Member Info for addicknt

History has taught me that the easiest thing to do with anything Secker says, is to ignore it until it turns into hard fact contained within an RNS. All the rest is simply re-hashed wiffle.

Gerry, no one gets it right all of the time but, over the course of his career he's had outstanding success and the very last thing he is is a moron.
Well done on TLW, by the way...I also made few bob on that one.

So, the guy who's made himself a billionaire by trading the markets is a moron? Hmm...interesting perspective.

Great first post on here 888888888. Care to give us a clue?

The response is crystal clear: "make us a better offer and it's yours. If you can't, we'll happily sell to someone else". This will test the extent to which NM really wants their holding.
As for the tone of the various exchanges between both companies, they may be less sophisticated than you'd see in most British hostile situations, but otherwise they are exactly what you'd expect.
On a personal basis, I'm not in favour of us doing this deal. I prefer the idea of an "unstable" shareholder; it adds speculative value to the M&A narrative.

Tipsa, re: your last sentence, I had noticed the same thing and wondered why.

Oh, and by the way, it's quite obvious the market doesn't really know what to make of this, which suggests to me it remains as confused as I am.

There are similarities with the KDNC/BCN situation. In that instance, KDNC had approached the BCN with a private proposal for an all share offer. BCN decided to release details of this to the market, much to KDNC's annoyance and surprise. However, it had the desired effect and it was laughed out of court.
I wonder if our boys had approached CGP privately and were rebuffed without consideration and fearing that CGP would do a BCN, our board struck pre-emptively with the announcement, thus spiking CGP's guns?
In any event, I remain confused about this and am not yet persuaded of the benefits to us private shareholders. Additionally, I remain completely convinced that there are other reasons why we have made this move ; this is not all that it seems otherwise I simply can't see why we're bothering. It's not a compelling enough case for us...at least in my opinion.

Grim, the only surprise to me was that it took so long to reply.
As for the "put up or shut up" comment, in due course and in any potential takeover situation, it becomes a requirement under the Exchange rules, although I'm not sure about how things work in Canada.

At some stage there will be a requirement for us to "put up or shut up".
As it stands, and putting to one side Cornerstone's hasty refusal, they are entitled to say that we haven't actually put an offer on the table and that the proposal so far is no more than an "intention' to offer, therefore they have no need to put the matter to all shareholders. Whether we will go that far remains to be seen.
What are people's views? Is this worth us pursuing? What are the benefits to us? Is it worth the distraction?

Barksy, I think the only explanation can be that they "forgot" to release them, which may explain the fine. Amnesia is a tricky condition.

ssmith, not sure you meant "only someone in their right mind....etc".

We had the debate about the PEA timing a week or so ago. Some of us thought it was due in Jan, others maintained it was Q1. The latest statement says Q1, so that should settle the argument. In any event, it doesn't really matter.
The key point, at least for me, is why has it been delayed (let's not re-open the debate about timing)?
It's possible that the Cornerstone move had something to do with it, but I can't really see it makes much difference as, by the time we firm-up our offer, the PEA would have been released anyway.
My view is that the longer timeframe (note, I didn't say "delay") is the result of more information being included and the absolute requirement for us to present the very best case.
It is conceivable that this could be our swansong, in as much as we receive a bid before we reach PFS, let alone BFS. Therefore, it's imperative that we put our best case out in the market.
What other possible reasons can you think of, apart from the obvious, i.e we underestimated how long it will take?

Strider, not necessarily. Pre-emption simply gives the right to make an offer...it can take any form the bidder wishes.
You would think it would have to be at the same value, but sometimes a lesser offer may have greater value over time i.e if a shareholder would prefer to take paper rather than cash. And my guess is some shareholders in CGP would prefer our paper as it would allow them ongoing involvement in our story.
Having said that, and based upon what CGP said in their response, the majority of their shareholders are simply looking for the highest cash bid, which, in my view, will make life difficult for NM.

RR1, beat me to it by a nano second!

It's a deterrent, not a blocker.
If a major made a compelling cash offer to the shareholders of CGP and those shareholders had no interest in our paper (may seem odd, but people have different requirements), we would struggle to match it. In fact, I'm not sure I'd want to see us using cash to make the purchase.

sorry, meant "we", not "they".

And as with all pre-emptive rights, they will have to match whatever is on offer from someone else.

Having two such powerful trade investors on the register is a mixed blessing.
One the one hand, they have provided us with the necessary cash, have given credibility to the project and have made us an attractive investment proposition. However, on the other hand their presence has muddied the waters in terms of seeking an exit process which would attract all-comers. (this is the perennial problem with trade investors and corporate finance advisors always caution their clients accordingly if they are thinking of taking one on board)
NM has sought to ameliorate the negative impact with the standstill agreements, but the clock is ticking on those.
In my view, he's looking at that timetable and thinking; "how do I protect our position by making sure neither New or BHP are in such a dominant position that their holding effectively rules out any other bidders?" He sees CGP as being one of the mechanisms to achieve that; and so do they.
However, I don't think we'll win. If CGP has any sense, they will drag this out until New are in a position to bid and in the meantime, they'll hold discussions with other groups. Once New has a clear run, CGP will open the process up and will be able to maximise their value. At that stage, given the terms of the standstill with BHP, I suspect they will also enter the fray.
Ultimately, CGP will sell to the highest bidder and will have no regard for what may, or may not, suit us. NM's agenda is at complete odds with this approach. As I said on the day the move was announced, this is a defensive move and it's a recognition by NM of the vulnerability that we find ourselves in.
The wheels are in motion and the outcome will be fascinating, but I really do not see NM being able to prevent someone else either being able to increase their holding, or A.N.Other appearing on our register.

we haven't really mentioned is what the proposed transaction implies; and by that, I mean what it says about our prospects.
I cannot think of a clearer statement of confidence than this. The company is, in effect, saying "we know what's coming and this is why we want this proposal to succeed". Can you imagine any board proposing something along these lines unless they were 100% certain of the benefits?