A little overdue but what a lovely day to be out in Ol' Melbourne town.
With regards to 5 or 6 hours after the announcement. My post was sincere and I hope it came across graciously.
After information came my way the next day with regards to the manner in which it was executed, I posted in a manner similar to the alleged bloody mindedness of the the principals behind certain decisions and the perception of a probability of integrity breaches.
Shakespeare V shake spear .
We all know that the pen is mightier than the sword.
No civilized mind can perceive that some win battles whilst others win wars, without considering other battles and wars will surely follow.
There may have been better ways to lock in pledges and assurities for the future I would articulate.
Also the announcement had the appearance of being 'Rushed past the Rose' or in other words, given only the most economic of legal opinion.,, or legal opinion that may not have been followed.
Hence the ambiguity I referred to in the wording.
Res 3 for example still remains, but is at the same rate as the extinguished res 2
If res 2 was removed due to a board view that it is too far under the current sp to be of value to share holders , then the non removal of res 3 displays duplicity or inconsistency and not the work of a dream team.
My posts could therefore also be considered or construed as duplicitous or inconsistent using the basis of my initial post, if further information had not been forth coming the next day.
The removal of res 2 has ramifications which requires contingency plans for pledges made imho, which rely upon a betting of averages and risk on 27 April.
Contingencies that can not be absolutely pledged due to the ramification behind res5
Hence we saw some more info about res 5
If the company see share dilution as a primary function of share holder value, and,,,If the company is so sure that it no longer needs the option to dilute share holders using the 15% allowable ruling due to assured future funding, and appreciating that res5 is fundamentally about clearing to reset the 15% dilution without share holder approval opportunity,,, then resolution 5 should be voted down from one aspect of consistency surely.
The oppies are in the money,,, and more than 20 million dollars is available to the company in the same manner funding for cash burn was effected via the facilitating broker before the sp went south under cloud of uncertainty a year or so ago.
Thus another inconsistency.
Why would we vote for further dilution potential by resetting the 15% dilution rule within res 5 if indeed the real reason behind the removal of res 2 is or is not due to an 18 wheeled my way or the highway,,,''there will be no more point 6er dilution, end of story.
M M will still get his C note paid out.
Company rolling in funding and cash burn options,,,,
We get 4 mil from the CSI facilitator Monash, and have 20 million bux plus worth of oppies that the company get to bank every time some are exercised.
All that to one side for a moment.
It is not good business practice to ask voters to vote,,, then count their votes,,, and re shuffle your resolutions based on the trends the board and only the board collected intel thus far upon,,, in good faith.
In good faith,,, now being actually violated.
Can voters trust the board to hold the stats on votes confidential prior to a ballot any longer.
They have imho violated a basic value.
It is not fair practice to use information of a democratic and demographic nature against the principals of that fundamental principal.
This is where the board over stepped the rules of the greater umpire imho.
Therefore, I consider there have been violations committed.
One option worthy of consideration surely must have been the scaling back of the 405k in res to to say 110k with consent of the broker who now can possibly be perceived as looking crook.
We now have to wait another coupla weeks to actually assure we can deliver the goods we pledged late last year,,, with protraction not of anyone but the boards doing,,,whilst the board were/are doing good work,, and improving the share price with runs on the board.
Very complex, but quite inconsistent if we are to believe the A team or dream team calls
So to sum up good work in the runs dept,, but brickbats regarding some principal stuff.
As a triangulation to the factionalism now apparent;
The vitriolic personal slants directed at R D simply did nothing but further imply that there are factions within the board ,, if you can detectivize just whom are behind certain nics. I can,,,,, and sticks and stones,,,,,
E&OE please rely upon your own research as always
Also,, as a foot note,,, it did not bode well from a fair principal of free speech, to bullying perspectives, with regards to a certain 5th wheel inference.
Cheers as always, R D
ESI Price at posting:
3.1¢ Sentiment: None Disclosure: Held
(20min delay)