Member Info for sandgrounded

LOL Joubert.

Culpepper, why don’t you explain it to the board of Newmont. You will not see a better example of your so called dilution there, where they will issue hundreds of millions of shares to get Newcrest!
For gods sake, give it a rest, please!

Thanks Tygra.
If we can pay the original debt for 30% of Havieron in 4 years, then owning 100% of Havieron means not only savings of scale, but we can pay a larger debt loan over a similar period, using the mine as guarantee.

The number of people saying it couldn’t be done. Tell that to Shaun and listen to todays broadcast again.

We could also offer Ernest Giles in the equation, if Newmont take over and want to sell Havieron.

A few months ago, Shaun was as eager as anything on EG. Hardly anything today or for the past few weeks about it. Newmont almost went for it a few months ago. Could be interested for the long term.

I think I heard him say we have debt for the 30%, which would could be scaled up if buying the 70%.

Hopefully Dip will do a transcript, where we can see it in black and white.

Thanks Bamps.

Shaun Fay!!!!!!

Last year the results came out on the 10th March, so it is reasonable to think the results would have been today.
With Newcrest in the midst of a takeover situation, maybe this could be a reason why they aren’t published. It was also reasonable to expect them today, to coincide with Shaun Fay’s appearance today in the shareholder meeting.

I’m hoping he has learned something from Gervaise and drops a whopping rns later this morning, when no one expects it!

Good luck all holders.

ASX rns tonight showing recent share subscription completed and shares issued.

https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20230309/pdf/45mh4gy9y6jfry.pdf

Ditto Bamps. Keep up the good work and ignore him.
You know what they say about people like John…
“It's better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt”

SS,
I can understand you want to put a post in to counterbalance the positive views, to show the dangers as well as the benefits of share ownership, but we are all responsible for our own decisions. You can’t blame someone if they say, I am sitting on my hands.
Good luck to you, in any case.

To be fair, the Rns of 12/3/19 goes on to explain…..

“ Right of First Refusal: If Greatland receives a bona fide offer from a third party purchaser to farm-in or otherwise acquire all or part of its right, title and interest in the Remainder Tenements, the Company must first make an offer on the same terms to Newcrest. The right of first refusal will only apply and be binding on the parties (a) in respect of any area of Tenement E45/4701, during the Farm-In Period and for the term of the Joint Venture Agreement; and (b) in respect of Tenements E45/4512 and E45/4928, for the duration of the Farm-In Period.”

I believe this was amended slightly in the later Rns when the juri j/v’s were negotiated.
I must admit, I thought like Paddy that it had expired but went back to check, that is why I posted it. Paddy deserves all the plaudits he gets. He has earned the trust of many on here including myself. It is not about point scoring, but talking and learning from each other IMO.

Good luck all holders. I wish I could be there tomorrow, but having got a ticket, I had to send it back when my wife came down with Covid last week.

Rns 12/3/19

“ During the Farm-in period, Newcrest will have a first right of refusal over the Black Hills (E45/4512) and Paterson Range East (E45/4928) licences. Additionally, during the Farm-in period and the term of the proposed Joint Venture, Newcrest will have a first right of refusal over those blocks within the Havieron licence (E45/4701) not included in the Tenement Blocks.”

If memory serves me right, I think Scallywag was one of those blocks within the Havieron licence (E45/4701) not included in the Tenement Blocks.”

Rns 30/11/20

“ As of today's announcement, the Paterson Range East licences and Black Hills are part of the Juri Joint Venture. The Black Hills licence was acquired by Greatland in November 2017 for approximately A$225,000 in cash and shares. The Paterson Range East licence application was granted to Greatland in September 2018 for minimal upfront cost. Greatland retains 100% ownership of both the Scallywag and Rudall licences which do not form part of the Juri Joint Venture. Newcrest retains a right of first refusal over the Scallywag licence under the Havieron Joint Venture Agreement”

My last post for tonight.

These are all different scenarios,none of which may occur, but they need to be thought about by the BOD.

I would like to think that Any company contemplating a takeover of Newcrest would honour the agreements for Havieron, but that company may have more pressing priorities in sorting out their newly acquired assets.
I was discussing the stated case of a right of first refusal, where another company lent the 30% jv partner, the money to buy the 70%. It was agreed that the lender of the money would then acquire the 70% themselves and give the 30% jv partner a $50 million backhand.
People were stating they didn’t want to see huge dilution of the company by issuing shares. The above example would certainly alleviate that.
I also mentioned that GGP could, ( instead of the example of the backhander) take a greater share ofHavieron, say 49% for very little money.

Well let’s suppose Newmont want Havieron, but don’t want to start mining yet as they have other assets to manage. Is that fair on GGP?

I know, I am playing devils advocate here, but what rights would GGP honestly have?

Better to have a white knight backing you up!

This was the start of the summing up by the judge in that case

“ Beginning his analysis, Justice Wilton-Siegel characterized the ROFR as a contractual right to purchase the selling party’s interest in favour of the non-selling party that, once triggered, becomes akin to an option. In other words, once the selling party received an offer from a third party that it wishes to accept, the non-selling party’s ROFR effectively becomes an option to purchase from the selling shareholder on the same terms and conditions as the offer received from the third party. The ROFR therefore provides the non-selling shareholder with qualified protection against the intrusion of a third party that it is not willing to accept as a joint venture partner, with a companion right on the part of the departing shareholder to receive the same consideration as it would have received had it completed the proposed sale to that third party.

This is interesting within the above,

“ . The ROFR therefore provides the non-selling shareholder with qualified protection against the intrusion of a third party that it is not willing to accept as a joint venture partner”

I will leave that to more qualified people than myself to dissect and discuss.

Markj, great find.

So I am reading that to mean, IF and it’s still a big if, we were allowed to buy the 70% of Havieron ( on right of first refusal) and used Wyloo money to do so, on the understanding that we allowed Wyloo to buy that percentage from us after the sale was done, then that would be allowed.

Obviously we could decide to keep it all, sell 50% etc, but that is a different topic lol!

Thanks Jerry. I wasn’t sure, but appreciate your reply.