Thanks for a valuable post, which once again proves the value of the Agoracom forum.
The question for retail I believe is not whether CLF is interested in Nickel, but whether CLF for example will simply achieve effective control of a whole series of valuable junior takeover candidates then string them out for years in order to squeeze down the ultimate effective acquisition cost. Every junior with a valuable raw resource deals from a deteriorating position of weakness as soon as they take the first bite of the apple held out by a major. Like wearing a giant wedding ring in a singles bar. I would prefer a true JV which most of these deals are not.
The one thing I credit NOT for is that they have been consistent in their approach, and despite dilution have not sacrificed control of the competitive process for the sake of short term finance expediency. FPX for example appears to me to now have very little control over their future other than the minimum commitment from CLF. CLF now needs only to sit for five years or so and gradually pick up pieces of FPX stock as its sp deteriorates with dilution. And the CLF relationship now seems to me unlikely to prevent further retail dilution. Management is positioned albeit inadvertently to play both ends to the middle. Retail is always at the back of the line.
I had great hopes after the FWR deal that CLF would move forward quickly, and I was surprised when they squeezed hard on KWG after SPQ. We should not be too critical of the NOT BoD, they are deliberately avoiding the ultimate trap. Hopefully they are talking with folks who will offer a final solution rather than a bite of an apple.They only have one chance to sell control.
