Member Info for AgArCu

Pretence... Add, I hope you're not accusing solg of misleading us?

Again, dbw saying he thinks we're closer that we think (syntactic nightmare, logic vacuum) is a cast iron assurance we're miles off. Just check his form. 4 years of jam tomorrow.

Those first two points are indeed assumptions, and like a good scientist my assumptions match the observables, rather than being based on fiction. If the picture changes, my opinion will change: I'm not prone to fixed thinking. As ever, we'll wait to see that I'm right. Not been wrong here yet 👍

As for the third point, I think we do need to rebuild credibility. No one will swoop if it is obvious we don't have a proper plan: they will just wait until the new government revoke our licences and hand them to someone for free, in exchange for them building the mines and infrastructure. And before anyone claims no government will do that, I don't think anyone here can claim to be able to predict Ecuadorian politics. Will it ruin their investment chances in future? Absolutely not- companies will still gamble if the terms are right. So if we do restore our credibility, the best we can hope for is to remain as salable as we have been previously: hence no increase.

Wow, sm. So aggressive!

I just don't like assumptions. Let's ask questions rather than make guesses, yeah? Unless you can tell me how many parties are in the data room, you're making an assumption until we know more.

😂 thanks add

I do believe you haven't witnessed that, add. At a push I can imagine there are lots of things in business you haven't witnessed...

Willy nilly and speculative are not synonyms, add. Signing an NDA also doesn't mean you're about to do big DD in the data room.

Let's hope all those with apparent NDAs have actually accessed the data room to do some DD. Otherwise all this discussion is for nothing, based on an incorrect assumption that companies wouldn't sign a speculative NDA (written by Solg's side) and then not immediately begin DD. I'll let you know the response.

I have asked how many unique parties have accessed the data room in the past 12 months. My guess is they don't answer, or claim they are not in position to say. We'll see, but I won't hold my breath for clarity .

Dbw

With respect, you've been wrong a few years on the bounce. So if it is clear to you that we are in the final talks of a deal, those hoping for a deal should not be too optimistic! Why were you wrong the other times but correct this time? Was the evidence for your previous confident statements inaccurate, or did you misinterpret it?

Add, I am just pointing out that there is no evidence of a TO any time soon. I have said as recently as an hour ago that I don't think anyone needs to move yet, so won't. I stand by what I've said before, that there will be a bid eventually. But we don't currently have a buyer, so it won't be any time soon.

Sadly, I don't think the company is going to get much more saleable, you're right about that.

I accept that the parties that have availed themselves of the data room are, by definition, 'interested'. But you're not making the leap that they are interested in a TO. Your second point about our advisors going out to sell: I agree they will have tried IF that's the direction of travel SC is pursuing (an assumption). Doesn't mean that people are in the data room as a result of these approaches though. That would also be an assumption, but not one you're making.

That's a lot of assumptions as none of this has been confirmed publicly. My suspicion is that SC, Maxit et al have been approaching lots of potential buyers, but there is no interest in being to first mover and therefore no rush. Small amount of DD to decide if they'd counter were a bid to come in, but nothing more at this stage. Must be frustrating, particularly for Bob, but perhaps he should have considered a bit longer why we hadn't had a bid previously. Turns out it wasn't because we had plans to mine Cascabel.

Interesting. I think I see the obvious barriers to SC telling the world he's trying to sell (hence he hasn't), but do you think he'd announce that solg is for sale before falling back on a JV pathway?

Add do you think a TO bid is likely to come before we are forced to do something like a JV? In which case, do you have a timeframe in mind? Fast and smart has obviously passed now: do you see a bid before Christmas?

Shhh, Sean. Adults are talking.

Shhhh, sean- adults are talking now.

In my opinion that makes a JV quite likely then. Or at least the beginnings of the process of forming one. A 'buyer' has no motivation to be the first mover here, hence years of no real interest continues (Jiangxi maintaining a stake of around 6% hasn't proven to be a watershed, just as BHP and NCM didn't). If solg is going to receive a TO bid, it will need to rebuild some credibility as a company and actively pursue the terms of an exploitation license. It can't go to ground and hope for a charitable bid, like some here are doing. Bob got it wrong, evidently- no appetite for 'fast' with such a hard to mine plan. Back to Darren's plan and hope plan A etc etc..

Don't let the facts get in the way, Sean, for heaven's sake. And definitely don't accept that Quady might just have a different view about what's most likely for this company. Stick to your guns!

Or do everyone a favour and move to advfn permanently? You say that you and slug are friends over there, so you'd be happy (perhaps not, but whatever) and we wouldn't have to listen to you. Quady has already confirmed he isn't in that board, so it makes perfect sense. Off you pop, there's a good boy.

Sean, take a breath and think.

Nobody abused a new poster: it wasn't a new poster, it was slug. And we warned you of this from the get-go.

No one racially abused anyone (well, slug did under previous incarnations). Slug adopted a personna to try and take offense, but calling someone whose handle used to be slug 'slug' is not abuse.

If you need help spotting him next time, just follow my lead. I've not been wrong yet. You'll avoid this embarrassment.

Okay?