Member Info for Culpepper

Ggp will be going on broadly as planned, receive an offer to buy the company/Hav, or take advantage of the opportunity to improve its prospects. None of those alternatives seem unpalatable.

In view of what they say about Tialis and my thoughts it will turn for the better, I shan’t be tendering at the reduced price now on offer.

https://mxccapital.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/176484-Tender-Offer-Document-17.3.23.pdf

tps://mxccapital.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/176484-Tender-Offer-Document-17.3.23.pdf

The obvious solution here with their holding is to sell the company on for cash, unless in the meantime there’s a tie up with one of their others, also to be sold on.

“The return of capital to investors upon exit from investments, announced at the time of the delist from AIM, will continue until the Company ultimately exits all of its investments, at which point the cash remaining in the Company will be returned to Shareholders and the Company wound up. The Directors currently anticipate this will occur within the next two years.”

There’s nowhere to go but Telfer, is there, as planned, and that’ll be the case for years. I hope to be out of here before that road is travelled.

Bit sloppy isn’t it, under analysts opinion.?

Hoo Hu Wan Hia ( Chinese )

Then it might be interesting to hear what the purpose of this clear to see manipulation might be.
I am, however surprised that despite advances Ggp still trades below Wyloo buy in, which I regard as the latest price discovery event.

Yes, that remains the talking point, outcome and potential catalyst for change. I read the suggestion that Ncm is really quite undervalued, and prior to a recommended deal and vote major shareholders will need to be persuaded going with NEM on a currently share based deal will give them the value they want from the much larger entity. I don’t know how they might work that out, let alone pi’s.

Passing reference there today with final results. Doesn’t take Tialis anywhere, but they like the connect business. No draw down on the funding IDE offered at the time.
https://www.lse.co.uk/rns/CLCO/final-results-d8sy20t1ev6ukv0.html

Thanks for that. You've made it very clear. I was thinking feasibility study criteria would be criteria included in the next FS, but I was obviously wrong.

I like others are going on about what happens next, not unnaturally. But it appears to me there's still a bit of tidying up to be done around whatever is required to satisfy financing conditions for the last in-principle loan. That's for Ggp to satisfy, not NCM or anybody else, whatever the rest get up to, and whatever new opportunities arise.

And it goes into what I been saying, my opinion, the closer Ggp can get to production under existing arrangements before taking on more debt, to acquire more of H and increased costs, the happier I shall be.

Whilst the Company and the Banks have entered the Commitment Letter, financial close of the proposed facility and draw down is also subject to customary project financing conditions including completion of reporting requirements, Feasibility Study criteria and agreeing final documentation.
F

‘Feasibility study criteria’ has been published as required for finalisation of current negotiated bank loan before draw down, and then I suppose go from there on whatever Ggp has/is required.

It’s common sense, isn’t it, with the team he’s got and not knowing final, maybe lingering outcomes, outcomes which I don’t think he can know unless he already has the bones of a deal with NCM, consented to by NEM. Ggp has to keep going, so I can see why he’s proceeding as though Ggp is responsible for driving the total H project.
There’s a little in the notes kindly prepared.
https://www.ggpchat.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=676

Can’t think Newmont and their own and Newcrest advisors haven’t thought about the govt. position and checked it out, ( would you?) before splashing on as they are. Haven’t seen it raised anywhere as a possible no/no, though permission has to be granted to go ahead.

There’s a bit of general comment here.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-05/gold-mine-foreign-ownership-would-rise-if-newmont-deal-proceeds/102055926

JD I respond because you questioned.

“I must have misunderstood. I thought you were arguing/saying that a delay in MRE is not good for GGP as Shaun was suggesting it was. Perhaps 'good' is the wrong word. In that, why would we big up the value of HAV now if we may be bidding for it in the coming months, whether of NM or NCM. Thats the way it came across.”
————-

I think Mr Day has said he’s not pushing Ncm for anything just now, saying it might be unhelpful. From his viewpoint that may be so, and may not assist future negotiations, I presume as buyers. That’s OK. Updates on H will arrive, sometime. And in the meantime I believe they have equal knowledge, so don’t quite follow his train of thought.
Should a bid for Ggp 30% or the company arrive, everyone including me seems to take the view Ggp will have the ability to demonstrate value, in the absence of ‘normal’ anticipated reporting. MRE. You know, the way you remarked that’s the way it works. I fail to see that the ability to show value is not also the case for Ncm, and possibly much later, NEM.

I have been consistent. Havieron, in my view, cannot be “bigged up” or “smalled down” by either of the JV holders, to each other, whether buyers or sellers. It will have a value, and if a deal is done, the price will be agreed, or not.

What Ncm tell Newmont is down to them. I imagine they would be “bigging up.”

My position has always been consistent. I would like Ggp to be continuing as it normally would, and with Newcrest, publishing whatever it normally would in a timely matter ( but Ncm is currently, it appears, in the driving seat. I think what you refer to is information pertinent to a MRE, or an MRE itself. I think I was giving my opinion that not preparing or bublishing that benefits anybody in the context of possible negotiations between JV partners.