Member Info for addicknt

Fort, I'm not remotely content with what's happened and like virtually everyone else, I'd like to see an update of what's happening.

However, I'm no conspiracy theorist and unless you can provide some actual firm evidence I'm afraid I'll continue to question your suggestions.

As for Scott, I was perfectly clear.

For the first time a proper strategy was outlined with clear milestones and I was happy to give the guy until the next AGM to achieve those milestones. I was not guilty of blind faith and questioned things on numerous occasions. Finally, we don't know what happened with regard to Scott. It is possible it was mutually agreed, as his NED position tends to suggest. However, I do accept he may not have been on track with the milestones, hence his removal, and if this was the case I'm perfectly happy he was replaced.

No, Vujcic shouldn't have been awarded the options so soon and it's annoying we haven't been given details of his remuneration package.

But I firmly believe you are wrong about other parties being interested, rather interested at values which were acceptable. Smith said last week, the company had been focussed on M&A for too long. Perhaps this may tell you something? If you can provide firm evidence that no other parties were contacted in the past two years, I'll happily concede your point, but you may want to bear in mind we were told of multiple parties utilizing the data room. What happened to them?

There's one aspect of this conspiracy theory stuff that really sticks out, and that is we don't have a clue what's actually going on, although there is one exception: We know for a fact that we have spent a very long time talking to many parties about Cascabel and it led absolutely nowhere.

So to suggest we should 'do a deal' with Barrick, Anglo, or Uncle Tom Cobley when it's obvious they aren't interested is plain daft. Fort claims that we should have 'gone to' to them when he no evidence to support the contention that we didn't. In fact all the evidence points to the exact opposite.

The Chinese were the only game in town, Hobson's Choice if you like, and I'm sure the board will attempt to do the best they can in the circumstances.

Fort, in the absence of any firm evidence the FCA would simply chuck your letter in the bin. They do not respond to the frustrations of retail shareholders.

Fort, can you please substantiate the related Chinese party suggestion?

Clearly, you don't believe the appointment of both an independent chairman and senior NED will prevent potential conflicts of interest?

It's the first time we've ever had a properly independent chairman, and from what I've heard Smith is no one's patsy or stooge. They have a clearly defined job to do and we must trust them to do it.

From where we sit at the moment, some form of arrangement with Jiangxi looks the most likely outcome, so why would we choose to p!*s them off now? We did that with BHP and it set us back a long way.

Couldn't agree more. I've never believed NEDs should be granted options and it's good to see a company doing something about it, even if, as I understand it, it's a requirement of their ASX listing.

CMOC is one of China's largest rare earth miners. The land grab continues.

Is to be acquired by CMOc for $420m.

Seems they aren't concerned about the political risk.

RT, JCC? CGP shares?

NMM, I agree with point about Vujcic's total remuneration package. It should have been included in the rns.

I too hope ExploreCo is a separate listed entity, but the rns implied it would be a solg subsidiary company. Apparently, there may be complications with a listing.

Thanks, Pbow/ DBW.

If there's anyone who still harbours the view that the government isn't supportive, this should help calm the nerves.

NMM, two points:

1) A change of control clause is absolutely standard for an options package, and 2) I've seen very few if any, RNS announcements relating to options awards that ever mention this clause. It's always buried in the detail.

On this occasion the company isn't being unduly opaque...for a change!

Interesting post Fort, but as SM asks, is there actually any connection between the parties, because I couldn't find any? (That's not to say none exist, just that there weren't any obvious ones)

Sometimes I think we're guilty of assuming everyone in the business and financial world in China is connected, but this isn't the case. They are hugely competitive and operate in a similar way to companies in the West, although they share a determination to want global dominance for China, which has much in common with the formation of the British Empire.

Having said that, the timing here is very odd. Why would someone take out a short position when it's widely known that several significant announcements are in the pipeline? I also think we tend to believe hedge funds always get it right all the time, and this most definitely isn't the case. In fact, Actusraypartners made a bit of a mess when they bet against GGP in 2024.

I suppose the other question is, why take out a short at 6 or 7p, when there's been far more lucrative opportunities in the past year? Do they really believe the market cap will fall significantly below £200m? Sure, if we believe some on here, there could be a placing at 5p, but that doesn't exactly represent a huge profit for a shorter who borrowed at 6p.

A strange move.

RT, I agree with virtually all of your post, but there's one problem: the corporate world just isn't like that.

It started changing in the '80s as those people running non-financial businesses looked at City rewards and thought they too would like a taste of that. Companies specializing in remuneration packages sprung up all over the place and sure enough everyone jumped on the bandwagon. Sadly, it's been like that ever since.

I don't approve of it, but I begrudgingly accept it as being the way of the world.

RT, how many CEOs get appointed these days without an options package and incentive scheme? Do you expect DV to take this on without the prospect of a good reward? No one would. This is the reality.

As I've repeatedly said, the exercise price is appalling, but the quantum of shares is not.

RT, good question and I suspect the answer would be no.

We're all fed-up with this, but we need to recognise the reality of rewarding senior executives. If Vujcic is as good as some people appear to think, then, like it or not, we need to reward the guy accordingly, but it must be performance linked.

I don't think 15m shares is particularly egregious, but the exercise price is another matter altogether.

As it stands, Vujcic's options package will not be the key part of his incentives package. Despite what we may feel about the exercise price, 15m shares isn't that significant, particularly when you bear in mind SC had double the number. I'm guessing he must also be hoping for a value-driven exit bonus.

It rankles with me that they haven't given details of his overall remuneration, particularly as it's a regulatory requirement, although I guess it may appear in the next MD&A. It also rankles that he hasn't bought shares in the market. His cv suggests he would have made plenty of money in his career and he should definitely use some of his savings to buy shares. If he won't buy at this price, why does he expect anyone else to?

Obviously, this is written from a pro-mining stance, but it's common sense. If the government is serious, and there's no reason to suspect they aren't, they should follow the advice given in this article and they should do so asap.

Rodney, you're right. If some form of corporate action was announced today which required shareholder approval, investor fatigue would play a significant part in the outcome. This is clear to see on LSE and other media platforms. Many people have simply had enough.

RR, indeed it is, but the difference is unlikely to be significant.