Thank you for for what is intended to be an objective analysis of Cliff's most likely strategy based on the latest facts as we know them. What I would like to see debated on this forum by the many experienced people here is a singular point you have made. That point relates to Cliff's most likely strategy to secure a long term interest in the Cr. You believe they would want this merger to take place , then proceed to negotiate with a single party. Qualitatively, this appears the simplest route for CLF.

My problem, and the reason I disagree on that single issue, is the dilution math. In order for CLF to take out FWR, currently requires only about 2-3% dilution of CLF's capital. Of course that will escalate if NOT's price rises over the next couple weeks. Dealing with a combined NOT/FWR at the current level would require substantially greater dilution, in the order of 3-4 times using the proposed exchange ratio and existing market caps. That is potentially a minimum of 11-12% or more dilution for CLF depending on the NOT value agreed to. That much dilution with only a long term cash return could well prevent CLF from doing a deal that big. In that case, CLF would be better to take over FWR now all assuming no third bidder , then hope to come back for NOT later. Also, if the merger would increase CLF's value, NOT would have shot itself further in the foot.

This is neither a pro- or anti- CLF or NOT post. I own all the companies involved. Nor do I have any emotionally based opinion on this other than I am desterate to ultimately make some money on this play My observation and experience however tell me that CLF would act now or get out unless it had an existing agreement, which it cannot have. Their current holding says they are here to stay. All views or new observations or facts would be welcome, including who might jump in as a third bidder.