Member Info for addicknt

Eloro, let's hope your faith in the new team is rewarded. I'm still waiting for them to tell us how they intend to speed up the process. By the way, how do you know SC was behind the sale to Jiangxi? It was announced a couple of weeks after he was replaced.

Don't get me wrong, if these blokes really do have a cunning plan, along with everyone else, I'll be cheering from the rafters. Until then the jury remains out.

Tesla, I don't believe that is the case. If you have a look at the subscription deed which Pbow posted a link to yesterday, as far as I could see there's no mention of Valuestone. It specifically refers to Jiangxi's share holding prior to the agreement as being 6.95% and that they are the direct owners.

Good point. Clause 6 implies it's a replacement for the original subscription deed dated December 12th 2022.

Clause 5 is interesting.

Pbow, yes, it appears it is new and is dated 12th March.

Does this relate to their first investment?

It's similar to the original BHP agreement, but seems to have more bells and whistles.

People seem to have some very entrenched views about exit values, when the fact is none of us has a clue.

The one consistent factor is the company's ability to surprise us, for better or worse, with their announcements.

Pbow, I don't think she's an existential threat to either us or the wider mining community. My concern is more focussed on a lack of continuity which may lead to further delays.

If the government stopped mining and we were affected, I wonder what level of protection we already have from the existing IPA and the additional protections offered by the EA? I guess it would be in the hundreds of millions, which they do not have.

Should she win and cave in to these demands it would be utterly self-defeating and would be a guarantee of further hardship for the people of Ecuador.

Let's hope the broader population see sense and elect Noboa.

RR, they weren't Treasury shares (I wonder how many more times this mistake will be made?)

The reason I'm making the assumption that both BHP and New were offered the shares is twofold; 1) as part of their fiduciary duty the directors must act in the best interests of shareholders, and 2) it makes no sense to me that they would accept a lower valuation at a time when we need as much cash as possible.

If anyone feels they haven't complied with their responsibilities they should challenge the directors to provide proof that they did indeed act in accordance with our best interests. This would be a perfectly legitimate question to ask.

BTW, it would have been completely impractical to offer the shares to the retail market.

Why would they make the process transparent? In fact it's far better to keep it quiet. I'm sure they spoke to BHP and NW and got the best price on offer.

How about they offered us the highest price? It normally does the trick.

Eloro, don't get too excited, I'm sure you'll find something else which upsets you.

RT, confirmed by him on telegram.

Sean Tufford has been given the heave ho.

Pbow, excellent find. Thanks for posting.

RK, maybe you didn't read beyond the first sentence.

RK, I deliberately said 'finance background', which is true.

My additional comment about people being bankers should have been qualified by adding the word 'investment' and it was a reference to the two most senior directors.

Btw, I'm not complaining, I just think it's an interesting board composition and may offer clues to what's in store.

Of the seven Board members four, including the two most important, come from a finance background. Mather and Caldwell are the only pure miners. I'm not sure why we have Amparo and van Barnveld.

There's been much debate about whether Mather was responsible for the recent moves; some argue he was, others take the view he wasn't.

At the London pub event he was openly attacking the Board, but the confusing thing is that he would have been aware of all of these changes. So, if he was the chief instigator, why was he still moaning and pursuing a futile attempt to rally small shareholders?

As for the new composition of the Board, is it a good thing to have such a heavy representation of bankers? Is it an indication of things to come? Did Jiangxi and FN insist upon the elevation of Vujcic and the appointment of Smith? Are they really long-term appointments, or are they there as an interim measure to get a deal over the line? To what extent will Jiangxi really offer technical support? Bear in mind BHP had a similar arrangement. Do we really want a Chinese investor to take such a level of control? Bear in mind the Bacanora situation, which turned out to be very bad for shareholders.

So many questions!