Member Info for Longtermview24

divermitch - you don't need to justify your decision to anyone. good on ya for having some conviction, principles and a backbone. I hope this will still come right for us.

IBv2 "stop doing it."
---
Who do you think you are. NO, I wont stop doing it. I have my reasons for VOTE NO and I give my reasons. That's perfectly within the rules. If you don't wanna read it filter me.

You'll be handing out lines and detention next.

VOTE NO, and force the Qataris to step in with funding to save their skin and, by association, ours too.

But I do hope a plan B materializes before 3/3 and the vote isn't required

Sharing an opinion is one thing. INFLUENCING through repetition and volume is another.

-----

You know what IBABv2, if my analysis and opinion helps some people decide how to cast the vote, I don't see any problem with that. I don't have a gun to their head. IMO to vote for AAL is to kiss goodbye to the significant upside this project will generate in a few years and for ears to come.

Investing in AAL is NOT the same thing. Woodsmith will only make up a small percentage of the AAL portfolio and so the investment return will be diluted in AAL, not to mention their vast portfolio could expose risks that Woodsmith may not. Just last week they had a roof collapse at another mine. Plenty more mines and plenty more industries (such as coal) that brings plenty more risk. With Woodsmith the business case is already known - the TORPS are already at 13mta, which is currently the max allowed under current planning. Even if we never got to 20 mta the financial returns are quite transparent and compelling.

This is all about accessing the money to access the resource. Everything else is already set up thereafter

Casa,

I'm not talking about a new owner, I'm talking specifically about an existing holder of equity and bonds, namely QIA, making good on the offer of a bridging loan to keep the lights on for a few months while a more permanent funding was put in place (as alluded to in the Standard article) that route to salvation makes sense and has legs IMO.. These parties are known to each other and this arrangement could be put in place in hours/days with willing parties, certainly well before the lights are turned off.

Then Fraser et al can launch a raise, that would no doubt be supported by the QIA and others with significant bond and equity money at risk, as well as Pi's.

There is, without doubt, a way to raise the $600M required to see us through the next couple of years of progress, IF we don't give this away to AAL but instead force some of the big boys looking at big losses (in an admin scenario) to join with us smaller peeps to come up with the funding

Casa - hard to argue with most of your post, (though you do come off as very pompous0 but I have to strongly disagree with your last sentence - "Voting no is a result of allowing emotion to overrule judgement and is illustrative of a mindset unsuited to investment.". Let's say the vote was NO. Do you think QIA would sit idly by and watch this fall into administration and kiss good bye to their $320M + investment or do you think they might offer, at the very least, some emergency funding, as alluded to in the Standard article from yesterday? So a NO vote may well not be the end.

IBABv2 - sharing of knowledge and opinions is what a DISCUSSION board is for. Get over yourself.

(vote no - no caps! shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh)

IBAB v2 is making version 1 look good

"Let CF and the board do their best" - are you having a laugh! CF is recommending to us mugs that we should take 5.5p, blame our losses on the lack of professional advice and he'll be ok with just the SEVEN MILLION QUID and keeping his job, poor fella, it could've been a hundred million (and still could be with a job, bonus and options with AAL)

"There is still information coming to light" - more comedy. It's precisely because the BOD have been so opaque and buried info that we're in this pickle and having to make our decisions in the dark - 5.5p or bust is all we're told, while they hide behind takeover rules, chaperones and our financial "advisors" JPM who have provided duff advice at every turn

"So why not get a clearer picture before casting an opinion", There is no info coming out of the company or likely to come out of the company other than the official paperwork provided for the vote. We have all the info we're going to get from the company, so we have to do our own digging and come to our own conclusions and this is where this board - and sharesoc - has been and will continue to be very useful and informative

"This is business after all and this is how high level negotiating is executed." Not sure what leads you to this conclusion, but the way this has panned out in the past few/several months is anything but how high level negotiating should be carried out. If it had been carried out the way it should we wouldn't be up the creek without our paddle.

You need to get over yourself IBAB v2.

piggybacking is not the same as taking orders from and acting on behalf of a third party.

Polygon cannot be acting on behalf of AAL. That would be illegal unless they disclosed it on their Form 8.3, which they have not done. Polygon are acting for Polygon, nobody else.

I'll admit my strategy is one that carries risk of wipe out, but I firmly believe that this company can remain in the hands of current holders in the event of a NO vote. I'm prepared to take that risk as I believe strongly in the fundamentals of the company (backed up by the TORPS) and the fact that even AAL don't see any big construction hurdles. This is all about access to money to access the resource. Thereafter there is a very solid business that will throw off a wall of cash and dividends. In the event of a NO vote QIA wont let this fail.

Unlike others, I'm not interested in cashing in my remaining value at this level and looking for some other get rich quick scheme/investment to make back my losses. My losses can be recouped here if funding is forthcoming.

I think the BOD haven't been transparent in the last several months and so I take their doomsday message - its AAL or bust - with a pinch of salt. They are more than well compensated by the AAL deal, shareholders are not. At best, that's a conflict IMO.

but signing off with a vote no every time ……

-----

Factually incorrect

I'm not trying to influence anyone. You vote how you like. I'm merely giving my opinion. Vote yes and there's one outcome, take the 5.5p and a massive loss. Vote no and there are two outcomes, administration and you get zero, or there is a last minute funding rescue and our investment is saved and, several years from now if everything else goes to plan, you'll get your money back and some.

The odds of a rescue in the event of a NO vote, IMO, went up considerably yesterday when the Qatari news broke. There is no way IMO QIA will allow this to go into administration. And, as I mentioned earlier, I see an equity rescue as their preferred route rather than a takeover - they're an investment fund not an operator of businesses.

I'd like everyone to be in possession of as much info before they vote because the outcome of this vote might not be as final and inevitable as we have been led to believe by the BOD.

For me, even admin has a silver lining in that Fraser will be deprived of his undeserved seven million quid.

"I guess IBAB is right and Polygon is building a stake for Qatar -"

-------

IBAB is most certainly NOT right on this theory. If Polygon was acting at the direction of or on behalf of any third party they need to disclose that in Box 4b of Form 8.3, where it states -

Details of any agreement, arrangement or understanding, formal or informal, between the person making the disclosure and any other person relating to:
(i) the voting rights of any relevant securities under any option; or
(ii) the voting rights or future acquisition or disposal of any relevant securities to which any derivative is referenced:
If there are no such agreements, arrangements or understandings, state "none".

Failure to disclose such arrangement would be a criminal offence.

Polygon are acting for Polygon. Their motive remains a mystery (other than we know they're in it to make money)

Chilting, why would QIA takeover SXX. They doubt they have the infrastructure in place to manage and operate the company on a day to day basis. They are an investment fund not an operator. They are very different in makeup to AAL. They were previously talking about a bridging loan and/or additional equity. That's the route that makes sense to me, nit a takeover (albeit they would be majority owner of the company).

You asked that yesterday. What has that got to do with you?

The Qataris had 3% of the equity and 72% of the convertible bonds.

They were seeking to perhaps prevent admin and protect the bonds.

When AAL made a bid the value of the bonds completely recovered.

Hence the Qataris lost interest in assisting SSX.

It is now firmly in the Qataris interest to support the AAL bid.

-------

True IBAB but if the bid fails, then surely the Qataris have to step in with funding to save their bonds.

It's all very well for a sovereign wealth fund to take a hit on their equity investment (they stand to lose around 23 million quid - but will make all of that back in interest payments on the bonds in less than one year) bit to lose their entire 30 million quid ($42M) PLUS $280M in bond money, total over $320M - that aint happening. That's meaningful even to the Qataris.

So a VOTE NO, IMO will force the Qataris to act to save their investment. Unlike AAL they have no interest in owning and operating SXX so they wont be interested in a takeover, they'll simply invest through additional equity and/or a bridging loan.

It's vital to whip up as much support for a NO VOTE as possible. ShareSoc need to speak with as many II's and I's as possible. The news that the Qataris were in discussions about a bridging loan is agame changer and, thinking about it, isnt a surprise.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, raising 500M quid ($650M) which is what we've been told we need for the next two years to progress construction at which point a conventional loan ought to be available to finish the project (meaning no more future dilution) - if this money were raised at 5p per share that would add 10 billion shares and would give the owner of those shares 60% of the company (10 billion plus 7 billion in issue, total 17 billion shares).

The act of raising the money to secure the future of the mine ought to double the share price to 10p in fairly short order, at which point the 60% holder could sell half their shares and get their money back. They would then hold 30% of the company at no cost, risk free. The same math applies if you have two investors or 22,000 investors.

Fast forward to 13 mta production in 2028 or thereabouts. Company throwing off $1BN cash, company value conservatively around $12BN. That's 0.70c per share or 54p - ten times todays price. That would put every holder in profit.

For the life of me I don't see how this could not - and still cannot with the Qataris still standing to lose the lot if the AAL deal is rejected - be achieved.

The Qataris hold round $300 Million in bonds and subscribed for over $30 million in equity in the 15p raise. A NO VOTE puts all of this investment at risk. A NO VOTE will force them to re-engage with Sirius to facilitate a bridging loan and perhaps infuse further equity.

A NO VOTE is the only way to save our investment. EVERY PI MUST VOTE and must VOTE NO. Check with your broker and register your vote.

If its a NO, this isnt over!!!!

(I hope Polygon are reading and agree and also vote no - they have 8%, which is, in effect a 16% swing. That's a lot of power. If Jupiter are feeling brave, they should also vote no. If they both voted no, that would almost guarantee a no vote would prevail.)

A NO VOTE is not without it's risk, but this newspaper article/leak letting us know the Qataris were considering a bail out makes it less of a blind gamble than a NO VOTE was previously.

A yes vote and we're stuffed. Losses are crystallised and there is no way back. With a no vote, there is a chink of light.

EVERY PI should VOTE NO.

That'll make the shares and the bonds worthless and may force the Qatari's to reconsider their bridging loan proposal. A VOTE NO is now essential to keep any semblance of a chance of keeping our investment. If the Qataris have already mulled over a bridging loan then this could be done quickly as there musty have already been some dialogue with the Board

------

A Vote NO means the Qataris wouldn't be competing with AAL - the reason we're told they didn't pursue the bridging loan - so they would be free to step back in without treading on any toes.

Not only has there likely been dialogue on the loan previously, they are a shareholder and bondholder, so have already done their diligence on the company so the deal could be put in place quickly.

I wonder if this article has been leaked to influence a no vote and to tip everyone off that a NO Vote is not terminal, it's not the end, and may even be the road to salvation

EVERY PI should VOTE NO.

That'll make the shares and the bonds worthless and may force the Qatari's to reconsider their bridging loan proposal. A VOTE NO is now essential to keep any semblance of a chance of keeping our investment. If the Qataris have already mulled over a bridging loan then this could be done quickly as there musty have already been some dialogue with the Board

Once a bid was made the convertibles were safe.

------

Unless the bid is rejected. VOTE NO

feck em all