Member Info for addicknt

What evidence do you have to support the claim the short position is being closed. None of the available data suggests it is.

KRSS, how about employing Occam's Razor? The most obvious answer is the correct one. In other words, it is being done to save money.

Just how stupid are you?

It wasn't a 'claim', as you put it, it was a statement of fact. The email exchange related to the arrangements for the conversation i.e timing, and several others after it took place, which refer to my original post on here, including one which gave me permission to relate the details of the conversation and one referring to the fact I had reported it 'verbatim'. Do you honestly believe I would have invented so much detail and then take the risk of posting it on here whilst knowing this board is occasionally read by management? And how do you account for the fact several other people have had more or less identical discussions?

To make it simple for you, Jerry and I were both telling the truth; a concept I know is way beyond your own capabilities.

One final point. You accuse others on here of being incapable of posting without mentioning your name and yet you do exactly the same with me. Your obsession is bordering on downright weird, particularly as you're always so wrong.

Ha! You're nothing if not predictable.

As Stephen Fry once said:' The only reason people do not know much is because they do not care to know. Incuriosity is the oddest and most foolish failing there is'. This sums you up perfectly.

Anyway, I'll leave you to wallow in your own ignorance.

Nal, interesting to see you talk about truth. I take it you saw Jerryspaniel's post on Friday afternoon? If you didn't I suggest you have a look. It will not be to your liking, but I'll be happy to accept your apology.

Aside from the figures, specifically the cash flow statement, which I'd wager many people didn't read, the MD&As were of little real value. Anything which was price sensitive was released via an RNS, with the consequence that the vast majority of the reports were simply a re-hash of existing info.

However, I agree we need far better shareholder comms and it'll be instructive to see if PS sticks to his word.

IP, congratulations! You've managed to get the announcement completely ar5e about face.

Eloro, good point, although I think SC addressed the issue a while back and said it wouldn't impact us. I can't recall exactly why it wouldn't, but it may be because Cascabel isn't directly owned by a Canadian entity.

28jac, it may do, although you'd think if a Canadian wished to sell they would have done so already.

Makes good sense. Will it be a precursor to a listing on ASX? Personally, I can't see why we need the extra cost.

It appears we are to de-list from TSX.

Perhaps a more relevant question is why are the Chinese prepared to offer free technical advice which forms part of a process specifically designed to add value? In other words, their own work means they will eventually have to pay more.

It also makes you wonder why they'd let anyone else benefit from their work.

Orthern, indeed. Confusing, isn't it? What is clear is that PS appears to be perfectly relaxed about the cash position.

Re:cash. The Red Cloud report dated 15th May says we have $31m on the balance sheet and PS has said we have sufficient cash for the next 15/18 months, although this must imply the successful drawdown of the Franco facility.

With regard to technical help we find ourselves caught on the horns of a dilemma.

We are in need of all the help we can get and all the better if it's free. However, if accepting it moves us closer to the spider's web we could well find ourselves trapped. This is the issue PS and DV are wrestling with and I guess they will be trying to keep all options open for as long as they can.

Taking BHP's money was a mistake and we need to avoid making another one...but it won't be easy.

RT, as head of group strategy, I'd say it was inevitable that PS dealt with DV on that transaction - on the opposite side of the table. He would have done his best to get the highest price for his employers. Conversely, DV would have been trying to get it as cheaply as possible.

Collaboration? No. Opposing sides with different aims.

RT, the fact is he was doing his job for the people who were paying his wages.

The issue of creeping control is an interesting one. As I've previously mentioned, he raised this topic and spent some time telling me how aware of it he was and how he was determined to avoid it happening. Let's hope he succeeds.

IP, can you explain why Maxit would have any interest in selling Solg for a pittance? As far as I'm aware, Sangha isn't certifiably insane.

RT, if he was working for the bidder which, assuming I've got my dates right, he was, why would he have an interest in protecting private investors in the target company?

He was working for Glencore, so he was doing his job. Did people expect him to do a favour for the shareholders of the target company?

I should add that he talked at length about his own commitment to shareholder communication and transparency as is possible.