Member Info for addicknt

Quady, absent a preceding RNS, he won't be saying anything we don't already know. In other words, a total waste of time.

Jerry, will 2013 do?

Novice, why? What are you expecting to be said in the webinar?

ssmith, the CGP bid was doomed to fail from the moment it was first mooted. It's been an embarrassing waste of time and money, and worse than that, it has exposed us to a half-****ed and potentially destructive boardroom coup.

There is no reason to delay the PFS.
The company is in desperate need to raise the share price in advance of the 15th. One of the best ways of doing this is to release the PFS asap (we've been told to anticipate a significant uptick in asset value). It makes no sense to hold it back, particularly when it would add fuel to the claims that the company is hopeless at meeting deadlines. Additionally, if, as some suggest, the release is held back and used as part of a defence story, it would make us look weak.
In my opinion we'll see the PFS soon and NM will hope to use it to drive up market perception and, hopefully, our share price. We need to go into the period post the 15th in as strong a position as possible and you don't do that by holding back positive information.

DBW, me too, although I'm also keen on Chianti.

Quady, what's the point of drinking anything with such a low level of alcohol?

DBW, I'm absolutely sure you're right. Mind you, if I lose he'll be getting a bottle of Tesco's pinot grigio.

Jerry, you're on. We'll discuss the bet privately.

schlemiel, I thought that comment was telling and I'm sure he had a number of executives in mind. There are a myriad of companies out there run by either skilled explorers, or hopeless chancers. I believe we fit the first category. But these people are not experienced developers and operators and the difference is vast. Mind you, there was an element of arrogance in his comment, which seems to be commonplace in the mining industry.
Jerry, as you know, I think you're wrong about value. I feel we should place a wager...something involving wine, perhaps?

Very interesting.
He says he wants investors to support consolidation, well, he can count on me.
Time to get your chequebook out Barrick.

Viable, why?
The deal you refer to is fundamentally different to the situation here and is far more akin to the GGP arrangement with NCM. I suspect BHP would have loved this type of arrangement with us, but it didn't work out that way. A similar example is that of BCN. They went into partnership with Ganfeng and it has been an unmitigated disaster for shareholders.

Quady, they can't "hold it up", they have an obligation to inform shareholders.
For example, a company receives a firm offer (which is fundamentally different from an indicative offer) and it is unsolicited. The board can either dismiss it out of hand as either being too low or unwelcome, or they can enter into discussions. If they elect to enter into discussions they can delay an announcement until such stage as those discussions reach their conclusion. The company's advisors will normally approach the Stock Exchange explaining the situation and will request a delay to making an announcement. The Exchange will normally agree to this but will require time limits.
If they dismiss it out of hand, in theory they should inform their shareholders. We see countless examples when companies chose to ignore this requirement and it gets leaked, at which stage they make the usual lame announcement.
As it happens I do not believe we have received a firm offer, as I cannot see why NM would withhold the fact - it would boost our share price no end.

Quady, sorry, but you are wrong .
A firm offer is a firm offer and, if a company receives one it should announce the fact, although this can be delayed if both parties enter into negotiations.
Where I would agree with you is that it's not uncommon for the target to bend the rules. The problem then arises if the offeror decides to make that fact public.

RK, good post.
The other thing to bear in mind is that both BHP and most certainly NCM, will already have information which is not publicly available. As for the scope of DD, this would not be a complicated task. We don't produce anything and have no revenue, in other words, the accounts are straightforward. A buyer is buying assets and legal tenure, not a variable income and profit stream, about which they will already have their own opinions.

Quady, you say people saying that "no one can bid without knowing BHP's position". Speaking for myself, I've never said that. What I have said and, if you understood corporate finance you would recognise, is that it makes no sense for any bidder to reveal it's hand until BHP reveal theirs. This is also true for CGP.

I'm really looking forward to seeing the PFS.
We've been told to expect a "significant" increase in NPV and I'm hoping this will open a few eyes in the broader market. I wonder how much is "significant"?

Interesting thought schlemiel, but personally I can't see it.
CGP would want to keep their powder dry so that they can play their own part in any negotiation.

Sub- contractors...not sub- constructors.

Pad, Quady was suggesting BHP would be the sub-constructers. That's not what they do.