Member Info for Longtermview24

"all credit to CF that he persevered to try and find an alternative."

----

Chilting, in the words of J P McEnroe - "you cannot be serious"

IBAB it's more like trust the BOD until they give a reason not to trust them. In the past few months they've provided several reasons not to trust them. They've been economical with the truth and have worked out a package that rescues them but not us.

Condition - (i) Sirius to undertake a substantial new equity raising,

This condition doesn't say PI's are excluded from the new equity raising but then the announcement introduces another sentence which, if it was a condition, should have been included in point (1) above.

They say " The Board confirms that the Company has not been able to secure an institutional anchor investor willing to provide sufficient support for the Alternative Proposal which was part of the consortium's requirements." - that's not what requirements said.

Item 1 said new equity, why didn't it say new equity but only from an II? Is that even legal? So PI's money is not good enough? Why are we being excluded from raising the money?

They then say "Without an institutional anchor investor providing the majority of the equity required, the consortium of financial investors have informed the Board that they do not consider the Alternative Proposal to be viable and have therefore ceased discussions with the Company."

BS.

And all this discussion took less than a week. Doesn't sound to me like they made a serious effort.

Is the BOD scared for PI's losing everything or scared that their cushy jobs with AAL are slipping from their grasp? They have a credibility issue and this announcement is not consistent - surely new equity is new equity, PI money is as good as II money - and still they haven't even bothered to ask the PI's if they would like to contribute.

Still stinks. Still disgusted with the fact that we're being excluded.

IBAB your post is peppered with a lot of ifs, buts and maybes. You don't know anymore than the rest of us what will happen if there's a no vote. What we do know, thanks to the Standard, is that QIA did offer to step in with funding support before AAL came along but didn't want to step on AAL's toes. If AAL are kicked into touch, then there are no more toes to step on and QIA may be back in play BEFORE administration.

I wouldn't call this a con or a street hustle, that implies there is nothing of value behind the curtain. AAL most certainly think there is something of value. IMO this is more akin to a mugging or robbery, but some of the victims of the robbery (the senior execs) are on the inside and will get their stuff back from AAL after the fact

Jazzyjim, I wholeheartedly agree - and that's still as likely an outcome as administration IMO. The administrators will not be waiting in the HQ car park ready to pounce when the last vote is counted. There may be only a matter of days between a no vote and administration, but that's plenty of time for one of the big boys to get out their chequebook and provide a short term loan.

Oct 2019 I meant

RF I see your post about Rishi Sunak. A lot has changed since Oct 2018. There's a new government swept to power by a strong support from the North; Rishi is now in No. 11; Brexit has happened; and we didn't have the AAL offer (or the financial consortium offer - that comes with unknown strings that the govt might be able to help with)

Times have certainly changed. Perhaps opinions/policy will change too.

So no conspiracy - no wrong doing - simply event driven - the BOD did all they could for shareholders

--------

Chilting, that's your opinion and of course you're entitled to it. But I strongly disagree. There is plenty more the board could have done and should have done. And there is still plenty they could do but they have run out of time. That's grossly negligent at best. They never tried another raise because their "experts" told them it wouldn't work. Well you don't know until you try ...and they never tried.... so they didn't do all they could for holders.

If there wasn't the ex-Fortescue Aussie connections running all across the senior exec paths of AAL and SXX I might be less skeptical of the true intent of the parties. But its very convenient that all the execs at SXX will be kept on and their contracts honoured - salary AND bonus (what was it = 19 million quid). Bonus - exactly what for!!!????

AAL are driving a hard bargain with us holders but seem to be going very easy on the senior execs. Seems like there is plenty of scope for a conflict of interest.

It stinks

Finally - are you having a laugh when you say about Fraser " if he had been downbeat he never would have got anywhere.". Where exactly has he got us except up the creek without a paddle?

Rf, I respect your opinion and reasons. Fact is nobody knows what would happen in the event of a NO vote. The BOD are screaming administration, but they've lost all credibility and cant be believed. Are they screaming administration to scare people into voting yes so they get their cushy number with AAL or are they genuinely worried holders will end up with nothing? Hard to say.

As I posted yesterday, I find it hard to believe the bondholders and shareholders with very deep pockets would not attempt some sort of rescue package to stave off administration (the Standard revealed the QIA have already floated this once before) and maybe the new Chancellor, a Yorkshireman residing very close to the mine and who by all accounts is keen to support infrastructure projects and the north, will step in to save the tens of thousands of pi's facing ruin.

A lot of unknowns. Some will want to take the bird in the hand (5.5p) and will never recover. Others will want to try everything to come up with an alternative to give a fighting chance of recouping their investment. I'm in the latter camp.

Chilting, having raised $1.2billion stage 1 when this was just a field, it was reasonable to assume that the rest would follow, with 2 years of construction under our belt and 13 meta TORPs, and another 400M equity raise, it was reasonable to expect Fraser, with his financial background, would deliver.

At various times we had a Mandated Lending group that was on board from very early on and we were told pre-qualified for IPA guarantee. All pointers to a successful raise.

Somewhere along the line JPM took the financial lead, their related company (and others) shorted the **** out of the share) and the rest is history, as they say. At the time we were told by Fraser that JPMs plan was better than MLA as it gave more flexibility and would provide cheaper debt that could be accessed as we needed it. At every turn he sold the changing plan as a positive development. Spin master extraordinaire.

I can’t get my head around how badly Fraser effed this up, while paying himself huge annual bonuses, share awards and potentially walking off with millions and a job with AAL shows what sort of a person he really is.

Tex, far from making your point it underscores my point that we were not given all of the information. There’s nothing in my Sept post that wasn’t valid based on the facts and info available at that time.

Had I or anyone else known that AAL had been sniffing around for months. Had we known that QIA had made an approach and it hadn’t been followed up. Had I known that Fraser would happily take a job with AAL and stiff the rest of us, then I wouldn’t have made that post. But I couldn’t have known that at the time

You have to trust the people in charge - of any company - and what they are telling you. Until you find out that they weren’t telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

That’s why there’s a lot of angry and resentful people, tens of thousands.

There is still a chance albeit a slim one that an alternative rescue can be found. If it happens the tables will well and truly be turned and instead of Fraser giving us the elbow, he’ll be out on his ear come the next AGM. Here’s hoping.

Big Peas sums it up perfectly. Worth repeating. Fraser cant be allowed to wash his hands of the very people he mesmerized with his smooth talk. We don't need AAL, we need to cash and there has been no transparency on what efforts they really made to raise it, especially once their Aussie "friends" rode into town -

Just under 500,000 shares at an average of 18.8p and voting No. I live locally and have been invested since 2012, I have bought on numerous occasions ranging from 3.5p to 40p. I believed everything the company said and really wanted it to be a success for our local area. The slick PR, MPs singing its praises, local councils onside, CF travelling with the PM and all the positive RNS's created the outlook that justified the locals getting excited. Now with this proposed AA deal the money lost from the area is an absolute disaster, the jobs created will go no where near compensating the local wealth deficit created by this AA deal. Family, friends, work colleagues all wanted to invest long term, obviously the hope was the shares would increase in value but it was the locality and the area benefitting that persuaded so many of us. I've had low points along the way, I lost all my shares for about 8 months in the Beaufort scandal but this stitch up feels worse. I've emailed Simon Clarke and told him the Government has let our area down again, I can't believe they can't see the damage this AA deal will cause the area. Do your own thing but for me it has to be a No.

From another site -

I agree with you .the more that comes to light the worse the stink gets.

I also struggle to get my head round how the current government view this.

Red wall demolished at last election. Whole families voting Tory for the first time in generations.
These voters will have expectations.
Northern powerhouse, aspirations etc.

The government (Tory) now face the prospect of a very large proportion of the very same people who voted for them
being wiped out. I wonder if they realise it's not just the 85k PI's who will be hit it will be whole families and their children.
The majority of these investors i suggest are not traditional investors and the mine would probably not be where it has got to without them.They will probably lose most of these voters for at least a generation.

I am certain the mine will be built of that I have no doubt and the government will get the benefits anyway.

But at what political cost . Fairly or otherwise the Tories will get the blame.
The opposition will have a field day.

The families that will lose out are not part of the metropolitan bubble and have very , very long memories.

All this for the sake of underwriting £500m .

For the benefit of clarity i am invested and stand to lose a decent amount if AA win or it goes bust.
I am an investor and whatever the outcome will not make any difference to my lifestyle.

Its the local people who will lose that I feel desperately sorry for.

“This isn't a distressed business.“

Reality check.......

It is, it has a cash flow crisis.
------------

Point take. Poor choice of words. I meant the business model - with funding - is sound. Throw any amount of money you like at Thomas Cook, Blockbuster, Interserve, they were failing businesses and not viable to rescue. What I meant was this is with funding secured this is a viable business - and so say AAL.

Bondholders hold hundreds of millions of dollars of bonds. If administration follows a no vote then they are worth NOTHING.

II's hold hundreds of millions of pounds of shares. If administration follows a no vote then they are worth NOTHING.

We know, from the recent article in the Standard, that the QIA already proposed a bail out to the BOD.

So ask yourself, in the event of a no vote are all those institutions, with all those millions invested, are they all going to sit back and watch this company go into administration and lose the lot - hundreds and hundreds of millions?

The bondholders (mainly QIA and one other) will be saved by a yes vote (at the expense of shareholders) but a no vote puts us al in the same boat, including the BOD who risk losing their cushy number with AAL as well as the value of their shares.

This isn't a distressed business. The business model isn't outdated or flawed (eg Blockbuster Video or print newspapers). The resource is there and the TORPS are there to sell it. The business model is sound. All that is required is access to the money to access the resource. The II's, shareholders, bondholders have access to the money to save the company. They'll want a big slice, but dilution is better than a sale.

The BOD seem happy to take the job and bonus AAL are offering. They have shown themselves to be inept and selfish. They've lost the trust and respect of shareholders big and small. They know that even if the company is saved they'll be out on their ear at the next AGM, so they are not interested one iota in helping us. We're on our own.

A no vote is a high risk strategy but it'll force the hand of the institutions that have the resources to save themselves and, by association, save us.

VOTE NO, SACK THE BOARD, START AFRESH

1 nominee account equals 1 vote when deciding the 50% shareholders vote.

Yet another slight of hand from the company trying to rig the vote. It would be very easy for the nominee to give details of how many separate shareholders voted in the nominee account. That way every shareholder vote would count.

To try and claim the majority of shareholders are in favour of the AAL deal is simply a misrepresentation of the facts. But the BOD have form in manipulating the facts through vague and opaque wording and hiding behind pages of small print in the documents, when they know full well the majority of their supporters are not sophisticated investors. They were happy to take our money when it suited them and now it's all gone quiet …........

it's a disgrace.

Yash,

I'm not sure what you've been accused of or what I'm accused of, but I'm happy to clarify that I would never condone threats to the welfare of individuals, though I can understand the considerable anger and disappointment that is felt by many PI's, particularly those close to the mine that were personally sold the dream If any of my posts have been misconstrued, then I'm happy to set the record straight. Nobody should make threats of violence. But I think it's perfectly acceptable to have a strongly negative opinion on the people that have presided over this financial disaster.

Do I think the BOD have behaved appallingly; yes; do I think they are conflicted in this affair by accepting continued employment with AAL should that deal go through; yes; do I think Fraser deserves seven million pounds for failure; no; do I think they really tried hard to find an alternative that saved PI's once their Aussie counterparts turned up; no.

Do I think there is still a chance to save our investment in the event of a NO vote; possibly, but that depends on the intention and the motivation of a few notable entities, namely QIA (in light of the Standard article) and Polygon.

Interesting that the BOD seem to be complaining of intimidating/threatening behaviour and seem to be dishing out the same to you. Would be better if they were spending their time trying to continue the Strategic Review, rather than reading this BB

It's improbable that the fertiliser manufacturing industry values poly4 in the same way as Sirius.

------

So how do you explain the TORPS with ADM, Wilmar and Cibra?

IBv2 - every investment is a gamble. Yes I have a lot to lose, more than I would prefer, but all the available information led not just me but several investment fund managers (who, Fraser, I assume have the appropriate qualifications), as well as industry experts such as one of the non-exec directors of AAL no less, to invest too.

So I don't feel foolish and I don't think I made a mistake based on the information that was given to us. Perhaps the investment made up a bigger chunk of my portfolio than was prudent, but it is what it is. Plenty of wiser heads than me, who did their own research, are in the same boat as me. Easy to be smart with hindsight.

But it's not over yet...…..