Roundtable Discussion; The Future of Mineral Sands. Watch the video here.
SM never bothered asking the +50% owners of the company if we would like to help raise the $600m
So if we demonstrate to them that we can do so, we may yet fend off the AA bid and get to keep our shares.
Please visit the dedicate website setup for this here: https://fundsirius.com/
This is really important and our best chance of KEEPING OUR SHARES IN SIRIUS MINERALS
PLEASE tell everyone, we need this to go viral to reach all the 85,000 share holders and people that just want to help
It does not matter if you are an existing share holder - EVERYONE CAN DO THIS
I believe that if you say to your nominee broker that you wish to attend and vote at the court meeting then they will give you a letter of representation and and you will count as an individual.... this should be checked.
The irony is the scheme of arrangement rule for 75% of voters was actually to protect the small private share holders from being bullied by the large institutions at times like this.....
Unfortunately, some idiot didn't think it through with regard to nominee accounts nor when they mandated that SIPP and ISA accounts have to be in nominee form....
Thank you surveys are coming in - clearly there is interest in raising the $600m
but please tell your friends, tell your colleagues because if we can do this SM will be in a much stronger position SP will recover and we will all be able to sleep again.....
Read the site - take the survey https://fundsirius.com/
Given that CF will want to protect his share value I wonder if he will take the survey :)
IBAB
just for you I will add some Biographies to the About page...
IBAB "Just wondering how many are prepared to hand over their....."
Let's be clear we are not asking for their address, or how much money they have etc. name, email address and post code is all we are asking for along with a couple of simple questions. The site has an SSL certificate, it is hosted by fast hosts. look at the about page I am Paul Anscombe.
The big corporate companies love to stop share holders getting together, it works in their favour.... they want to pick us off in isolation and via press pressure. Given the timescales we are working to here to help save all our investments in SM we don't have a time machine to go back an set an organisation up a year ago.... this is how they begin.
Personally given you endless positioning of being righteous I would have thought you would be encouraging the share holders to help themselves to protect their investments - not helping CF and SM steal it instead.
So it's fine if you do not want to take part - but please don't going calling a scam when their is not one.
Hi FosterE
Yes the group are in touch with the press and we are looking to get that promotion that promotion.
SM are clearly not going to engage positively about anything but the AA takeover, this is our best hope at forcing their hands, prove to them that they are wrong and they should have done a better job at looking into the finance....
It only works if we get the support on this survey.
and don't forget if you've already sold your shares you could still get back in if this works out via the raise, so still take the survey....
If it can be demonstrated to Sirius Minerals that the $600m could be raised they will have to listen.
We are talking to the institutional share holders but need to understand the private investor interest in raising the $600m.
There is a dedicated web site and brief survey here: http://www.fundsirius.com/
Please take a look, take the survey and spread the word. The more interest there is the more chance of a positive outcome.
"Max, what do you link the likelihood of administration is in the case of a no vote?
As you say AAL can’t offer anything more for 12 months. So either there is another financial offer or admin? Or could they mothball the facility?"
I see it like this......
Administration is a possibility and AA would not be excluded from that - but the Gina rights will cause issues I am guessing...
but look, they are really really rushing this through 20/01 to 03/03 crazy fast.... because they don't want any other solutions coming along imo.
they have demonstrated things can be done fast..... so why not other options...
we know there is interest in raising the $600m....
we know CF et al lose everything if it goes to administration - so he won't want that.. so I doubt it would go to admin straight away... so maybe then he will accept a white knight approach.....
equally if there are alternatives outlined before the vote they CAN delay the vote.....
SM/AA are now getting worried as demonstrated by:
a) phoning investors to see how they will vote
b) releasing information in the consortium deal
then you have press spouting it's over because of (b) above......
They should be worried, between them and JPMorgan they have been playing all the share holders.....
Remember, over the last few weeks they repeatedly said they could not release any more information about the consortium because of NDAs. It is no coincidence that they released the information now, they are playing on share holder fears, first rage, now apathy they want you to give up and go away and not bother to vote at all....
They released the information to try and get you to vote yes, but they know that in the background there is other things happening and not just the ShareSoc stuff. There is still a way through this it is not too late at they would have you believe....
regardless of your anger, apathy r what they tell you WAIT there is no benefit in voting now see what comes up, wait until the last minute when you have the most information available to decide how to vote....
and in the event of a no vote AA are not able to make another offer for 12 months.... so they maybe ringing to see if they need to up their bid now...
"I think the consortium offer was for a pre-pack administration deal so I've taken the 5.5p and moved on"
that's just a load of bull****......
IBAB
as a cash derivative they would have to be declared on the 8.3/8.5 surely
"sold all but 1 at -71.8% loss, will keep the 1 share for satisfaction of a vote which will be NO get FOOKED"
one share vote won't say much I'm afraid..... no matter what anyone has said on here each share gets a vote not each shareholder...
If you use Interactive Investor then you can set your account to provide voting for all your UK shares by default... details here
https://www.ii.co.uk/investing-with-ii/shareholder-voting-information
They were quite positive regards attempting to retry the sale later...
- No they simply said they would revisit it later in the quarter.....
- They let lack of update and comment feed negative sentiment for 45 days
They stated clearly why they did not, 'terms' and 'timing'.
- Just because they did not feel it was acceptable did not make it immaterial it was a primary objective of the SR to get such an offer. Confirming one had been made would have been significant nad raised sentiment and therefore SP - the very definition of inside information
It was early Jan when they received a revised offer, and as they stated terms and timing. To make it clear, they are now more likely to be acting in the creditors best interests (there are rules), not yours.
- only January because they did not do anything with it in December, and January to March is a long time and the SR runs until March
Stating that they were prepared to accept 5.5p did not preclude any higher offers from being made, but it did set a figure that was unlikely to be much improved upon.
- exactly unnecessary at that point in time because no offer had been made
substantial premium.
- only because they allowed the sentiment and SP to wither with their lack of attention and information
IBAB "Given the acceptance of management I have assumed that THEY know of no others in the running. If they were aware of another likely buyer doing due diligence, would they have rushed up the aisle with AAL."
Of course they would if that has been their hidden intention...
You talk about accept the situation, it is what it is etc..... but there are some huge gaps in this story that need to be explained, without explanation it will continue to smell like a stitch up....
Some questions:
1) Why did the BoD make no statement of reassurance/next steps etc. when they released the brutally worded RNS cancelling the $500m bonds? It took them 45 days to say anything and in that time they left the shares at the mercy of negative sentiment and shorters.
2) Why did they withhold the $680m finance offer from the market, this is inside information and would impact share price, which in turn would likely have seen the SP raise back to the 15p level and would certainly have forced a higher offer from AA than 5.5p
3) Why could they not have made the $680m work it was after all early December and a prime objective of the strategic review
4) Why state they would support a low 5.5p offer when one had not even been made, this put an artificial lid on all future offers or negotiations when terms had not been agreed.
They only real significant shareholders in the BoD are the two pals with alleged close links to the execs at AA . So the rest of the BoD are going to be heavily influenced by whatever those two say....
So we have not got here just because we have, but because of a lack of support by the BoD for the shareholders and SP. You might argue that the actions above were deliberate to ensure a low SP for the AA offer. Certainly the BoD continued silence speaks volumes - tese things above can be discussed as they do not impact the offer.
The only way this is going to see the light of day is if shareholders stop arguing on forums and telling themselves it's their own fault and actually do something about it...... that something is to get a significant % of the shareholders to work together as one voice (5% allows us to call a general meeting of SM and demand some answers and table some resolutions) but this is only possible whilst SM is still SM after that we don;t have shareholders.
So if you are the least bit annoyed about this, want some more answers then add your weight by registering for the ShareSoc campaign here https://www.sharesoc.org/campaigns/sirius/
"I got the same reply to my email to SXX yesterday, re Chris Fraser etc, which got me a warning on here.
How do you call these people to account ?"
Join the ShareSoc campaign here: https://www.sharesoc.org/campaigns/sirius/
good job AAL turned him down, last thing I want is for my SM shares to be converted at 5.5p into over priced AAL shares
Thank you to the many people that have already submitted their support for this.
Things have progressed and I am pleased to say ShareSoc have now launched an official campaign here: https://www.sharesoc.org/campaigns/sirius/
If you have already sent your details to the Sirius Minerals Action List over the last week then I have sent you an email with details on how to continue your support.
Shareholders that have not already registered their support can now do so directly from the ShareSoc site https://www.sharesoc.org/campaigns/sirius/
Please do provide your support by registering as either an associate (free) or full member of ShareSoc
Regards
"Yes that's an ominous phrase - If they were voting shares, I had wondered if they might be hoping to force a no vote and then try to pick the company up even cheaper. But previous opinion seemed uncertain whether these were voting shares or CFDs."
they will be CFDs with underlying shares and therefore with voting rights... they are not a white knight in this story