Member Info for addicknt

So does Glenn Hoddle, but I'm fairly certain he doesn't sit on our board.

VTID, the conditions may well be right for GH, but who is he?

Zoros, I seem to recall NM saying he would not sell the company piecemeal.

Well, this is a first! I can't recall previously seeing a company promoting such an article.
Sure, companies tweet stuff about new product development or good results, but to endorse an opinion about being a takeover target is quite extraordinary. It appears to be adding credibility to speculation and, dare I say it, may border upon a transgression of the rules.
Don't get me wrong, I'm delighted with this, but I do wonder about the intention. Was it a not too subtle message? Or was it simply an innocent referral to an opinion expressed in the press?
I know what I think.

Thanks for that Obs. (btw, no idea why I wrote F rather than T)
On a broader point, I wonder why someone would want to short now? Surely, the best time would have been at around the 80p level? I know PS blamed shorters for the decline from that price, but I just thought that was a convenient excuse for the abject failure of his capital raising exercise. And we know BR weren't lending out stock at that time.
At 21p the risks of shorting must be significant, unless of course, you think the whole thing is going to fail.

That is a very fair point Obs. On the face of it the meaning is clear. However, what confuses me is that if you lend out the shares you still have ownership and do not therefore have to make an announcement (I think). Additionally, there is no notifiable position declared on the FCA web site and never has been.
The FR1s are designed to be as confusing as possible.

I have no idea if there is any shorting going on and have always been suspicious of the belief there was. However, the one thing which was plain as day was the highly unusual pattern of trading which took place over four or five days prior to Xmas.
As I mentioned at the time, the transactions were all OTC purchases, and it seems to me this was the BR shares being placed by our broker.

Cookie, so am I. It's my biggest holding by far and I'm very confident we're sitting on something spectacular.

where did you see this?
Frankly, although I wouldn't like it, if it is true, it's an awful lot better than not getting funded.

Cookie, I fully understand your approach but it's not the way I like to deal with my investments.
Until such time as I've sold a share, I worry about it all the time and if something emerges of a negative nature, I prefer to dig away as much as possible until I can get as near as possible to the truth.
I was caught out in the QPP saga and lost 50k. However, had I ignored the Gotham blog I would have lost another 100k. It took me a couple of days to first of all realise it needed my attention and then to act upon it. My initial reaction was of disbelief, but when I started digging around in more detail, I understood they were telling the truth. When I then mentioned this on the bb I was castigated and abused...right up to the moment the truth was finally revealed.(even then some people refused to believe it and one or two still don't) People simply refused to believe that what was being said was true and a type of groupthink took hold and resulted in the loss of over £2bn of shareholder value. This pattern is repeated time after time on these bbs and from my point of view, it's a question of "once bitten, twice shy".
As private investors we are always way behind the curve and it makes our position parlous. Consequently, whatever emerges anywhere, and particularly via the virus that is social media, we should always pay heed, investigate as far as possible and act accordingly.

Strider, I agree.
My overall impression is that the company is contemptuous of the AG blog, but it is likely that something has indeed happened in the past with regard to the environmental question. It has been mis-reported, was minor in nature and has been fully addressed. Hopefully, the Ecuadorean newspaper, which carried the article, will print a correction.

Strider, I've just received the same reply.
Clearly , someone got the wrong end of the stick.
She also added some further very dismissive comments about AG.
All good stuff and this will allay some fears.

strider, in my first email I forgot to ask, but have done so in a follow-up email.

DBW, my only concern with this type of blog is that they develop a life of their own. Look at what happened at Babcock for the most recent example.
Because they are out there forever, somehow, and regardless of their veracity, some people assume it must be true.
PR is a fine balance in these circumstances and the responses range from full denial to completely ignoring them. In this instance, I'm sure the facts speak for themselves. However, I would like an answer to the environmental issue.

I emailed the company (Anna) this morning wrt the Angry chap.
To paraphrase the response, it stated " we feel no need to respond to his/hers opinions".
The tone was totally dismissive of AG.

legitimate to ask what on earth am I doing on this page today of all days. Well, I'm just waiting for the family to emerge from their pits and have nothing else to do.
So, a very merry Christmas folks and let's hope 2019 is our year. And very special good wishes to Mr Angry, who quite clearly could do with some seasonal good cheer.

FTF, I've spent part of the morning trying to find references to Angry and one suggestion is that he called Jim Gowans, an old industry hand; but this appears not to be definitive.
Anyway, I remain genuinely baffled by the interpretation of the asset. How is it that someone could draw such wildly different conclusions from the same data that many have hailed as of major significance? Why would BHP and NC look at the results and invest so much if there was any doubt in their minds? Of course, they wouldn't and one assumes their in-house geology team is pretty well staffed with experts.
This person quite obviously knows that his/her opinions are at complete odds with the majority of folk, so he/she is clearly staking his/her reputation against everyone else; why?
This is all very confusing and for the first time in my life, makes me wish I was a geologist.

langtro, you may well have gripes with Strider relating to your investment elsewhere, but would you please do us a favour and limit your comments to that page.
You are revealing yourself to be astonishingly childish.
Thank you.

There may be numerous errors contained within this blog, but one that sticks-out like Pinocchio's nose is the assertion that we need cash.
Even the most cursory understanding would reveal this statement to be complete balls.
Perhaps he/she forgot to count the cash in the bank?

This blog begs many questions, but the key one for me is; how can the evaluation of one geologist be at complete odds with those of many, many others? And I'm not just referring to the folk at BHP and NC.
We might like to think that the motivation is the wish to short the share, but I don't buy the shorting conspiracies which surface of these boards...they are normally just tosh, particularly in this case, where it would imply someone with a computer in their attic could short such a well supported share.
So why is this persons understanding of the very extensive data be so out of kilter? Does anyone know anything about this characters track record?
Apart from this inconsistency, the one element of the article that stands out is the reference to apparent breaches of environmental issues which are contained in one of the links. Does anyone know anything about this? They appear to be historic and the company has addressed the comments, but I've not seen any mention of this before.