Member Info for addicknt

Oso, yes, but I don't think an extra 15% of Alpala will end up being as valuable as 10% (give of take) of everything else.
I've always maintained this is a daft deal and as time passes I'm even more convinced.

"your route" not "you rout".

Thanks, Quady. So if we take Sav's point, it's likely to be circa 13.5/14%. Which brings me to my point.
Given what's been going on with our other concessions and how amazingly exciting they look, why would we want to be diluted? Sure, Alpala is very important, but if we follow you rout to production and end up mining three/four or even more Tier 1 mines, it will begin to look a bit daft to have handed CGP this number of shares.

Does anyone know what percentage of SOLG CGP shareholders will own if the offer is successful?
I've forgotten the answer and am being lazy.

Quady, I haven't gone anywhere - although I'm most definitely not in the sub-£1 crew.
Over the coming months you'll see just how wrong you are about BHP.

This is beginning to sound like an episode of the excellent Detectorists.
Shall we move on to train sets?

4 billion light years...sounds about right.

Quady, you'll need your telescope to see how far away production is.

Dart, and why not?! Quady has redefined the whole concept.
Mind you, given the number of times I've argued the other case, I'm guilty of the most appalling hypocrisy.

ferg, not in this instance. No parties have been revealed and therefore there's no reason to reveal if one drops out.

Dart, are you working on the basis that if you repeat something often enough, it will somehow come true?

ferg, I agree a hostile bid is very unlikely, but the NDA issue is a red herring.
If one of the parties which has signed an NDA has their bid rejected and the board decides to advance conversations with someone else, the NDA will drop away and the rejected party is free to do whatever they like.

RMR, that is a matter for the board. They can choose to explain why they've agreed that price, which nowadays most will, or they can simply say we recommend you accept it and that it's "fair and reasonable".
If you are asking if the bidder will explain his thinking to our board, again that depends upon circumstances. Normally, you'd expect them to do so and there will always be argy-bargy around those calculations.

I should add, the most complex work the lawyer will be involved in is the shareholder circular, which they will work hand-in-hand with UBS, who will do the bulk of the work.

The most contentious parts of a sale and purchase agreement are always the warranty and indemnity clauses. However, in a public company transaction they do not apply if the company is being sold in its entirety. The reason being that the shareholders i.e us, will not provide them. Therefore, this puts even greater emphasis on due diligence which will focus around legal ownership, licences, liabilities and asset calculations etc.
In truth, the s&p agreement for a public company is much less cumbersome than that for a private one.
For guidance, I've used DLA in the past and although it was a different partner, they have a very good reputation. The partner I used was excellent.

Well, there may have been, but the Stock Exchange RNS system has crashed.

mwv, I'm finding your posts really helpful and interesting, so thank you.
May I ask, are you a mining engineer or geologist? In any event, your posts are really appreciated.

zoros, I think you've hit the nail on the head. He's now into the dynasty building phase of his career. The problem he's got is that ultimately, it won't be his choice.

copper, I most certainly don't think it's out of the question, but I'm not sure it would work for either party. Specifically, BHP would ask, "why should we risk so much money just so that SOLG shareholders can benefit?".
For me, that's the killer question.

Miagi, yes I know and I was flattered. Obviously, he's right, but modesty prevents me from saying so.