Respectfully Jay, were going to have to agree to disagree.
I never said management was amazing or flawless....although there was a time on this board about a year ago I believe that was the common perception. Alls I said was I believe theyre being unfairly held to the fire.
Remember some of the realities of CUU.
1 guy owns 55%. As long as hes happy....management IS fulfulling their obligations to their shareholders for all purposes. Management as a whole owns 2/3rds of the company....as I mentioned in a post a ways back.....they know they cant be outvoted. Shareholders can say whatever they want, and theyre entitled to their opinions, but its not going to change the reality that its only a small secular group that controls most of the shares here....and you better believe that will change the nature of how things are done.
These things function a lot like a democracy.....majority wins. It may not be the nicest of feelings to know that effectively your votes dont count...but it is the reality. They dont need to exceed shareholders expectations, they just have a fiduciary obligation to act in their best interests.
As far as not sticking to the 120 day time frame etc.....I believe that its fairly well known that the Salazar agreement was old, a bit outdated and not exactly clear at times, although the 120 day part was pretty clear I will admit.
However Im sure on some or all of it, the last thing they wanted to do was get into a legal battle with Teck. That would have added years to the story, and most assuredly tanked the price.
Theres that old line about a 600lb gorilla sitting wherever he wants....
Its in no ones interests to fight a legal battle for years and spend a ton of money and then potentially have the chance of losing.
2.5 years ago management could do no wrong, and now the story didnt panned out as hoped, and people are picking them apart. Given management owns 67% of this....can anyone give me one valid reason they didnt want the price to be higher?
Acting in their best interests IS acting in the shareholders best interest when it comes to value.
Talking to a shareholder out there for an hour may seem excessive but theres companys that dont talk to shareholders either.
Just the way I see it, not trying to be adversarial but the way it panned out was in the cards all along. We crafted the notion of a buyout, it wasnt anywhere in the legal scope of things....the 25% was all along. Then somehow we got the 4 year clause which I see no one has ever produced a piece of paper regarding.
No one wants to wait anymore...I get that....but mining takes a long time. A looong time, and I think a lot of the damage done here was the contrast made from unrealistic expectations to the reality of the situation.
I enjoy your posts Jay, I find them well thought out and insightful, I dont mean to be adversarial if thats how you take this post, I guess we just see things different here....but at least we both see that the value hasnt gone anywhere.
Its never truly a loss until you sell.....the markets will get better, and I think commodity prices are going to start to move up here as well. It may not be what people want to hear, but about all that can be done now is wait.
Rogue,
