purchase offer for mt carbine rejected, page-24

Cb25 posted:

"YOU will then understand the background to this thing and why what sp and a few others are saying is SO far of track.

I find it amazing that some of these intelligent people can pluck fact of thin air."

Comment:

This is not the appropriate place to speculate on whether there were or were not any handshake, verbal agreements. So I will not speculate.

In my opinion Cb25 your comment about what I have posted is you "plucking fact of thin air" and distorting what I have queried.

In view of what RAU announced to the ASX today, part of which I have copied at the end of this post, BASICALLY the issue in my opinion is, and it is simply asked in a question:

Did Republic Gold before it began its due diligence of Mt. Carbine, with a view to purchase, have an appropriate, legally binding agreement with the Nicholson Group of Companies to protect Republic Gold's interests in the event of satisfactory due diligence of Mt. Carbine resulting in Republic Gold deciding to purchase?

Cb25, I will be interested to know what your answer is to the above question in view of what Republic Gold announced today? The beginning of the announcement is copied below.

"PURCHASE OFFER FOR MT CARBINE REJECTED

The Board of Republic Gold (“Republic” or the “Company”)today announces that the Company has made a substantial offer to purchase of the assets of the Nicholson Group of Companies, that included the former Mt Carbine tungsten mine and that this offer, with a potential value of $14m, has been rejected.

The exclusive option period that had been afforded to the Company ended at the close of business yesterday.

Managing Director of Republic Gold, Mr John Kelly said “The Board and staff have spent eight months investigating this potential purchase and a considerable amount of funds and time on due diligence, including over 800 metres of diamond drilling, with interesting results.

We are bitterly disappointed that a very generous offer was rejected. The Company had offered the vendor a very fair and reasonable price that was a mixture of cash, shares and a royalty, with a potential value of $14m which the Board believed was justifiable to shareholders. Given the technical risk associated with Mt Carbine the Board’s technical, legal and financial advisors indicated that it was not in the best interests of shareholders for the Company to increase its offer further by offering an excessive price..."