Hello BozkurtD
You, Confluence, Goalie and others have questioned the motivations of Gull and Infoman (G&I). A number of posts have even suggested some collusion between G&I and DeBeers. I find this a very interesting and if true, troubling concept, that is worth discussion and research should anyone have the time and resources to do it.
Is the situation truly as it has been painted? Does Infoman truly just represent or know an "heir" and if so, why make negative posts and allegations about a company and individual with whom he/she is in negotiations and subsequently a court case? To what possible advantage? What possible difference to the heirs court case, do any statements SUF makes or are alleged to have made in Canada or even the RSA? Why respond through the internet (SI) to proported allegations made in the press? Is Gull simply a wealthy megalomaniacal individual with a great deal of time on his hands or is this a ruse? Is he a sophisticated shorter pursuing a successful strategy? It is entirely possible, but I can not shake my misgivings about their motivations.
There are too many loose ends and unfathomable questions.
To preface my thoughts, I think it is important to state that I believe shareholders should be concerned about all of the public references to this situation by the SA government. In my experience, the last thing a politician or government wants to be seen or be perceived to be doing, is favouring, or being pressured by any entity, especially a foreign company. To be perceived as independent and unimpeachable, three things may occur, a negative decision, a deferred decision, no decision. I personally think it ill-advised for SUF to publicly refer to optimism about the Minister's impending ruling, just as I think it ill-advised for shareholders to be calling the ministry and SA Consulate to the point that they are issuing news releases. This puts the Minister and government on the defensive, in the public eye and at the mercy of the opposition with an election scheduled within a year.
At the very least, I would not be surprised to see all this publicity and pressure result in a more cautious approach and delayed decision. The government has already stated that "they prefer a negotiated settlement between SUF and DeBeers". What does that tell you? When dealing with any government, it is ALWAYS better to do it in a business like manner and out of the media. This I believe is what CJ and SUF had been doing until this issue appeared in Business Day.
Unfortunately, the whole matter is now very much in the public eye.
The posted references to possible corruption are troubling and I would again caution that nothing good can come of them. If there has been any, that is a game SUF can ill afford to play. DB have much deeper pockets and probably moles within the government. SUF could easily find themselves in a Dutch Auction or worse, in the media in some real or fabricated expose.
Canadians are all too familiar with how politicians react to or look for stories about "bad" foreign interests/companies trying to usurp Canadian resources, etc. This is a universal vote getter and means to sell newspapers. It sells here in CDN and may well do the same in the RSA. Perhaps Factfinder, you or Nempela could offer your perspective on how this is playing over there?
SUF I am sure, does not need to find itself painted in that role.
Now what I am about to say I appreciate sounds all too much like one of the pathetic paranoid conspiracy theories posted all too frequently on SI, but I am truly beginning to suspect that G&I are not who they suggest they are. I apologize in advance to both of you and DeBeers if I am completely out to lunch here, but lets look at their posts from a different perspective.
Since they started posting:
1. A common business dispute has been discussed openly in SA and CDN papers.
2. Those papers have quoted an internet (SI) poster's unsubstantiated allegations.
3. The dispute and quote were discussed on CDN and possibly SA television.
4. DeBeers news releases deplore SUF's actions and claim original discovery.
5. A RSA Minister wrote an apparently supportive letter quoted in a CDN newspaper.
6. A RSA Ministry issued a news release distancing the Minister from the dispute.
7. SUF's share price has dropped approximately $9.00 +/-.
8. SUF issued a news release instituting a poison pill.
9. DeBeers negotiate with SUF for exclusive marketing and..... company control?
Are these the natural results of a business dispute and nervous market? Possibly....
Here is an alternative possibility. Are G&I DeBeers moles or employees of a public relations firm in the employ of DeBeers. I have read DeBeers history in detail and have had industry insiders relay stories about subversive business tactics, such as in Australia when hundreds of juniors snapped up ground in their diamond rush. It was suggested that DB partnered with cash shy juniors and prospectors who controlled prospective ground, and through a go slow bleeding process, bit by bit, they assumed control of each claim or company. Through Monopros they appear to now be doing the same thing in Canada. Other stories, far more concerning have also been made but caution may be prudent here.
I have heard it suggested that in their recent negotiations, DB demanded control of SUF (remember the poison pill). Why do you suppose out of the blue, that was suddenly necessary?
Could G&I be contracted to run a disinformation campaign? What better public forum than the internet? There is no regulator or law to answer to, and with complete anonymity, they can reach the world at little cost and with tremendous effect. How do you explain the fact that a respected national SA newspaper quotes an anonymous internet poster's allegations. Why? Did Business Day suddenly put away their journalistic integrity and common sense?
The answer seems all too obvious at least to me. Put pressure on the RSA by painting SUF in an unsympathetic light, usurp the M-1, undermine shareholder confidence in SUF, gut the share price, accumulate at bargain basement prices, negotiate controlling company interest or take it over entirely. Personally, I don't even think the M-1 is the target. That is small potatoes. DB is an elephant hunter and SUF controls the biggest elephant in the world.
G&I have repeatedly alluded to some other unseemly facts yet to come to light. Why the clandestine references drawn out over months? If they are privy to wrong doing, why not just post it? Everything else is posted in infinite detail..... Why did these two just show up out of the blue when the M-1 situation became protracted, and what possible motivation could they have to spend so much time scanning and referencing old posts in minute detail? They post and respond for hour on end, to every challenge and reply. Who has that kind of time without being paid for it?
There is much more going on here than meets the eye. Do you really believe these two are a couple of good Samaritans who's God given mission in life is to inform and enlighten misguided, misty eyed and ill-informed SUF shareholders?
I am increasingly convinced that this is part of a sophisticated business scheme and we, and SUF, are being grossly manipulated.
If anyone out there has access to any data that might refute or support this theory, please by all means, provide what facts you can.
Regards
|
