Member Info for Culpepper

Well, as far as I know the company has between 2 and 10 employees, so I guess incentives are at least pretty well wrapped up anyway with the board, apart from Mr. Day himself, who must surely and rightly be brought into line with the others.

I should think high on the agenda, his anyway, will be a revisit to Mr. Day’s. Joined at the wrong time, and rewards priced accordingly.

Too much jam is bad for you. Got to know when to stop.

Yep. There’ll be jam tomorrow boys.

And from a voting perspective, Wyloo can go to 14.6% whenever it wants.

I was really thinking generally, in relation to a bid for Ggp. The rest is even greater guesswork.

There is a JV with Newcrest. I have never seen why they would wish to shoot it down, by delay or otherwise,which was a trend on this bb, arising I assessed from a dislike of Biswas. This is business, business decisions, and Newcrest will continue to make them. Thoughts only, I cannot dismiss the possibility of a bid from them. My feeling is unlikely.
Wyloo came on board, a necessity to support the bank facility and get it over the line. It is they at face value who show interest at this stage in Ggp prospects, and it is generally accepted that they would be fundamental in seeing off a Newcrest bid.
That being the case, on what we know, it is not unreasonable to guess that should the question of bids arise, they would at least be pretty positive in the mix.

We don’t know what will happen in a corporate way. The 5% is an example of getting wrong-footed. My thoughts actually lay more in the Wyloo direction. But that’s just being aware of possibilities.

I know the decision to mine is said to be nailed on. I just want that made, as early as it is possible to do so. The rest will take care of itself around us.

I don’t know if it’s possible to accelerate in practice. If anything though, the comment may indicate a mindset whereby decisions are not as drawn out as they might be, and perhaps greater and earlier transparency with their shareholders, with whom she will be seeking rapport.

JB. I have explained in a couple posts yesterday. And disagreements and so on, is not extraordinary on a bb.

You are wrong to suggest it is senseless to lay to rest the not infrequently trotted out, led as a fact, sheepishly followed here and elsewhere, assertion that buyers do not have to notify when going through %ages as per rules, provided they are ‘still buying.’ It formed part of the ‘shorting/they want your shares’ discussion - selling to buy more than they started with somehow, and for the many conspiracy theorists getting around the hole in the narrative that after months/years no buying holdings RNS was forthcoming.
If you don’t see it that way, up to you of course.
Point is made, maybe, at last. You want to talk your favourite, the very relevant price of gold. That’s OK too.

What’s beyond you is the gumption to realise I know what’s in it. He doesn’t.

That would be ‘crepe’. Sort of. As in the greater scheme of things, it all probably is.
But there you go…….

Then please state the exemption to the transparency rules which permits buyers to circumvent their objective by failing to disclose holdings as required. If you can, you were right and I shall apologise.

And if you have something to offer, beyond which is publicly available, arising from your personal in depth research, well, get on and post it.

Last time I came across you you were wrong. And misleading the board on holdings notifications.
As far as anybody else’s posts are concerned, if I cannot see merit when things are stated as fact, I question it. You, and everybody else should do likewise.
And theories and opinions, though valid for consideration remain that.

I read what you say. I advise you bin me.

I queried some of the content of your post. You choose to ignore. Maybe you can’t answer. I shall never know. No more from me on it.

Response as expected.