Member Info for addicknt

What are you on about?

Who said they would get no benefit? I didn't.
The point I was making, which is patently obvious, is that they will have no wish to risk their capital for anything other than 100% ownership. Why would they put the money in to develop an asset that they then have to share with another company's shareholders when they don't need to? And the idea they'd stump up the cash in return for 49%, as someone suggested earlier, is obviously completely daft.
There are many ways to skin this cat, but that ain't one of them.

DJ, you make a fair point but NM has always emphatically ruled-out a jv and, as I've said many times, why on earth would BHP fund a development, risking their own money in the process, so that we shareholders in SOLG benefit at their expense? They just won't...and they don't need to.

Quady, ENSA is all about Alpala, and thank heavens for that. Otherwise CGP would also own some more of our assets...which they don't.
I'm really sorry, but you are wrong about this and, as a consequence, your argument about licenses etc, falls. If we end up selling Alpala separately, it will be done via a sale of ENSA. Why else do you think we have a myriad of subsidiary companies, each owning individual assets? It's so they can be sold separately - if that's the way we want to go.

Quady, what else is it?

Quady, ENSA is a company not, as you suggest, simply an "envelope". We OWN 85%. If it isn't a company, what exactly do we own? An envelope?

rcgl, exactly. I'm afraid I can see nothing to suggest a buyer would have to reapply for licenses.
Quady, why would it be an asset sale? We, and whoever ends up owning the other 15%. would simply sell our shares in ENSA. In fact, the document you posted makes it absolutely clear that this is the best way to proceed.
It seems to me you've based your argument on a totally false premise.

Quady, "should Alpala be sold...all licenses etc would have to be reapplied for". Are you sure about this? Can you post a link please.
Alpala is owned by Ensa. It's a single purpose company and holds the rights etc. Surely, a bidder would buy ENSA and with it would go the various permits, licences etc. Obviously, I may be wrong about this, but if ENSA doesn't own the rights, who does? Is there a change of control clause? If so, where can I find it?

Coolonel, why on earth would BHP do that? Answer: they wouldn't.
There's no way they're going to risk all their capital so that you and I can get rich.

Quady, wrong, that is not the explanation I've given you. I referred to the tactics employed in any competitive corporate finance situation.
You make a number of fundamental errors in your understanding of the position, one of the others being your constant reference to a "diverse register". You and I share the view of this company's prospects, but when it comes to the corporate position you have a very severe case of tin ear.

Quady, I've answered that question on numerous occasions. I genuinely mean absolutely no disrespect here, but if you'd had any experience of corporate finance, you'd understand. And yes, it does make a very great deal of difference.

The RNS service is malfunctioning on the Stock Exchange web site this morning - the second time in the past few trading days. Although curiously, the announcement from EUA is visible elsewhere.

Mathers, I simply cannot see how giving CGP shareholders an extra 10% of our company in return for their existing stake makes any sense at all. Alpala will end up being only a part of our hugely valuable portfolio. We are paying far too high a price. Mind you, it isn't going to happen, so this is all academic.

For the life of me I cannot understand why anyone would think BHP will agree to any form of extended standstill. It simply isn't going to happen.

Agreed, Mathers. It's now a good deal for CGP shareholders and a truly terrible one for us.
Take your pick. Do you want to benefit them or us?

Richy, you've missed my point. The whole thing has been a moving target, and still is, but until they had a clearer picture of Alpala, at the very least, they would not make a move. Why would they? Even now it's a difficult asset to value, but two years ago it was impossible, and when they tried, they were rebuffed...thankfully.

Richy, BHP would not have been concerned about the original standstill agreement. Their strategy is to allow junior explorers do what they're supposed to do i.e explore. BHP would know it was going to take time for SOLG to prove the theory, as it were, and had no intention of doing anything until we did.
Well, that has now paid off in spades and there is zero chance of them agreeing to another similar arrangement.
And no, I don't anticipate a bid on the 16th...it will take time for them to get their ducks in a row.

Miagi, it's all going to collapse on Tuesday...or Wednesday...or Thursday. Something like that.
Will that do?

redknight, exactly! And yet some people have been claiming all week that this signifies the fact CGP will fall to our bid.

I think there's a real possibility a fair few folk who have been buying this week will be disappointed.
Clearly, there's a body of people who seem to believe something will happen on the 15th. I do not think it will. Some of them will come on here and say "told you so...BHP are never going to bid", others will moan about it not happening.
Having said that, I really hope I'm wrong.