Member Info for addicknt

islandgirl, you say the the "board meeting is just a formality"; you have absolutely no way of knowing that. Unless of course, you sit on their board.
You also say, "some are looking for problems"; yes, of course "they" are. And so should you. An investor must always be aware of potential issues and to bury your head is not entirely sensible.
Experience of this company leads me to be very suspicious of the announcements. For example, my take of todays RNS is that it's good news, but the reference to the board meeting immediately raised a question: why mention it all? It had previously been announced that board approval had been given, but that was before their fund raising issues. So the question is, do they have to get approval again, given the change in circumstances? And was this a typical Secker statement which wasn't a lie, but nor was it the entire picture? So, it brings me back to the question, why raise the point if it isn't an issue?
These are simply questions every shareholder should be asking themselves. I just wish to god that this bloke would learn from previous mistakes and speak plainly, in a manner which leaves no doubt as to the meaning.

Why mention it then? It could easily be the case that a board decision is now required following their fund raising issue.
I know you think I'm some kind of de-ramper, despite my frequent comments about how much I like the project, but I'm not. I'm afraid bitter experience with this share has taught me never to believe anything until it's done and dusted and the money is in the bank. This strikes me as prudent, not negative.

Mr James, no, not yet.
Very pleased that stage 2 has been approved and am sure stage 3 will also receive the go-ahead; even if it is now subject to a previously unannounced board approval.
I'll be pleased when there is absolute 100% clarity that the entire funding package has been put in place. And that we see an end to Mr Secker's obfuscation.

Zarro, I'm really not sure you, or anyone else, is in a position to say it's a red herring. The fact is, we don't know and therefore a statement to shareholders would be very helpful.
As far as your other comment is concerned, I agree entirely. And this is exactly what's holding the share price back.

Ha!
But do you not agree, Tom, that the company really should inform shareholders of the current status? I know communication, is not one of his strengths, but an update wouldn't do any harm, would it?

a read.
There's a very interesting article on the BBC web site business section about lithium mining in Chile; specifically the operations in the Atacama desert. If I were a shareholder in Albemarle I'd be very concerned. By contrast and by implication, this is could be good news for BCN.
By the way, as far as the Ganfeng situation is concerned, I'd have thought the following three situations apply to their recent fund raising issues:
1. They already have sufficient cash and the investment in BCN will be unaffected.
2. They don't have the cash at the moment, but are happy that they will still be able to complete.
3. They don't have the cash and will need to withdraw.
Either way, it seems to me that the answer to these questions is already known and should be communicated to shareholders.

northesea, I think you've misunderstood.
The vote in HK sought to prevent Ganfeng from raising new money, and which appears to have been successful.
The question is; will this affect their ability to provide funds for BCN? As others have said, perhaps PS needs to clarify.

Indeed, degsie. This is a damn good project that ought to have been financed eons ago.

dan, and you think it is encouraging? Seems a slightly odd way of looking at it.

you haven't done so already, I suggest you have a look at the KDNC page re a set-back in Gangfen's plans.
I'm afraid it doesn't look encouraging.

lejjb, you have missed the point entirely.

lejjb, I take it you realise three of them cleared over £110m in share sales last year?

I concur, Sedaka.
Putting it bluntly, and obviously only in my opinion, PS has made a complete pigs ear of getting this funded. It's good news, if one ignores the price, that the Chinese are wanting to invest (I believe they will get approval), but it will completely remove any potential excitement that may have been generated by this being a takeover target.
I am also perplexed by the fact that the existing institutional shareholders have been so unwilling to fund the development (remember the many claims from PS that they would be joining-in? What happened to that?)
This is such an interesting project, but I can't help but think things would have been very different if another person had been CEO.
So much for my dreams of £5 per share.

Thanks for sharing, Pad.
I have yet to read a report from any broker or professional market commentator which offers the opinion that we'll get to production. All seem to be predicting a sale.
The Peel report also supports my and many others view, that we should aim to sell Cascabel and then move on to the next one. I'm convinced this is the best way to maximise shareholder value.

Carillion...ring any bells? And that is just one. Mate.

And that is exactly their point. I suggest you watch the video...they are very clear about their criticism and point specifically to one seemingly egregious example.

Thunder, if you think being audited by one of the Big Four is a guarantee of accuracy, you haven't been paying attention recently. Do I need to point out the countless failures and significant fines?
Anyway, let's hope MW are, in this instance, wrong.

newtoit, there was a piece in the Daily Mail today quoting Leonard Curtis (the administrators) who said that all shareholdings would be returned to the holders.
It may take time, but it looks as if you'll be okay.

mytton, no it did not "deserve" to recover...it was a gigantic con. And yes, the shorters were correct.

the interview on the web site that we can't mention with the guy behind Muddy Waters. If what he says is true, and it sounds credible, this is a scandal. And it ain't gonna do Mr Woodford any favours, either.