Member Info for addicknt

If you were making an investment decision for an ii and were interested in our story, would you buy now at these bargain basement prices, or would you wait until we're further along the the de-risking track and risk having to pay more?

I suppose the logical approach would be to do both to ensure a lower average price. However, there's a big problem, and that is market liquidity. The fact is there doesn't appear to be any willing sellers out there, or rather not with a decent level of shareholding.

So, you may be forced to wait until a seller emerges, which may never happen, or wait for a placing. For me, this explains why no new investors have appeared, although I don't think it's though lack of trying.

SM, the original announcement relating to the SR talked about both of those things. I guess the problem was little or nothing was done about them. So I'm not sure it really is a sea-change in strategy, but more of an acceleration of what was originally intended.

Q, it isn't just a question of losing control in a jv, it's about giving away a substantial shareholding which would more or less completely remove any competitive tension. Even if we only sold 25% to Jiangxi for example, this would deter any other bidder. The whole process of jv'ing is fraught with difficulty and we should do whatever we can to avoid it.

Q, I agree. But the fact is we were for sale and the company spent a long time trying to sell the asset. Sadly, the market didn't attribute sufficient value and the process appears to have been aborted - for the time being.

Eloro, as far as I'm aware he said it once. Every other statement talked about de-risking, which was confirmed by the actions taken.

My view is that if we are successful in the de-risking process we will reach a point when our valuation is more realistic and we will be more open to some form of corporate action.

My biggest fear is we enter a jv which effectively removes any possibility of an auction process. I'm comforted by the fact both DV and PS are deal-doers who have been around long enough to avoid this, although I'm not denying it may happen.

Aside from the emphasis now placed on earlier production at Tandy, the process of value-adding at Cascabel, which is what DV is saying, is essentially no different from the strategy laid out by Caldwell.

So, the intention for Cascabel remains the same as do the ambitions for ExCo. Can anyone tell me how this represents a shift in strategy?

Joseland attended a meeting with Nobby in London today, who was banging the drum for investment in Ecuador.

All he needs to do is bung us all the relevant permissions in the next month and inward investment will swamp the place.

Interesting. From reading DBW's posts it appears it wasn't his work.

Apart from the options issue, what else has happened in the past few weeks which you believe are 'horrible'? As far as an EGM is concerned you're right, and since there has been no suggestion as to what the motions might be, it's a complete waste of time thinking one could be called.

RodneyT, I'm led to believe the comments DBW posted were your work. Is this true? If so, why are you reluctant to take ownership?

If you were indeed the author I agree with you that it's important to maintain discussion and, raise many key questions. In my response I asked if there is any evidence to support some of those questions? I also asked what items would appear on the agenda of an EGM? Any thoughts?

Aside from this, what are your thoughts about DV and PS? Do you feel confident they will take us in the right direction, or are you of the opinion they are no more than a re-hash of previous management incarnations?

DBW, a few comments on the suggested action points:

1) re: strategic review. It would be helpful to know what options were considered, but surely we have enough evidence to conclude the key ambition was to sell Cascabel/the company (Smith has confirmed this) and we failed to attract an offer at an acceptable value. I'm not sure how another review would deliver a different result.

2) Legally the company is required to issue details of all related party transactions and share sales. Is there any evidence to suggest they haven't? I would like to see an itemization of fees paid, but the total figure is disclosed in teh accounts.

3) What rules have been broken with regard to the recent option awards? They were far to generous, but did they break the law?

4) It would be good to have an investigation into any market manipulation. What breaches of fiduciary duties are alleged to have occurred?

5) What motions would be put to an EGM?

Nal, at 10:01 you were lambasting me for my comments about DGR, and yet 6 minutes later you agreed with me.

I realise your memory doesn't really function anymore and you compensate by lying, but surely you're able to remember something you said in the last few minutes? Help is available for this type of ailment, although I'm afraid there's no cure.

Incidentally, just in case you were implying I was a Mather fan, I wasn't and was vocal in my opposition.

Eloro, Mather's move was borne out the reality that Choice would end up owning our shares. DGR was heading for the knacker's yard and he had no other available option. He's had to divi up a good deal of cash, but had he failed to do so he would have lost even more.

Incidentally, Samuel is effectively Manumbar Pastoral Trust, which relates to Mather's cattle ranch. If you look at google images you'll see something which has probably never happened before - a picture of Mather smiling.

Has now issued the 180m share options outlined in their funding agreement with Samuel. They have three years to exercise them. They are exercisable at 0.003. The current sp is 0.004. There are circa 1bn shares in issue. DGR's current market cap is A$4.1m. Little wonder this transaction was censured by the relevant Aussie authorities.

Samuel now has complete control of DGR. Mather, by virtue of the dilution of the other DGR shareholders and the security granted to Samuel, has now increased his ownership of our shares.

The article is referring to Cascabel, although it mistakenly implies Jiangxi will be investing 4.2bn, which, as it stands, is not the case. It's merely a re-hash of what is already known.

Pbow, I knew we could rely on you to explain it.

Smick, you appear to have got hold of the wrong end of the stick. The last thing I'm doing is sticking up for the disruptors. Perhaps re-read my post.

Smick, yes, it is a discussion board for solg shareholders which enables us to discuss matters relating to the company, and that is precisely the point. But the fact is those posts had nothing to do with the company and they never do.

And as I said, they could have been more selective. So we're not disagreeing, are we?

Fort, sorry, I've only just seen your question.

By virtue of 'amending' the existing IPA, I think we can assume it supersedes it. But you're right, we could do with more detail.

Smick, perhaps they could have been more selective, but my point stands.