Member Info for addicknt

KB, You may be right - it may have been the last straw. But my point was that it was their choice, not that of NM.
And I absolutely agree - he isn't going to go down without a fight, and thank heavens for that! We need him to maximise value for ALL shareholders, which, by the way, is another fiduciary duty.
This ongoing debate is interesting because basically we are all on the same side. We all want to make as much as possible, although some consider that would be best done alone and others don't see that as a possibility.
But one area of fundamental difference is the view that some have that NM has played such a brilliant game that the company's two largest and most significant shareholders have been "sidelined" and are irrelevant. This opinion is followed-up by the view that both of them will accept "defeat" and will traipse off with their tail between their legs. I admit, I simply cannot see how anyone can maintain that view, but who knows, I may be completely wrong.

DartFrog, I've lost count of the number of boards I've served on as CEO, NED, INED and Chairman, and which also includes an AIM listed plc, and you are right - a dodgy CEO can conceal information. But that's not my point. What I'm saying is simple; the law requires board members to have full access to all information and failure to make sure they do is a breach of fiduciary duty.

theiceberg, sorry but you're wrong about directors and their responsibilities. You may be confusing roles with fiduciary duty.
The best way to illustrate this is when something goes wrong and outside agencies investigate. All directors will be interviewed and will be deemed to be jointly responsible. However, it's often the case that blame will not lie with the entire board and the authorities will seek evidence as to who knew what. If a CEO has been hiding information from his colleagues, he's in even greater trouble.
You'd have to be a highly negligent and stupid director not to demand access to all information.

copper, I take it you're aware of corporate law in this respect? All directors MUST have access to all information. It's a legal requirement.
Of course, NM may have tried to break the law, but he'd be taking a significant risk if NCM decided to take action against the company for failing in its fiduciary duty.

Colonel, I certainly agree with your comments about professionalism. And I agree, I don't think they were invited (they could have participated if invited - how do you think they've invested in the past?)
However much people try to put a positive slant of the relationship between NCM/BHP and the company, I'm afraid I can't see it. We are heading towards some significant developments in this respect - NM knows it and is taking whatever steps he feels appropriate to achieve the best deal for shareholders.

Colonel, NCM's block caving expertise was, to my thinking, a red herring. He was there for reasons of corporate governance and keeping an eye of NM. The fact they've pulled him is hugely significant.

And by the way, just for the sake of clarity, the reason they've done this is so that their forthcoming actions are not restricted by virtue of being insiders.
Colonel, BHPs silence does not imply they are on "great terms". If everything was rosy in the garden, they would have taken part in the recent funding round.

KB, sorry, that's nonsense. I take it you are aware they have the legal right to have an NED? They made the decision to pull their nominee, not NM.

TBTT, you are right. NCM had made their objections perfectly clear some weeks ago and the withdrawal was only a matter of time.
I also believe you're right about the prospect of a joint bid (although NCM could just as easily sell their holding to BHP). We may disagree about the price, but who knows? As for the IC, it's been useless for as long as I've read it...which was first in 1978, I think. Why would you be a financial journalist if you were any good at understanding finance?

KB, you know that was not he case, don't you? NCM were not kicked out of the door. They withdrew their nominee. And the idea that NCM have been "usurped" by the appointment of a middle manager is laughable.

Good morning, Quady. I'm not sure I fully understand your post but I'd make one observation: both BHP and NC have anti-dilution rights. The interesting thing is that they elected not to exercise them at the last funding round, and this raises the question; why not? The answer may play either way. 1) They no longer have any real interest in SOLG and will simply let NM move ahead with his plans. 2) They are keeping their powder dry for the main event.
One of these two scenarios will be accurate and I know which I consider to be the most likely.

Colonel, the option to appoint a director was detailed in the subscription agreement of August 2016...just to save you the bother.
BTW, someone asked earlier about the cost of NC's original investment - it was 6.7p.

Mog, indeed. This wasn't about personalities and Biswas signalled it was going to happen a couple of weeks ago. They will not be re-appointing anyone soon. They want the freedom of being able to act whilst not being deemed to be Insiders.

Colonel, just to remind you, NC still have the right to an NED provided they own 10% of the share capital. On this basis, I'm not sure your theory stands. In fact, it doesn't - he can't get rid of the nominated director.

BTW, I should add I think NM has done the right thing as far as the private investors are concerned. Had he allowed NC and BHP to provide all of the finance, we would have been diluted to irrelevance and they would have gained control at a very low cost, (this has happened at BCN) By ignoring their wishes, he's forced their hand. Whether he's done this intentionally or not, is another matter, but the result will be the same.

Colonel, he would not have been voted out, nor "pushed".
The reason for his resignation is incredibly straightforward: NM is pursuing a strategy with which NC disagree and the continued presence of a NC nominated director would inhibit their ability to act in what they regard as their best interests.
NM picked the fight and NC have clearly indicated their view on the matter.
One thing which interests me is the extent to which NC and BHP may, or may not, be talking about this. They are competitors, but I think we can see a situation whereby their interests align.

Very well put, Red.

sjn, indeed it will.

copper, I love your conviction! Even as someone who has an alternative opinion, I'm not 100% convinced of my argument. In fact, there's no logical argument to support either one side or the other - the fact is we don't really know.
But just for the sake of balance - THIS IS DEFINITELY NOT GOING TO PRODUCTION.

I'm sure someone will correct me, but is this the first time we've seen a firm statement about the date for the PFS? And is the date a coincidence?
BTW, I do hope the new appointees have negotiated a good exit deal.