Member Info for addicknt

CGP's direct holding will be swept up when the bid for us arrives. A separate discussion will then take place about their holding in ENSA.

He seems to imply that he does not want to sell CGP prior to there being a full bid for SOLG, or a disposal of Cascabel. In other words, if someone emerges with an interest in CGP and that interested party doesn't look like the likely bidder for SOLG, he would vote against the approach. He would prefer to see a sale of CGP's interests being simultaneous with someone bidding for us. Does this frustrate CGP's current attempts to market themselves?
Hope that makes sense.

Q, you laid out AN argument, not THE argument. Don't confuse the two.
As it happens, I'm not sure Jerry is right, but he and I have discussed this at length already.

Optimus, I think you meant "tangible", not "intangible".

Q, quick question - were you assuming we were not subject to the UK Listing requirements and Takeover Code? Was it your assumption that our Listing on TSX superseded that of the LSE?

rcgl, you are quite right and specifically as your comments relate to the position should the company find itself in a bid situation...as Rule 21 clearly states.

Excuse typos.

Q, you specically referred to a Rights Issue. May I suggest you do a little of your famous 'research' in order to help you understand what it is?
You claim to have been investing for 40 years (so, you started when you wete 18?) and yet you have no knowledge or understanding of some of the most basic terms and laws which dictate corporate life. Are you a very slow learner?

Q, yet again you are wrong. A Rights Issue has to be offered to all shareholders i.e BHP and NCM, ergo no dilution. That's the law. Full stop.
In any event, as I've already informed you, such an issue cannot take place without shareholder approval.
You are barking up the wrong tree.

Q, FFS! Read the Code!

Q, you're just like one of Johnson's famous whack-a-moles. Every argument you espouse is proven to be wrong and yet you immediately pop up with some other weird defence. Just accept the fact, you are totally and utterly wrong about what companies can do once they are defined as being in a bid situation.
This company is highly vulnerable to a bid and that is a simple statement of fact. And no matter how often you come up with your 'diverse book' stuff, it will not alter the fact of your errors.

Q, no they can't. I suggest you have a look at Rule 21 of the Takeover Code - it explains what actions are prohibited if a company is subject to a hostile takeover.
Any significant defence action requires shareholder approval, and that simply wouldn't happen. Additionally, a major event such as an asset sale or share issue of the size you think would work, would require a full prospectus.
Sorry, you're hanging you hat on a coat stand that has no hooks.

Q, your post makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Care to explain?

That's right, Jerry...if only!

DBW, you sound like Boris Johnson.

Same here, Jerry. In fact they were prepared to take the whole lot at 37.01. That doesn't happen very often, if ever.

Let's hope not, for the sake of our children.

copper, and you think that's a good thing?

snesibles, you simply vote in favour of each resolution.

As I mentioned earlier, Bristow has been saying this for months . The only mystery is why it was decided to re-tweet it today and then hastily remove it. I think it was done by Eliza without any authority.