NTL - New Talisman Mine - New board & Directors

[nztx]

They are clearly worried about the possibility of him being elected. I cannot recall a board ever recommending that a candidate not be elected.

He can vote for himself and yes that’s a good start.

The Board's STANCE & Announcement in the vein seen seems a bit questionable - could be worth getting a good lawyer to cast an eye over it .. IMO

If there was a doubt over independence - then surely the onus is on NTL to ask the pertinent questions before going into a Media Announcement identifying the party & publically NOT RECOMMENDING that individual ?

If found to be questionable, then members of the Board & others associated with the release may or may not find themselves in further hot water over their conduct and public released statements ?

In any event if the other party is a large stakeholder then the Company's conduct in the matter certainly looks to STINK to the HIGH HEAVENS ..

HOW is RABONE Not independent & yet the person with a larger stake seeming an Independent or maybe not, or maybe NTL couldn't be bothered asking the questions .. ?

[nztx]

STILL in "HALTED" status


Must be waiting filing of the upcoming CASH GRAB Docs to pay the upcoming year's Office Rent, Coffee Machine Lease, Coffees & Sugars, Long Drop Supplies, Salaries & Director's fees .. so further chapters in the long & winding saga of the bottomless hole inside a HILL can be written for release ..

[Getty]

It may be construed that the current board not recommending O J, is indeed the strongest endorsement he could get.

[Bluemanarc]

Perhaps he was undermined, rather like NTL actually.

I dont think so, NTL are not capable of mining

[jonu]

All the below is my honest opinion and should not be taken as investment advice.

Early Appointment of Directors

There has been a massive amount going on behind the scenes leading to this, including 3 Resolutions being rejected by the Company, which in my and others opinion, puts NTL in breach of the Companies Act Clause 9. This may invalidate the ASM. I will probably post those Resolutions here when I have taken advice. Needless to say Mr Nader and Mr Hill were not favourably disposed to them proceeding. And with good reason.

Murray Stevens was not named in my Resolutions and seems to me to add value to the Board with his knowledge of the mine Geology. He is someone I look forward to working with if I am elected to the Board.

I am taking advice on a number of issues. But to clarify a few things. The company can appoint new directors leading into the ASM. They will need to be voted in at the ASM, but in appointing them early they have effectively given them the tick of approval and hope that most voters just roll with it. You can vote them out.

I can vote for myself.

While the NoM states that Victor Rabone is non-independent, it does not disclose his massive conflict of interest in the sale process of Broken Hills to NTL or to CGL, however it is currently structured. I think people voting for Mr Rabone should take into account his loyalty to Mr Hill in this regard.

As for Ms Wyse, if anything, I feel the tick of approval from the current Board is not something I would have been seeking. That should tell you something.

The NoM states on page 4 that I nominated myself. I did not. I was nominated by another shareholder.

The NoM declares I will likely cause disruption if elected to the Board.

If disruption is defined as setting expectations for the CEO, I am a disruptor.

If disruption is defined as concentrating on finding a processing route for NTL ore, I am a disruptor.

If disruption is defined as getting bulk sampling underway, then I am a disruptor.

If you think these things are disruptive then you should vote for me. The only person on the current board who I identify as adding real value is Murray Stevens, and sadly his skills haven't been utilised while millions of dollars have been spent achieving very little.

Further to all this, to my knowledge, Matt Hill the CEO, is currently resident in Sydney and has been for some time after choosing to stay there when the trans-Tasman bubble stopped and around the time the FMA took their action against him. Read into that what you will.

There will be more to come.

We are still in the dark as to what is going on with the Cap Raise and CGL split off, and what assets are being put into CGL. I have fears around an asset strip of NTL. Bear in mind any announcement from now on will have been voted on by the new directors. You will see where they stand and if it is good for the long suffering shareholders.

I am expecting a drip feed of good news alongside any Cap Raise. I'm not being cynical am I?

[ThaiJohn]

Nightmare. Good luck, Jonu.

[dubya]

What a freakin mess alright

If Hill is residing in Australia, at least it's a pretty good exchange rate for him if he wants to transfer his $NZ1,000 plus per day salary over

[Brain]

I Must admit that I am truly amazed by all of that. Thanks for posting Jonu and all the best to you.

[Paint it Black]

Thanks Jonu - you will definitely be getting my votes (ex top 10 but still hold quite a few). I'm not unhappy with Victor Rabone's appointment with his geological background and family's Coromandel experience. However totally against Kelly Wyse with her Australian background. She is likely to be another patsy on the Board along with the Chairman. Jane Bell to me is doing a fine job and likely the only NZ resident keeping the show on the road at present. We want the company run by NZers who are passionate and hands on to work at the mine face with the local community - not pushing buttons and getting nowhere from Sydney and Melbourne while costing us ridiculous fees. The fact Jonu's nomination has been rejected by the Board speaks volumes they are concerned about scrutiny and a complete Board overhaul is needed. Only then would I, and I'd say many other shareholders, consider purchasing new shares.

[Motley Crew]

As I mentioned in my previous post, the appointment of two new directors so close to the AGM smells very fishy, and has been done by the existing board members for good reason, as Jonu explains - "The company can appoint new directors leading into the ASM. They will need to be voted in at the ASM, but in appointing them early they have effectively given them the tick of approval and hope that most voters just roll with it. You can vote them out."
Shareholders (not aware of the discussions on this forum) will usually 'just roll with' voting in the incumbents. By filling the void in advance, it reduces the chance of Jonu getting onto the Board.
I have never in NZ, in over 35 years of investing in listed companies, seen anything the like of what NTL has included in its Resolutions in its NoM for 2021. I have never seen a footnote, with double '##' marks for extra emphasis, added to a Resolution regarding the potential election of a new member to the Board, where the existing directors have decided to come out and so strongly and openly recommend that shareholders NOT vote for a candidate.
I have, however, seen this happen in Australia when companies (quite often junior miners) under duress, are being challenged by disgruntled shareholders, or shareholder groups. It does not surprise me in the slightest, knowing the calibre and track record of the incumbent directors and the CEO, that they have gone down this track. It is consistent with the pressure the company is under. They do not want 'outsiders' with good intentions coming in and upsetting their carefully stacked apple cart. They do not want someone from 'the outside' being in a position to challenge current processes, and let the outside world know what is truly going on inside the company. This is their definition of 'hostile', a term usually reserved for unwanted takeover activity. But they use the term here because the psychology and emotiveness of the word in the investing sense suits their purpose.
On the one hand they state that Jonu has nominated himself for a board position, yet elsewhere in the same release they state that he has been nominated 'by a shareholder'. Such irregularities in their release are designed to cast a very dark pall over Jonu's nomination.
Ms Wyse's bio provides no confidence that she can provide any additional skills to the Board. She is a (fellow) bean counter and apparently has M&A experience, which I doubt she will ever get to use at NTL as Matt Hill and Nader have those activities tightly under control. There are different levels of M&A experience - it would be useful to know where Ms Wyse sits on that spectrum. As PiB says, she is likely just a Board 'patsy' for the Chairman and CEO, a 'bum on seat' filling a void.

As far as I can deduce, all recent activities that the Board has undertaken have been done as 'patch protection'. It is not coincidence. The Board and CEO are fully aware of comments being made on this forum about the company, the CEO is under investigation for his incognito comments on this forum. In short, they are a Board under pressure. They do not want outsiders spoiling their party. Finding out where shareholder $$ are actually 'spent'.
Jonu - I would certainly be taking advice on this release, and if a formal complaint about the company's 'undermining' of the democratic process is an option, I would certainly be going down that track. The release shows that the Board is quite willing to reach into their bag of 'dirty tricks' to achieve their ends, and usurp the election of a shareholder to the Board who has the best interests of other shareholders at heart.
The hostility contained in the release is the real hostility, so if they want 'hostile', give it to them. The more bad press the company gets about their AGM antics, the better.

Re the drip feed of 'good news' alongside the capital raise, this is always NTL's modus operandi. But as we have all seen, the 'good news' has always proved to lack long-term substance due to promises of over-delivery and embellishment, and any share price uptick is short lived, and often exploited by the company with subsequent capital raises to take advantage of the higher SP