Time for a punt...., page-30

If Kalenn's proposition regarding an off-take agreement no longer being necessary (with which I wholeheartedly agree) is correct, then the burning issue of why a Sect 10.1 shareholder vote is needed, as well as an independent report, may well be redundant. If one proposes that the off-take was indeed to be with a related party, Glencore being most likely, but the subsequent decision to push the Plan B button was made a couple of days after that announcement, then all that palaver goes away. However, having notified all of a delay to the AGM, there's no point changing that.

In other words debt and off-take went hand in hand as the off take would have been a condition for finance. Under Plan B, not required, but the board kept both plans alive until a final route was chosen.