Bullet point 1 - absolutely correct
Bullet point 2
~ "
LLL will continue to provide transitional support, funded by Ganfeng." - correct
~ "
Ganfeng will manage the project regardless of the transaction approval." - correct
~ "
Given the commercial structure, Ganfeng has already accounted for the possibility of team members leaving,
making it irrelevant....(sic)"
-
if this is the case why are the paying;+ 100% of Blackwell's Retention Award
+ 75% of both Richards and Chamberlain's Retention Awards
~ "
Hay and Blackwell are on 6 month notices and cannot leave before handover?"
+ In a normal business environment this would be the norm, with executives serving out their notice periods, but this isn't a normal business environment!
This is the ASX .........
see post
https://hotcopper.com.au/threads/ann-notice-of-annual-general-meeting.8076357/page-215?post_id=74866740Quote: "
Absent any clear evidence or facts, I'm not convinced by what you and Fooca are saying."
You cannot have it both ways, mate.Bullet Point 3
Quote: "
the source of the information is Brendan Borg, who apparently made extravagant promises leading up to the FFX 249D, ....(sic)"
~ Whilst you are more than happy to denigrate Brendan Borg, you haven't provided any factual evidence of these extravagant promises. Given that you are not a FFX shareholder (also previously disclosed that you have never followed the story) I suspect your source of information of the "alleged" extravagant promises is coming from within your group,
~ I spoke with
@franky1 about your claim, as I don't recall any promises coming from Borg (neither did he BTW), furthermore,
** Borg had resigned from the Firefinch Board 31 May 2022
https://announcements.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20220531/pdf/459ht8vnjc9hqd.pdf** the s249D was served on the Company 18 July 2023 -
13 1/2 months later!!https://announcements.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20230720/pdf/05rt48zh1zv64c.pdf
"(sic)..... which resulted poorly for shareholders."
~ are you insinuating the "extravagant" promises allegedly made by Borg were the reason for the poor result of the 249D action?
+ Although the final results of the s249D were disappointing as a shareholder, it was far from disappointing as a strategic point of view as we had managed to get 38% of votes cast.
"(sic) .....
and the fact that none of this is being communicated publicly, ....(sic)"
~ I don't know how long you have been around investing, or if you have been involved with a share that is holding an AGM where early numbers of voting is close but it is the norm for a Board to call around canvassing votes. For the life of me, I cannot recall any Company that have made an announcement to inform shareholders they are calling around canvassing votes.
~ no different to information from phone conversations with Simon, Len or Rick, they don't communicate or announce conversations publicly.
"(sic) ....
to base your investment decision on."
The Company has put in place a measure (Resolution 4) to mitigate any potential of Key Executives leaving, that are recognised to be vital by both Leo Lithium and Ganfeng to provide a continuity of service and expertise to progress not only the project / commissioning & production start / ramp up but to utilise that expertise in guiding and training to bring Ganfeng up to being mine operational capable.
The likely hood of KMP's leaving if Resolution 4 is not carried, IMO will be quite high, given approaches have already been made, but the ramifications if that was to occur could mean a delay sourcing replacements of the same calibre, etc. which could effect the quality of service Leo is providing Ganfeng.
~ from my calculations, if
Resolution 4 is carried, it will be a cost to Leo Lithium of either
(a) calculated for 50% STI - $1,862,653: calculated at $1,862,653/1,198,176,519 =
$0.00155 cents per LLL share (SOI - 1,198,176,519)
(b) calculated for 75% STI - $2,145,871: calculated at $2,145,871/1,198,176,519 =
$0.00179 cents per LLL share
++ the costings for Resolution 4 will come the Company's cash reserves and not affect expected payments from tranche 1.
The above calculations
DO NOT include costs if Resolution 5 is carried, because there is not formula / figures to be able to calculate.
FYI - I have voted against Resolution 5
1: for the above reason of not knowing, and I am not comfortable giving the Board a blank cheque and;
2(a) given the normal mode of resigning by "mutual agreement" the mentioned KMP's will get 3 or 6 months salary respectively in lieu of notice plus entitlements, and
2(b) if they have indeed already been approached, whoever is head hunting them will offer a one off joining fee no doubt.
My opinion, as much as I disagree awards with Resolutions 4 & 5, in the whole scheme of things a trivial amount to concede to mitigate any potential risk to get the best outcome.
cheers
(20min delay)