Member Info for addicknt

JM, your horse racing analogy is completely erroneous.

When you bet on horse you do so in the hope it will win i.e it's in with a chance. You do not bet on one which you believe will not - one with three legs, perhaps.

You've told us on several occasions that you expect solg to fail, so, in effect, you've decided to bet on the three legged nag.

Gambling is about chance, and you've told us solg has no chance and yet still went ahead and invested...supposedly. And you call me thick!

Nal, yes it is about gambling, but not even you would buy shares in a company you believe will fail. Or would you?

"I think it will hit zero and if it does I won't miss the money".

Yeah, that really makes sense. It's the approach taken by all rational investors.

In your last post you informed us this was not an investment and would likely go bust. However, you also told us you'd bought some shares. Do you really expect to be taken seriously?

Yesterday the Weir Group acquired the Aussie AI mining software company Micromine.

Their products appear to offer a far quicker way for mining companies to proceed from discovery to production. Have a look at their website.

I wonder if our blokes have heard about it?

An independent expert has ruled that of the three proposals contained within the proposed funding deal one is 'fair and reasonable', and the other two are 'fair but not reasonable' to 'non-associated' shareholders.

Clearly, a distinction is drawn between 'fair' and 'reasonable', although I'm not sure what it is.

The resolutions will undoubtedly be passed, but I imagine plenty of DGR's shareholders won't be happy.

Anyway, the important issue for us is that it should avoid a share over-hang, although there's still the question of margin calls.

Well, he's certainly a space cadet.

Fort, was that aimed at me?

Bozi, my own view is that trying to predict a value is a totally futile exercise, which is why I don't do it. I think we'll recognise either a fair or poor offer when we see it, but until then we're just stumbling around in the dark.

Not strictly true, Bozi.

Many factors come into play during a negotiation to sell a business and the final agreed price may bear no relation to prevailing share price, asset value etc. For example, competitive pressure and ego are extremely important factors.

What we need is someone like the legendary 'Bid-em-up' Bruce Wasserstein batting on our behalf. Pity he's been dead for 16 years.

Eloro, no I haven't. But by the time Cascabel starts producing Trump will either be a dribbling wreck in a care home or pushing up daisies. So I suppose the answer is they'll have no impact whatsoever.

Rodney, one further point, you mention options vest on change of control as if this were unusual. It's not. It's par for the course and I can't think of any situation I've come across where it isn't.

Rodney, I know this annoys you and yes, I'd agree the strike price is too low. However, options are par for the course in any business and are his any more unusual than many others? (incidentally, options became a standard part of the remuneration package during the '80s and I've always been dubious about their use. But we are where we are)

However, I don't for one moment buy the argument that because the price was set low that this implies he'll be happy to accept a modest profit. This is his last chance too make a serious wedge, so why would he throw it up? And as we know, your mate Mather will fight tooth and claw to prevent a low-ball offer from succeeding.

Fort, a very useful reminder of what we have, which is often overlooked by those who, with some justification, are experiencing investor fatigue (I suspect to a greater or lesser degree, most of us are).

The one subject which is really irking me is the failure to appoint a chairman, which is inexcusable. My guess is the company didn't bother looking for a good part of last year, although I suspect this was driven by the funding issue i.e the lack of. Who would take on the role knowing the parlous state of our finances? However, this was resolved in July and it beggars belief they've not been able to find a suitable candidate since then, particularly as they could have lined candidates up before we received FN's support.

Of course, the seeming lack of communication is also annoying, but I very much doubt this implies a lack of progress. FN will be looking very carefully at what we've been doing and they obviously wouldn't accept a situation whereby SC was deemed to be doing nothing, as has been claimed many times on here. The fact is, he will be engaged in delivering the various milestones in order to unlock the next stage of financing. It's not glamorous nor does it require an announcement until the task is completed. Dull? Yes, very, but absolutely essential.

'near producing'? erm...

Orthern, agreed. He's an embarrassment and the board should tell him to stop posting.

Apparently they were his words, so I guess he has a fair idea of where matters stand.

You should go onto the Telegram site - there's often some really valuable insight. For example, HH posted a very good insight into the DGR loan situation and the potential threat of margin calls.

Eloro, someone on Telegram reported that when asked at the pub meeting about 'doing something', Mather replied 'you should only fight battles you know you can win'.

Fwiw, Sean is hopeful of good news prior to or at PDAC.

Not sure it has any basis in fact, but you never know.

I wonder if this was the real reason they were in London?

Killjoy, there's been a contingent liability sitting in the p&l for some while. I can't recall the exact details, but it was over seven figures.