Member Info for addicknt

Gregory, I agree. They obviously have a very different view of the eventual outcome and I'm guessing they have reasons to believe that to be the case. It's too easy to simply look at the situation through our own prism - there are always two sides to an argument.

Redknight, the ownership of ENSA would be unaffected by a purchase of CGP by a third party. The acquiror would gain both the assets and liabilities. In other words, no one would be "passing" anything on to anyone - other than the shares in CGP.

Yes, they may well have come onboard with the intention of getting people interested - although that isn't their primary function, but they have failed. Of that list, only BR, NinetyOne and Merian may be counted as funds holding our shares. Even the GS holding, which is not much bigger than mine, may well be holding for an Aussie client. BR is the only ii of any significance.

Q, they are nominees, acting for the likes of you and me.
Do you see the weakness in your "diverse register" argument yet? It works both ways and in our case, is a huge vulnerability. I'd suggest you don't hang your hat on this as your major line of defence.

Quady, you can remove HL, RBC, ShareCentre and HSBC from that list.

Miagi, it would have been defensive to the extent that their holding of our shares could be removed from the table, and that may eventually prove to be important.
But I agree with you, it was a gigantic waste of money.

Miagi, re yours at 9.39, I can only assume it was for defensive reasons. He probably thought it was a long shot - the attempt 14 months ago gave a clear indication, but decided it was worth a punt. A lot rides on the CGP stake and I suppose if you follow the production mantra, it may be justified. Personally, as I regard it as having been a distraction, as well as not being in our interests.

Quady, I've said it enough times, what you and I may think the valuation to be, will not be the same as someone else.
There is no science to valuation - it becomes highly subjective and driven by emotion.
Anecdote: I once had a meeting with the CEO of Garda World (now bidding for G4S) at Heathrow airport - he'd flown in just for the meeting. He wanted to buy a client of mine's business. He'd been very specific about how he'd valued it and was insistent he wouldn't move on price. We sat down and I explained he wasn't even near to what my boys would accept. He banged the table a bit (he's an arrogant bastard), showed us his valuation methodology and shouted a bit more. We declined and were about to leave the room; at which point he doubled his offer. They still told him to bugger-off...something they came to regret.

Quady, if a majority of shareholders want a bid to succeed and the board blocks it, the process is simple: the bidder would demand an EGM (bear in mind all of our main shareholders are in a position to that) and vote out the Board. A board cannot ignore the wishes of the majority of shareholders.

Quady, each situation is different and it's rarely the case that a company has a sufficiently sticky shareholder base to defend against a bid, if the price is interesting enough. CGP proves an exception to the rule - we do not.

Scrat - no, it doesn't.

Colonel, I'm pretty sure that's not correct. We have the ROFR for their stake in ENSA, not for the whole of CGP.

opulentia, I absolutely agree, this has been a distraction. We have so much more to pursue.
However, the CGP stake is pretty critical for a third party bidder and our bid was all about trying to improve our defence - even though I thought it was a rubbish idea.

By the way, I'm quite surprised we haven't seen an RNS this morning explaining that the bid has now lapsed and it wasn't successful. I'm pretty sure the rules dictate there should be one.

Miagi, indeed, but it may make life easier for the bidder. Consider a situation whereby a bidder launches a bid for us and wins. CGP would then have a large cash pile and could sit back and wait for the bidder to approach them for the 15%. They'd be in a very strong position and could drive a very hard bargain.

Sorry, I should clarify my comment.
There are two separate issues/approaches with regard to CGP. 1) an offer is made for SOLG by a third party and that offer would have to be made for the CGP shares in SOLG. It would not be an offer for CGP as a whole and therefore their holding in ENSA would still be in their ownership. 2) If this is the route, the bidder would either have to come to an arrangement with CGP to buy their ENSA shares or, leave them in situ and wait for them to fall when they struggle to find the required funding.
The other approach is that someone buys all of CGP in advance of a bid for SOLG and therefore avoids a separate discussion with them about ENSA. I suspect the second possibility would work better for us, because as soon as anyone buys CGP our price will rocket.

Colonel, I agree - it was a good deal for them (but not us), but they clearly feel they can do better.
As to the point that a buyer of SOLG can simply ignore CGP, it doesn't work like that. An offer has to be made to all shareholders on equal terms.

The first thing to say is, thank heavens for that - it was a terrible deal for us, and the outcome was never in doubt.
I don't buy the argument which says it was a deliberate ploy by NM and he knew he'd fail. No one wastes a significant amount of time and money doing that. If it was deliberate, his judgement certainly comes into question.
What is obvious is that the CGP holders believe a much better offer will be on the table soon, one which suits better their short term ambitions.
Anyway, all bets are now off and we're in for a very interesting period. If I were BHP/NCM or anyone else, the first thing I'd do is attempt to buy the CGP holding, or at least reach an agreement with them prior to any discussions with NM. If BHP gave NM a call and opened the conversation with the statement that they had CGP onside, NM would be forced to take it seriously.

I'm not expecting any immediate news from BHP, I am rather surprised the share price has done the exact opposite of what may have been anticipated - particularly bearing in mind all of the other news flow.
Generally, I don't subscribe to price manipulation theories, but this time....

Jerry, fair point re tax.
I was trying to think of an occasion when your suggestion applied and I was reminded of one of my own companies.
We had a private equity and bank investor and sold a subsidiary company. The proceeds were used to buy the banks shares, as well as repaying their loan. However, the process was enshrined in a Shareholders Agreement, signed by all shareholders. This was, however, a private company so was much simpler.

Jerry, the other thing to bear in mind is that we don't want BHP/NC off the register.
Proceeds from a sale of Alpala should be used for two puropses; a special divi and working capital.