Running discussion on SP, page-83587

funding options
1) ICC Liquidation of fines = 70m
2) Shareholder buy-in's 1,4m on the cards now
3) Broader shareholder contributions 20,500 shareholders x 500 = 10.5m
4) Locke (we haven't heard its off the cards and last time we heard it was security backing, perhaps thats the 1,4m raise
5) Management buy-in, nigel sitting on 40m in shares, i am sure he'd see an ROI in chipping in 1m

So rather than argue against an argument that has 5 options sourched in 2 mins, why don't you put forward ONE argument for why AVZ wont get funding. Just one ill do

Who will reinforce
1) DRC is a signatory to ICSID and is one of 168 countries - Are you suggesting DRC wont comply to something they signed up to?
2) The Legal contracts put ICC in charge of rulings, are you suggesting the rule of law is completely gone in DRC?
3) DRC neighbours are all ICSID signatories, are you suggesting DRC will be odd one out?

So again, rather than argue against positions of fact and strength, why dont you put forward ONE argument to support a view that DRC wont comply.

JUST ONE, can you do it h00ts?