Member Info for addicknt

Whilst I agree with the point that we have an M&A focussed management, why is a takeover any more imminent now than it was a few weeks ago?

How about this for a scenario? We sold the shares to Jiangxi but have said we will not recommend a lowball bid at this stage, but will give them first dibs when we've advanced further up the value chain. Provided their offer is sensible it will be recommended by the Board and the various interests aligned closely with the company will commit their shares. I believe Chinese investors and companies do not favour hostile bids and prefer an agreed deal, which implies a tacit agreement such as this would hold considerable appeal to them.

There are weaknesses in this argument, specifically that Mather would agree to commit his shares, but who knows what's actually been said? Certainly not us.

I think there's another point here, which is that if Jiangxi were bottom-feeders they could have already struck, in other words why did they buy the shares when they could have starved us of capital and picked us up for peanuts? I am constantly reminded of the ex-Glencore CEO who described the strategy of the majors as being one of screwing junior explorers once their inherent funding weaknesses are exposed. Surely, if Jiangxi felt that way they would have exploited our position already? Is it not possible they aren't looking at things that way and see themselves as genuine partners?

You mean like you did with MR for endless months on end?

NAL, has it not occurred to you that in his 07:50 post Mather was employing sarcasm?

No, the company hasn't been sold. Unfortunately.

When DV was appointed the RNS implied a plan existed to give a new impetus to the ongoing process. At the time I wondered if they really meant this or whether it was no more than an excuse to justify the management changes. Sadly, it looks as if that is the case. Until they provide some meat on the bones I will remain sceptical.

There's been much speculation that the share sale must indicate we're behind the schedule agreed with FN, and that may well be the case. But there is another possibility, and that is that when they produced the projected cash flows to take us up to phase two funding they got the figures wrong. In other words, it may be that we are on schedule, but didn't have enough cash to get us there. This may explain SC's relegation. Whichever is the case, the sale of the shares was not something they wanted to do, but needs must.

With regard to cash, it was the case that SC was supremely relaxed about the impending requirements, both in interviews and at the pub meet. To my mind that suggests he knew all about the sale and quite possibly his removal. Apparently, his demeanour in the pub was confident and relaxed, unlike NM. Does this imply he was perfectly happy to step aside?

Whatever the circumstances, the share sale was necessary and unplanned, and there's no way to polish that particular turd. But it has clarified one thing in my mind - that Jiangxi are our future.

SM, I agree - I was being unduly harsh. However, if the management refuse to engage with the concept of IR, then there's no point paying someone to do the job. As for Tufford! I'm sure he's a nice bloke, but... The stuff he put on telegram was jaw-dropping in its stupidity, and after his endless public criticism of the management it's little wonder he was ditched.

I wonder if they've ditched Robinson yet? If they haven't they need to.

IP, so, according to you I agree 'this should be 54p today' Do I? Because I can't recall ever having said so. Perhaps amongst your many other talents you're a mindreader?

Q, given the recent developments, I assume you've now dropped your belief that we'll be developing Cascabel alone? I know you've been open to the possibility of a jv for some time, but sole development is dead and buried. In fact it was never a realistic possibility.

The only question is whether we jv with Jiangxi or sell the entire project to them, and given the composition of our board, the latter seems more likely.

It's not Jiangxi, it was RK and his missus having a small top-up.

If they do indeed provide technical input at their own cost - bear in mind BHP said the same thing and it never happened - I'd have thought this pretty much ensures our future direction and with whom.

Bozi, every other article I found via a google search confirms the point that Neds are not employees, which is also my own experience. In fact Dentons was the only outlier. Anyway, as Pbow has said, the options issue will come out in the wash eventually.

Yep, agree with you on all that.

Let's hope there is a plan rather than it being something they invented so they dress-up his appointment as being a great leap forward. We've been told the details of ExploreCo will emerge in Q2. It'll be interesting to see if that actually happens.

Yep, it would be astonishing if he exercised them now.

I should add that I was never awarded any options in any of the companies and nor did I expect to be. In only one case did I subscribe for shares as I'm not wholly in favour of Neds owning shares and am absolutely opposed to them having options.

Pbow, you may recall we had this discussion recently and I mentioned the 90 day element and wondered if that meant he had the right to exercise his options within that period. I've been unable to find any reference to whether or not he can. I absolutely agree it would very poor form if he's allowed to keep them and would cast doubt upon the independence of our new chairman and senior ned.

A quick google search confirms that Neds are not employees, although the situation can sometimes be complicated by what type of contract, if any, exists between both parties. I've been a chairman/ned on seven occasions, including one public company and never had a contract of employment for any of them and neither I nor the company regarded me as being an employee. The nearest thing I had was a turnaround situation where the p/e owners appointed me as their representative in order to force through a sale of the business. I was rewarded on a success related basis depending upon how much of their money I recovered and this was recorded in a contract between us, not the company. I was also a board member of a company which, after three years of me being on the board, decided they needed to downsize the number of directors. I volunteered to leave provided they paid me for a non-existent notice period payment. They raised the point of me not being an employee but paid me anyway. We parted on good terms.

RT, I suppose it's possible he's reached an agreement with the company, but Ned's are not employees of the company and as such he would lose the options.

RT, I take the point, but the board including Vujcic

would have ratified the move and I suspect given his finance background, which Scott doesn't have, he would have been at the centre of negotiations.

As far as the options are concerned, they would have been decided by the remuneration committee, although I agree that they were priced far too cheaply. Still, he won't be able to benefit from them now. Let's hope Vujcic isn't given the same deal.

IP, yes he has.

Have they really? So what exactly have they achieved? As far as I can see they've appointed a senior independent Ned and flogged the shares. Anything else?

As far as Scott is concerned, he negotiated and delivered one of the most transformative deals in this company's history. And have you forgotten the EA and the development of a strong relationship with the government?

As it happens, I agree with your last paragraph, but don't agree with your simplistic dismissal of the bloke.