Member Info for addicknt

schlem, you are spot on. Private investors are too easily led by their hearts. Always listen to the head. Whenever I see comments on these boards saying things like " in (fill in name of ceo) we trust", it makes my toes curl. The most egregious example I can think of in the past two years was that slime ball Parsons at SOU. As soon as I saw a personality cult grip the bb I knew it was time to sell. Mind you, I did get caught by the even more revolting Rob Terry, who stitched me up for 50k.
As for Porvenir, I'm genuinely excited about what may emerge - it could be an absolute game changer.

ladinlax, question: you knew the bid would fail and that the offer would be rescinded, so why did you accept the offer? Surely, you could simply have sold your shares in the market whilst they still attracted the bid premium?
In any event, you've made the right decision by buying more shares here.

CD, we started the fight , and lost. And what has them selling shares got to do with us? It's their business, they can do with it what they want. In fact, you should be grateful they've been selling - their direct holding becomes less relevant as a result. You should also be grateful their attack on our governance has led to us having a much better balanced board. And the fact that a successful offer would have seen us being considerably diluted on our many other valuable assets, is a lucky escape and represents another favour they did us.
I carry no torch for CGP, but I can see things for what they are and therefore, no, I'm not kidding.

I must admit I'm not sure I understand the animus towards CGP. Sure, they appear to be in trouble and yes, they have said some things which have been uncomfortable or, have stretched the truth - as did NM.
But the fact is, we launched a hostile bid for them, not the other way around. They defended themselves in a manner which was to be expected. Their board had no intention of doing a deal with NM and neither did their shareholders, which is entirely their right. Frankly, they did us an enormous favour.
It would be so much better if we had a constructive relationship with them, but it appears the personalities and history involved will never allow that. Our reaction to them appears, at least to me, to be a sign of our own insecurity and is therefore a weakness.
They will plough their own furrow, as is the right of every independent company, and it's to be hoped we can put this behind us and get on with doing what we do best - finding copper and gold.

Sorry, schlem, on this occasion you are wrong.
I hate doing this, but I've been an NED in five separate companies, an INED on the board of a City institution and non-exec chairman of four companies, including one which was AIM listed. I kinda think I know what I'm talking about.

WoodyB, you misunderstand the role and nature of an NED's position. They are most emphatically NOT consultants, nor do they work on a "as needed" basis. They are directors of the company and, as such, face the same duty of care and are subject to the same laws as an executive director.

Q, re Keith, irony's not your strong point, is it?

schlem, a thought. If this guy is the appointee of BHP, why haven't they said so?

Q, mere whataboutery. Keith will be working for BHP on the development of Alpala. :)

Morning, Quady. How do you react to the statement in the RNS about where our priorities lie?

BHP are getting their feet under the table, as has been suggested, I wonder how the other majors will react?
I guess they wouldn't want to wait until it's a fait accompli, in as much as if BHP buy Alpala and then work closely with us elsewhere, it may well be game over for anyone else.
Is this announcement of itself another catalyst?

That's very interesting.
So, we're going to flog Alpala to BHP and then work closely with them to explore the remaining assets. Sounds good to me. Obviously, and before Q tells me, I have no evidence to support this statement.

atg, exactly! This is a coded message...to all us conspiracy theorists.

Ha! beat me to it schlem!

'The Board of SOLG is completely cogniscent that exploration and discovery will always remain THE core key value driver for the company'.
Hmmm. So production isn't then?

copper, if I may borrow a quote "there's no evidence to support that". From where I sit, the coincidence is too strong to lend credibility to your claim.

Colonel, well, what this looks like to me is a sensible defence mechanism in the event CGP does eventually get round to calling and EGM. Although I suppose they may simply argue for the removal of Mather, which I can't see them winning.

I know everyone loves to hate CGP, but if they hadn't raised the governance issue in their defence document, I wonder if Mather would have done anything about it?

schlem, what do mean by 'BHP-backed board'?

The lady from Equador looks like a sensible addition.
Very good to see the company has now moved towards the UK Compliance Code.