Member Info for addicknt

Fort, I think we may disagree on this one, but it's also interesting to note those people clamouring for the return of NM are simultaneously demanding greater board governance and the immediate appointment of a strong and independent chairman.( I agree wholeheartedly with the second point.)

Have they forgotten what it was like during NM's tenure? There wasn't even a pretence of wanting it. Has the leopard changed its spots?

DGI, interesting claim that the "vast majority" of investors agree with you.

There are 196 members of the Telegram group and conversation appears to be limited to about a dozen or so. We don't know how many people read this site, but again there are only a few people who post regularly. This is set against the fact there are thousands of share owning private investors ( from memory Sean thinks as many as 12000). From what I understand about 30 people turned up at the pub, most of whom are posters on either Telegram or here.

The only gauge we have of shareholder opinion was the AGM result.

There's no denying there's disgruntlement - I'm in that boat as well - but until I see a proper alternative strategy, I'll stick with the one we've got. For example, people want more exploration, which is fair enough, but simultaneously don't want to be diluted. How can that square be circled?

Fort, that's not what I've heard.

I don't disagree with you about many of the past mistakes, but I happen to believe the current strategy is the right one, and as yet no one has provided an alternative. Did Mather explain what he would do differently?

One thing is abundently clear, whatever his motivation, Mather did a good job of spooking some of those who were at the pub.

Really responsible behaviour on his behalf and I wonder what his board colleagues make of it.

Perhaps if the facility was a simple debt package, you may have a point...sort of, but it isn't. FN are interested in the flow of income they will get via the royalty, which in turn relies upon the viability of the project, which is what we were discussing.

Without a viable project no one gets anything, including us shareholders. FN's interests are the same as ours.

Anyway, we clearly have differing views and we should probably leave it there.

This discussion started following the claim that Cascabel was uneconomic, so my point about dd is completely relevant. Obviously, it's your choice if you chose to ignore the most significant endorsement of the project.

Bozi, this is a genuine question; do you understand what's covered in dd and why it's undertaken?

Of what relevance is the length of time you've held shares compared to others? Incidentally, they are professionals, you are not.

And by the way, the future of your investment depends entirely on how others view the company.

FN's involvement is an extremely important stamp of approval, and it's strange you can't see that.

Bozi, dd is not infallible, but it's the best indicator anyone could have before they make an investment. To say you take no comfort in the opinion of the various professionals who would have been engaged by FN to do the work strikes me as being pretty damn weird. The fact is it's the best level of comfort you could hope for.

Bozi, of course they rank ahead of ordinary shareholders...did anyone assume they didn't? But that's not really the point of this discussion, which was about dd and the allegation Cascabel is uneconomic.

The comfort we can gain is from FN's seven month or so, thorough dd. The existing IPA and EA can also provide us with further comfort.

Finally, yes FN's portfolio is risk diversified, but they're not that huge that they wouldn't miss the money advanced to us.

Bozi, oh that it were that simple. In an administration senior creditors rarely get the full value of their debt back.

Obviously, the situation as it currently stands with FN having only lent out a small part of the total, they are fully covered, but at 750m they probably would not be.

BTW, this topic has not been neglected in the past, in fact it's been discussed on several occasions.

Red, why on earth would they want a cheap bid? They could probably already have sold it at a bargain basement price, but have decided to go down a different route.

These people know they're sitting on something special and don't wish to chuck it away for a pittance.

'Determined to run this into the ground'. Given that Maxit and SC want to sell this and have no desire to still be sitting here in 5, let alone 10 years, why on earth would they want to run it into the ground?

It's obviously a basket case because that explains why FN/Osisko, after 7 months of dd, decided to commit to lending 750m. What idiots they must be.

RK, it was tongue in cheek and yes, I know you've always been positive.

RK, if you don't believe we will, why are you buying more?

Eloro, I don't think. I've ever said he's doing a great job - although I'm happy for you to prove me wrong. I have said he appears to be getting on with the task in hand and should not be kicked off the board, an opinion which was quite clearly shared by many in December.

For a final time: he's been set a very clear set of milestones and he must deliver. If he doesn't he's likely to face difficulties in December. Hopefully, that's now clear?

Eloro, I'm not going to repeat my view on this every time you ask.

Didn't Scott say recently that he'd be buying more once the Close period had ended?

Assuming the period related to the MD&A, he should now be free to buy.

Would they really have come to London and met up with shareholders if they were bricking themselves over cash?

NMM, yes, it's not great. I wasn't there and am merely reporting what appeared on telegram, and here for that matter, including an observation from Sean.

If NM has a credible and deliverable alternative plan it would be good to hear it.