Member Info for addicknt

Red, you've missed my point.

I'd be more concerned about the Insider laws in this country rather than compliance rules in HK.

Eloro, where do you want me to send the cheque? Or would you prefer a bank transfer?

Hitherto both Rodney and DBW have been excellent posters whom I respect, but their apparent collusion, which happened after the pub gathering, is surely a little too coincidental.

Given their past history of posting good stuff I'm not dismissing out-of-hand the issue which lies behind this recent spate of innuendo, but I will need to see solid evidence.

Eloro, Rodney's campaign splits into two elements; 1) the collation of shareholdings and 2) the innuendo surrounding past events relating to SC's past.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with putting together a group a group of small shareholders and I agree with him that sometimes, if a sufficient number join forces, it can be very useful. It's the second aspect which raises my suspicions, as it leads me to conclude there's an ulterior motive behind the process. If, as he says, there's no agenda, why mention ancient history which is clearly designed to cast doubt over the ceo? I'm afraid this rings alarm bells for me.

Having said that, if there really is something serious out there which can be fully substantiated and may be not in our collective interests, we should be told. At that point we would be able to judge for ourselves and decide whether to support him or not.

Rodney, I'm curious about the timing of your campaign.

The various issues you've raised have been around and in the public domain for a long time, particularly the legal cases. What happened last Thursday that prompted you into action? Who did you speak to and what was which led you to highlight this old news?

If you step back for a moment perhaps you'll understand why some of us are sceptical?

DBW, no, I was answering your point about funding.

I don't know how many times I have to say we need a chairman urgently, but I'll say it again...we need a chairman asap.

DBW, just one point: You say there hasn't been any attempt to to attract further investment. We don't need any at the moment, so how is that neglectful? People appear to have forgotten just what a major coup it was to raise the FN package. Such short memories.

IP do you understand anything about options?

2040, or thereabouts.

Rodney, none of us know what happened, and that's the point. Scott's history has been out there for a long time, so why have you brought the matter up now?

With regard to your observation about security, FN/Osisko have indeed taken the asset, but regardless of the asset no lender would advance funds unless they were sure the CEO wasn't a wrong 'un.

I share you wish for Scott to get on with the job, but, like Eloro, am curious about your reasons for wanting to corral small shareholders at this point in time.

I think we can assume that as part of FN's very lengthy dd process they did full background checks on our senior management team, and since both the AN and Guyana issues were very much in the public domain, they would have sought a full explanation. Clearly, their decision to go ahead must have been based upon receipt of sufficient background to have satisfied them. Similarly, they must have been satisfied with SC's cv, despite the evident issues.

The one thing which is surprising is that they didn't demand the rapid appointment of an independent chairman, although it's probable they did but gave our board leeway on the timing. Regardless, an appointment is urgently needed.

Eloro, I share your suspicions and am interested in RT's recent volte-face.

There's no denying these two legal cases happened, although none of us know the full picture and so far we only have one side of the story. Should SC address them openly? It's difficult to see how - for all we know there may be NDAs involved - but does it require an RNS? There are plenty of examples when CEOs have been forced to deny or explain such issues - should ours? Finally, it's worth bearing in mind no liability was admitted in the settlement with AN and the Guyana claim went nowhere.

The no smoke without fire suggestion plays well in the world of social media, but without possession of the full facts one should be wary of swallowing stuff wholesale.

Red, the lack of a chairman would make a bid more, not less, likely. It would be perceived as a weakness. The argument that's been given for not appointing one was lack of, or rather insufficient, authority with regard to the overall level of directors remuneration. I think this is a pretty flimsy excuse, particularly as it could have been dealt with at the 2023 AGM.

A quick Google search reveals a raft of serious allegations against Sheridan. Whatever happened there it's a complex issue with claim and counter-claim.

DBW, interesting take on things. Under Mather's regime the entire board were in his pocket - there wasn't an independent voice to heard and, I think I'm right in saying, the level of director remuneration was higher.

The current composition of the board doesn't seem ideal, but then again none of us actually know these people well...if at all. A strong chairman should sort this out.

The Americans fret about nobody wanting to buy their cars. Perhaps if they produced any which are half decent folk might be tempted.

The argument about whether NEDs/Chairmen should own shares and be granted options has been going on for decades.

The argument that they should rests on two planks; 1) that it aligns their interests with those of the shareholders and 2) it demonstrates their confidence in the company.

The alternative view is that it may compromise their independence, particularly when it comes to takeovers. The second point is that if they're not particularly strong they can be manipulated by a domineering CEO and or Chairman, particularly as they're unlikely to have the same depth of knowledge about the company. Not owning shares, so the argument goes, allows them to be more objective.

I'm ambivalent about the share ownership issue i.e they've actually paid for them, but I'm completely opposed to them having options.

Brian, you're right, we do need a strong and independent Chairman asap. The failure to appoint one is a complete mystery, although it has been claimed the board didn't have the authority to allocate sufficient funds to afford one. This was rectified at the recent AGM. Hopefully, we'll get one soon.

NEDs are typically not paid much and by definition, do not work full time. The role of senior NED is pretty much irrelevant. The fact a non-director is a member of the executive board is not unusual and if you look at most larger PLCs you'll find the same situation.

Woody, they've not made an announcement yet.

fort, interestingly there was someone on hotcopper complaining that tenstar are very poor at making those announcements.

mather is most definitely a related party and is referred to as such in the various documents i've seen. for example a fund raising document for armour before it went **** up. i've also seen it mentioned in some of our announcements. i've always regarded tenstar as part of the mather controlled bloc. why he's sold shares is another matter, particularly as he told someone last thursday that his overall holding had increased.