Member Info for WelshFalcon

Looks to me like they are straddling the southern arm extension of the crescent. After more detail on that reported step out?

So you are going to diversify into other gold prospectors? Moving from a highly de-risked company? Interesting plan!

My diversification includes Rio, Astrazeneca, and all sorts of others. My speculative gold play is GGP, GGP and GGP.

Lovely stuff, lots in Hav, don't forget it!

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/24/coronavirus-why-the-pandemic-could-spark-a-copper-rally.html

Not a lot different than we know already. Hav will be bigger than the analysts suggest - they are working off the published data, whereas the likelyhood is that there is more to come. So nothing new there.

Hav. won't be the biggest, well we all want to see some drill results from targets in Scally, these look much bigger than Hav. So if one of them hits..... again nothing new to see.

"almost impossible to value these 12 blocks." Now, you hum the tune, I'll sing it! Music to my ears.

I have chicken, rice and peas on the menu for this evening!

So we have a nice low development cost resource! Let Artemis do the heavy lifting at their northern extreme whilst we concentrate on our known resource. If they hit with good grades, we have bought time and don't need to drill until later.

Win Win, Chicken Dinner.

My take on this:

They may have found something in this 800m outlying hole, but don't expect anything to happen for a long time.

NCM need fodder for Telfer. The focus id going to be on getting the core find sorted out. Extending to the NW and finding how far and deep this goes. The MRE is next, obviously all based on the know resource. Then the PFS and a decline.

This (new) northern resource is a 'keep it in your back pocket' type of scenario. It will be looked at later, possibly once we have ore being processed at Telfer and drill and manpower resource more easily allocated elsewhere. Until there is any firm data, drill results etc, this extra cannot be included in any MRE, neither can Hannan/Sprott et al put any value on it. It will form part of expanding the mineralisation and life of mine, but at some point in the future.

To me, it is nice to know, helps in my mind for the de-risk arguments, makes a Havieron buy out even less likely in the short term. But until it can be properly evaluated won't have do a lot for share value (other than short term speculation).

We (GGP, that is) need to stick with plan A - drill some of the Scaly targets. This expansion will take care of itself, over time, and within the existing JV.

I doubt they would have fixed a gold price in advance. It's a readily tradeable commodity capable of substantial swings in value over time. Wherever you pitch the price point, if the market moves - someone 'wins' as the other 'loses' relatively.

Better to hedge the gold price with other financial instruments if you need to - NCM have done in the past and, I believe are still working through a hedged price lower than the current market price.

I must clean this keyboard, keep missing ey presses!

True, but you go into a hostile takeover with every intention of winning. You wouldn't try unless you were sure of success (and they do fail too). So once successful you have control of both side of the contract and there is no problem. If you fail, your CEO career is probably over and you get early retirement on a nice pension! The clause isn't going to stop you going for the ig prise.

Wow, and the lawyers make a pie of cash when trying to enforce it.

Rampers to the left of us, derampers to the right. Into the valley of AIM we ride. A wild ride on Monday!!!!

Hmmmm

Sharpens pencil.

Now, how to draft a new clause - put it in black and white, as they say?

The "prevention of an unfunded reverse takeover clause". Don't even think about or else I'll......... er ?

Dodge, please.... no! Introducing the concept of a reverse takeover, LOL. That will have the control freaks far too confused!

But, come to think about it.... with the right funding (commercial partner) perfectly possible.

Allowed by whom? This is all the language of legislation, not allowed, enforce, unenforceable etc.

A commercial contract is simply an agreement between two parties. I will do X if you do Y. If you don't do Y I won't do X. There is nothing that can be enforced/allowed/prevented. All these concepts are the province of a regulator, not two parties who agree to an arrangement.

So if someone does try a takeover, that you don't like - just turn down the offer. There is nothing you can do or say to prevent them in making the offer!

How TMT, How?

A clause preventing a hostile takeover attempt? In a commercial contract? How does that work? With what are you going to enforce it? What does it do or achieve?

More nonsense, I'm afraid.

The whole discussion is moot.
In the event of a buyout, normally employee options vest immediately. The buyout payment would be for the difference between the option price and buyout price. It therefore makes no difference if the options are exercised before/after/during an offer. There would be no advantage to the employee in any event. Therefore no need to impose a blackout period for options.

There may well be restrictions on purchase/sales of stock over and above the number of options issued to an employee, this could constitute insider trading, but the options themselves don't provide any extra benefit.

The only inference you can make is that, as there is no need to exercise options if you know of a buyout, the fact that some have been exercised may indicate that there has not been an offer discussed. Unless of course we have a clever poker player here (some more fodder for you conspiracy freaks!).

I think you have a misunderstanding of how a commercial contract works. It is an agreement between parties with rights and obligations on both sides.

What you are thinking of is more of a regulation/legal/criminal system which seeks to restrict behaviour on pain of some sort of punishment.

A commercial contract can be varied by agreement at any time, therefore if NCM wanted to make an offer there would be nothing to stop them. Assuming the contract had your clauses, and the offer was acceptable, then both parties would agree to waive the clauses. Simples.

It is therefore nonsensical to include such restrictions in the first place. An off can always be simply rejected.

What we have is a joint venture agreement, NCM agrees to perform certain tasks with certain minimum expenditure under a set timescale, in return for these services they 'earn' certain percentages of the project. If they don't perform as agreed, than they don't get the benefits. There is nothing you can do to prevent an action or force an action by inserting a clause that says so. All you can do is, as in all commercial contacts, is promise a reward for completing an action or event. As an example take your house insurance , you pay the premium, if the house falls down they pay to fix it. If you don't pay they don't fix it. They can't prevent you accepting an offer for it.

Basically is is an agreement between grown ups, it can be altered or changed by agreement. It can't prevent something happening - that is the province of regulators.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/19/gold-markets-coronavirus-dollar-in-focus.html

Jersey, spot on. Symbiotic is very key here. We both need each other in such a way that the added value to both would be very hard to match.

Anyone that thinks they will wake up tomorrow to an'offer' that makes them a pile of cash will have many more sleeps before this can happen.

Actually, back in my city days, the best deals were always the ones where both parties felt slightly hard done by! If one was happier than the other, problems always cropped up later!