Member Info for addicknt

How would it make life easier?

Why would Jiangxi invest 18m if the company was about to go under?

Answer: they wouldn't. They'd sit back and wait for it to fold and then pick it up for peanuts.

There's no proof to back-up that suggestion and in any event, it would have to be declared.

IP, you are very much mistaken if you believe the decision to sell the shares was a unilateral one made by Caldwell. It would have been a board decision.

Fort, do you prefer CEOs who look as if they're in a permanent state of panic? Perhaps his relaxed demeanour was a result of quiet confidence? My preference is to see a CEO who looks and sounds comfortable and is in control of what's going on. Co**y braggarts, like that bloke who ran SOU, are a disaster and a sure-fire red flag.

The problem we have as retail investors is that we haven't got a clue how companies directors perform on a day-to-day basis. Having said that, as I believe our sp is partly the result of trying to con the market into believing we could take this all the way on our own, SC was part of that unsustainable myth making. Mind you, did he, or the Board, have any other choice?

Cue confected outrage from the usual suspects.

Interesting timing. Before anyone makes the assumption they must know something, I'd refer you to their experience at GGP.

Pbow, of course, that's equally possible.

Oops! To continue:

We do know the available FN funds are hypothecated and we also know we had to pay DC's settlement and required $6m for concession renewal.

I wonder if the balance was required for legal and advisory fees relating to Turner's appointment and the reason we placed them with Jiangxi was that we didn't want to mislead any new investors as to our intentions and ongoing discussions? It may also be the case that we're progressing normally with FN, which in turn may explain why they were happy for us to present at their recent investor conference.

The other mystery is why was SC relegated? As has been reported, he seemed perfectly relaxed at the pub meet, which may mean he knew exactly what was going on and has no objections and also why he was moved to a non-exec role rather than being given the heave-ho for lack of performance.

I know I'll be accused of polishing the turd, but none of us really know what's happening and my suggestion isn't entirely far-fetched.

There's been much speculation about the reason why we needed to place the shares, with many of us assuming, quite reasonably, that we had either messed-up the cash flow forecasting or that we were running behind on the milestones.

W

Nal, yes, I did say that and yes, I did support Caldwell in his attempts to implement what was, or rather appeared to be, the only strategy available. (As for believing his 'every word' I think you'll find I raised doubts about particular aspects of what was going on on a regular basis, and if you think I hung on his every word you are sadly mistaken...again)

Now perhaps you can tell me what's wrong with supporting something based upon the available evidence at the time?

The other concept which I know you have difficulty understanding, is that companies are dynamic entities which change all the time. Circumstances change; personnel change; the macro-environment changes etc. Any sensible investor must also adapt to those changes.

Another of your many problems is that you're incapable of understanding any form of nuance in a discussion. For you, the whole world is black or white, whereas the reality is completely the opposite. This, combined with your lack of comprehension of what people actually say, means you spend your days flailing around attacking individuals rather than addressing the topic being discussed. In fact, you're doing it again now. Instead of talking about the interesting developments of the past few days and providing us with your thoughts - if they exist - you decide it's much better to launch your all-too familiar personal attacks. You are one sad individual who adds nothing here and yet day after day you post your vicious and bitter attacks. What a horrible, worthless little old man you are.

Metooo, so there's the connection then. Maybe this adds further credibility to the story.

CMG, agreed. If nothing else, the events of the past month have categorically proved that we are not capable of taking Cascabel through development and into production.

The fact the Board have continuously told the market we can when it's obvious we can't, is one of the reasons the sp is where it is. No one believed them - with one or two exceptions - and this delusion has cost us dearly.

If the plan is to flog Cascabel and then plough on with exploration of our other assets, the Board must not repeat the mistakes of the past five years.

Bozi, I'm not sure that would make sense. If someone wants the plc they'd also want all the non-Cascabel stuff.

If they only want Cascabel we wouldn't need to create EC because the other assets would still be held in the plc.

Hfm, if we have indeed retained Turner, I hope it doesn't take 8 or 9 months to complete a deal. His fees would almost exceed the sale proceeds!

Bozi, both? How would that work?

1) sale of Cascabel.

2) sale of the plc.

3) jv relating to Cascabel.

4) formation of ExploreCo.

5) nothing's happening and it's all a red herring.

As it's Grand National day, place your bets.

Fort, bear in mind Turner is a lawyer and it's highly unusual for lawyers to originate deals. They are there to do the legals once a deal has, to a large degree, already been agreed.

If this is the case it's far more interesting than just saying we've employed another advisor to scour the market for interested parties. It means there's something tangible happening.

If the journalists contact the company, it'll be interesting to see if our Board then feel obliged to make a statement, as so often happens.

Of course, our lads have form in this respect. Remember the bridging loan?

A nice RNS along the lines of :' The Company is aware of speculation in the media concerning the possibility of a sale of Cascabel. We can confirm negotiations are taking place, but are at an early stage and there can be no guarantee of a successful outcome...etc, etc'.

2Luke, you say China doesn't invest in nations over which it has no great influence. You should have a look at the M&A stats, which I'm afraid do not support your claim.

In terms of value the top four destinations in 2023 were; Canada, the US, UK and Australia. By volume of deals the top six were; US, Singapore, Germany, Australia, Japan and the UK.

Earlier this week SM was kind enough to share the information which supported his claim - it was not inside info - and I can assure you it's pretty convincing.

If Barrick want a license I can flog them one. In fact the one I've got in mind comes with an Exploitation Agreement as well.