the complete idiot’s guide to the election., page-93

"No Buddy, CP wanted a FAR better deal than you are slamming Cottee for above ... haven't you been listening ??

Palmer wanted 130 million shares for 8c a share. That's an outlay of $10.4M and represents 10% of the issued capital ... and apparently what his injunction is all about.""


Dear or dear SH, What next.!!!!!!!!!

Where did you get that from.

Besides,

"Palmer wanted 130 million shares for 8c a share. That's an outlay of $10.4M and represents 10% of the issued capital ... and apparently what his injunction is all about."

Assuming that you are correct and assuming that Palmer was wanting those 130mill shares at 8 cents per share, what did the Board end up doing??

They've issued those same amount of shares to some sophisticates at 8.5 cents per share. BUT, don't you forget that they are also getting 65mill. oppies on the side. And please take also notice that, If they are not getting those 65 mill. oppies, they are to get back one (1), yes 1 cent per share, thus only having to pay 7.5 cents per share.

Now who is better off with that deal.
Are the friendlies better off?? OF COURSE THEY ARE.
And, once again, we have bee shafted by this Board.

And now for the part about RC that you have made an example to.

The big difference in this instance, is that CP was paying cash upfront, while RC will not have to fork up anything upfront and he will have all the time in the World to pay up for them, if and when it will suits him. And yes it will still be at the 9 cents even if it 5 years or more down the track.
So, if he allowing that long a time frame to pay for the 9 cents, what confidence have we got that the shares will be at a dollar or two in the near future??

Now is that comparing apples with apples or apples with pumpkins?? IMO the latter is the most appropriate one.

Watch this balloon blow. Which way it will blow? I will leave that up to you. No pun intended but, I hope that you will be man enough to admit it one day.

Regards
Buddy134