agm, page-81

Kranky,

It isn't that interesting of a view. Just a sensible take on the information before us.


"Ever wondered why the $1 mill is proposed to come in every fortnight?"

- The sensible presumption is it's a possible stipulation of the financial instrument being used and or at the behest of the wholesale funding provider in allocating the funds to Monash Capital.


"Why not just pay the whole $6 mill amount over next week?"

- See above. There isn't a suggestion that Monash Capital has or will be receiving the $6 million dollars in one sum. In fact, it's the contrary. So that's why Monash can "...not just pay the whole $6 mill amount over next week"


"What are these terms and conditions that Monash are asking for now?"

- Um, Irrelevant question. Apart from those involved i.e management, Monash etc...no one knows. Which you know this. Hence, the irrelevance in asking.


"Could they be linked to ALDP short list?"

- Nothing from the Chairman's address would suggest this at all.
Again, in fact, it seems to suggest the opposite.
Refer to the ann. "...the first tranche of $1.0m will be delivered to us during next week, and further tranches of $1.0m each will be delivered each fortnight until full
settlement of the $6.0m is made" & "...Monash's re-affirmation of project financing for the Coldry CDP and other projects"

Nothing seems to suggest the delivery of those monies are confined or restricted to any stipulation first having been met, does it?


"K-Coal's 5% is linked to recieving an "unknown" amount of ALDP funds."

- You betcha they are.
Do see how that has been affirmed by the Board? If Monash funding was also on this basis, there's no reason whatsoever why the same wouldn't be done.


"Would not/could not/should not Monash have similar stipulations?"

- See above. Apart from that, they committed funding not on these stipulations.
Litigation would be an option for ECT if Monash proposed to now completely renege on the initial offer and now somehow hold the Company to ransom if you will.


"So all is moot on Monash funding until the terms are released by ECT management"

- Um, no not all. There are sensible inferences one can draw then there's wild baseless notions. I'd like to stick with the sensible.
Had the Board announced Monash funding would be conditional per every $1 mil, there'd be a foundation for suggesting such a thing.

What would give you the impression that the 'demands' as you say, revolve around ALDP success as being mandatory?

Wouldn't that fly in the face of Monash confirming the $1 mil within a week? I'm of the belief, unless I'm mistaken, that no update regarding ALDP shortlist is to occur within a week so it doesn't really make much sense now, does it?



"Also, didn't ECT management know about the Monash funding timeframes as per letter dated 9/10/12. Wouldn't that have stated first tranche of $1 mill in 1st week of December?"

- Um, No. Management were given an "...an indicative timetable to commence the delivery of outstanding monies."
Nothing about first week of December.
Not to mention, the clear definition to 'outstanding monies', not monies being dependent on...so forth - like you seem to be suggesting.

I commend Management for not asserting Monash would be delivering funds guaranteed without first ensuring, like they have now, that the timetable was legitimate via the 'wholesale funding provider'.


"Seems the cat keeps moving the cheese on the mouse here!"

- Oh well, you know how Tom & Jerry played out right? Jerry was always smarter than Tom.