal, I'd support it in a jiffy; if not, I'd want my voice heard.
We retail investors are always complaining about the fact we are ignored and yet, when it comes to it, most are happy to sign away their right to have a voice. Seems very odd to me.

What an interesting RNS, and most welcome. Perhaps they should have done this yesterday.
I maintain my view that NCM and CGP will vote against the Special Resolutions (not sure about BHP) and this explains the appeal to us retail investors. This will be a close run thing.

Sensibles, he is far from confident, which explains the unprecedented announcement yesterday and the report from at least one contributor that he'd been approached by the proxy agent - that never happens for an AGM.

Steve, I cannot see either BHP and or NCM getting involved in a deal which leaves us as minority holders - they will want the whole thing. Therefore, your dilution argument doesn't stack up.
As I said yesterday, I'm not sure why any shareholder would vote for a Resolution which allows the company to conduct a major transaction without our specific agreement. The company should be made to put any such transaction to all shareholders for our approval. For me, this is what this is all about.

I wonder if the strike off notice was brought about by a private shareholder who complained about the failure of the company to lodge a Confirmation Notice? If you recall, this also happened when WHET was under control of the previous people.
Assuming the company is struck off, surely someone will need to look at what happened to the supposedly brilliant investments it made? Where did the money go?
The people on this bb who shouted from the roof tops about how amazing everything was should be ashamed of themselves. And as for those with more malign purposes...

RougeNation, I think Resolutions 11- 13 requires 75%. This would explain yesterday's announcement. NCM and BHP combined can defeat the motion.

Bozi, no you haven't, you've voted away your right to examine any potential deal before deciding whether you like the look of it. We have no idea how these powers will be used.

Bozi, you're right, but there's no guarantee it won't and surely you'd like to have the opportunity to vote on the question?

Smickster the point is not to give the board blanket approval without knowing what any potential arrangement will look like. To repeat, the BCN deal was a disaster. If the company wants to do a deal which involves significant dilution they should ask shareholdets first.
The company knows how unpopular these measures are and this explains todays plea.
Do not vote yes - you could end up really regretting it.