Member Info for addicknt

At last, we've reached agreement with DC. The board obviously fecked it up, but at least we got shot of the bloke.

NAL, I take it you understand that TheItalian's post wasn't his opinion? It was an AI generated response to a question. The clue was in the heading.

Pbow, I saw something the other day which suggested that if she aligned too closely to the left those whovoted for the more moderate candidates would swing to Noboa.

As you say, it' all to play for, but Noboa is the least risky candidate from our point of view.

So this bloke claims to have called everything correctly over the past five years? He's clearly forgotten his insistence that there would be an emergency placing at 5p last July.

He's not quite the genius he thinks he is.

Q, it's probably mining its data from this bb.

MOTB, as you know, every financial statement from this company has been accompanied by the same going concern wording, but there's a difference this time, and that is that we have access to finance already in place. Sure, we've got to achieve the milestones, but we have no reason to assume we won't hit them on time, and what would FN do if we didn't? Would they really tip us over?

People are jumping to conclusions despite not having any evidence to support the argument that we're behind schedule. If we are, is it not likely that we'd be working with FN to ensure smooth progress? Bear in mind, they are on our side and want this to work as much as we do. It's a big deal for them and they won't want egg on their face.

DGI, sorry I didn't answer your final point.

Whether FN get their money back is entirely dependent upon how much the administrator can sell the assets for. You should bear in mind that under these circumstances it's normally a buyer's market and they will want to screw the price down as far as possible. However, I think it would be reasonable to assume that there would be a fair degree of interest in Cascabel and the administrator should be able to achieve a decent price. Whether that would cover FN's exposure depends entirely upon how much they've advanced. Obviously, right now they'd get all their money back and us shareholders may also get some form of distribution. However, it becomes an entirely different matter if they've advanced the full 750m. At this level I suspect they'd be looking at a book loss.

DGI, as you say, in an administration the administrator will sell the assets to the highest bidder and will then distribute the proceeds, less costs, to the creditors in the order of their ranking. FN are the only secured lender and they will be top of the pile. Shareholders are at the bottom.

Directors can appoint an administrator, but there's normally a clause in a senior debt facility which states that only the senior lender can do so. This is designed to prevent the directors from doing cosy deals with a buyer. I do not know if this clause exists within our agreement with FN.

Apart from their investment in the jv with Lundin, which cost them 2bn, from what I could see they only spent 199m on exploration activities.

DGI, my comment was slightly tongue in cheek, but the discussion since that Thursday has been of little else.

Personally, I'll only believe it when I see it.

So much talk about takeovers simply because one angry aussie put the idea in people's minds.

DGI thanks for the well balanced response.

Fort, my point relates to him talking to small private investors, which doesn't strike me as either prudent or professional.

DGI, just out of interest, what would you do if you were on that board and were aware one of your fellow directors was describing you and your colleagues in that manner?

Washing your dirty linen in public is never an edifying sight.

Anyway, if NM's really so p155ed off, perhaps he should present his argument to all shareholders at an EGM.

RK, no it isn't irrelevant. Just think about it for a moment.

in my opinion it's unprofessional for a director to tell a bunch of shareholders who he doesn't know from adam that the board is a ****show.

this has now been circulated widely and you can't help but wonder what his colleagues make of it. would they sack him?

RK, a takeover can be declared as being unconditional at 51%. Effectively, it's game over and the bidder has full control. Of course this isn't the case under a Scheme of Arrangement, which is why I'd expect any bidder not to go down that route.

Eloro, I've no idea what game he's playing, I just find his reported behaviour in London rather strange.

Pbow, which I pointed out the other day.

DGI, it's 51%.