Ann: Change in substantial holding, page-57

Sabine,

we aren’t professional investors, so we can’t really be “unprofessional”, furthermore we are all here to make money and look after our own best interests and if we feel 12-1 isn’t in our best interests then we are allowed to say no as TMT holders.

the deal isn’t agreed at a price, as you and I have gone back and forwards over for a few days. It’s 12 to 1. Currently yes, this puts a TMT share at 32.4c a share, but the deal is not cash it is shares only, so stop using language that insinuates a deal was done at a certain price. It’s 12 AVLs for 1 TMT, and currently a lot of TMT shareholders feel like 1 TMT share is worth more than 12 of AVL. Looking at it another way, it’s saying of a combined entity, TMT is worth 42% of it. I feel like we are worth more than 42% of the merged entity based off Yarrabubba, further advanced EPAs, lower OPEX etc. AVL has some great things like VSUN that TMT holders need to consider too.


you keep going on and on and on about it, but money was raised at a ~10% discount to the share price when it was required to be raised. Obviously at a near 12 month low they were going to hold out until the last minute to raise and hope for improved market sentiment, a booming V price, approved EPAs or something similar to raise the 11.5m for less new shares. 210m shares on issue suggests TMT know what they’re doing here.

600m capex is correct and both TMT and AVL are in the same boat here so there’s no point flinging there proverbial over it.

Your last point - anything price sensitive would have to be shared to market. Are you insinuating that RCF have already seen these reports? that’s a pretty serious accusation to make.


Stop posting your nonsense and fear mongering and let TMT shareholders vote how they feel like voting.