Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Bullboard - Stock Discussion Forum GOLDBROOK VENTURES INC V.GBK

TSXV:GBK - Post Discussion

GOLDBROOK VENTURES INC > Is there a Parallel??
View:
Post by llahsram on Jan 21, 2012 10:12pm

Is there a Parallel??

I would very much appreciate a comment from those more knowledgeable on Canadian Ownership concerns as in the case of Saskatchewan Potash sale to Australian BHP? Here are some sample comments from a complete article on the proposed Sask Potash you can read at:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/10/01/f-vp-newman.html

"Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall has asked the Conference Board of Canada to assess the potential sale of the Potash Corp. of Saskatchewan to the giant Australian mining company BHP Billiton.

He says he needs the outside input before he can decide whether his government should recommend the sale be approved by Ottawa."

if Canada is to be an important country in the decades ahead, it should have important companies in some of the world's key strategic sectors.

Think of the fates of Inco and Falconbridge, once big players in the international nickel market, now foreign owned. The same with aluminum maker Alcan.

Why, too, you might ask, can't Canadian businessmen be the acquirers, not the sellers.

Sometimes, it seems, and this may be more prevalent in the oil patch and mining sector than elsewhere, the business plan for Canadian entrepreneurs is to develop companies to a certain critical size, and then sell them off to foreign buyers.

So, regardless of who makes the stronger bid, the answer from both Ottawa and Saskatchewan should be the same: "Sorry. No sale."

Comment by RoyallyScrewed on Jan 21, 2012 11:46pm
llahsram, you asked, "Why, too, you might ask, can't Canadian businessmen be the acquirers, not the sellers."   Good question! I looked it up in Wikipedia:   "Since the 1980s, Canada's levels of investment and ownership in foreign companies have been larger than foreign investment and ownership in Canada. In some smaller countries, such as Montenegro, Canadian ...more  
Comment by factsrbest on Jan 22, 2012 9:08am
This post has been removed in accordance with Community Policy
Comment by llahsram on Jan 22, 2012 9:44am
Sorry RS -- it's not my question but a quote from within the Don Newman article I presented to all ...You have missed the main issue of my attention to the article.....Some time ago when I  got through to a PR rep at Goldbrook and asked the obvious question of why GBK would appear to have been GENEROUSLY given a 25% stake in a multibillion $ operation?? --- the answer was " for our ...more  
Comment by factsrbest on Jan 22, 2012 10:42am
This post has been removed in accordance with Community Policy
Comment by RoyallyScrewed on Jan 22, 2012 7:35pm
Ilahsram, don't believe everything you read in the "media". The truth about the potash Corporation of Sackatchewan, is that I wasn't / isn't a Canadian company in the first place! "The debate over who should own and control PCS was prescribed by our political and economic leaders, with the strong support of the mass media. Most people seemed to ...more  
Comment by RoyallyScrewed on Jan 22, 2012 8:13pm
factsrbest... I see that you are rather anti-Canadian with your comments. There a certain something called the world economy. To understand how that works I suggest that you brush up on Canadian trade history and current world economics. The situation in Canada is not what you describe. A simple trip to Wikipedia saves me the trouble of composing a reply to your narrow view of reality... ~~~~~~~~~ ...more  
Comment by factsrbest on Jan 23, 2012 3:54pm
This post has been removed in accordance with Community Policy
Comment by RoyallyScrewed on Jan 23, 2012 4:47pm
The Canadian government has no right to get involved with the sale of public companies, and Falconbridge did very well buying up minerall rights all over the world, bringing the profits home. The laws of international free trade are clear. They are generally pretty fair... arguments arise all the time but deals are also hashed out. Did you even read what I wrote explaining the fault in your ...more  
Comment by factsrbest on Jan 23, 2012 7:41pm
This post has been removed in accordance with Community Policy
Comment by RoyallyScrewed on Jan 23, 2012 9:03pm
I can read just fine. You keep changing your argument. First you complained that Canada welcomes foreign investment (well duh). Then you complained that "foreign bodies" held up the merger of Falconbridge and Inco. Then you complained that Canada contributed loans to the IMF to pay for foreign takeovers. And now you are saying that you just want fairness and I'm not listening.   ...more  
Comment by roadking08 on Jan 23, 2012 9:49pm
nice job on debating factsrbest. now debate my last post. agreed its a challenge, but you must be up to it or maybe not?
Comment by factsrbest on Jan 24, 2012 4:23pm
This post has been removed in accordance with Community Policy
Comment by factsrbest on Jan 24, 2012 4:24pm
This post has been removed in accordance with Community Policy
Comment by factsrbest on Jan 24, 2012 4:25pm
This post has been removed in accordance with Community Policy
Comment by roadking08 on Jan 24, 2012 7:27pm
I must apologize factsrbest, I drink like a fish at night especially when Davey does something fishy. I must of meant royally screwed but not sure instead of factsrbest though  I do enjoy reading both your post. my bad. When i get back next week I will post from my computer the arguments that jj presented at court of appeals on December 8 2011 why their appeal to have case reheard should be ...more