Thanks Blythe and Troy for the analysis offered.
Yes the views are extremely one sided for TMT, but we've all been banging on about these points for years, it is absolutely nothing new,,, and to date I honestly can't recall many logical challenges to any point expressed here, either on TMT or AVL.
We get pointed to the government grants AVL received, market cap, and now 'well Ian must know TMT have no chance so need AVL to save them'.
None of this is evidence any point either Troy or Blyth have made is not fact. Or at minimum, worthy of challenge if anyone can present evidence directly against it. False equivalencies (AVL got gov grant = AVL has superior project) does not cut it.
Sabine has shared many points regarding the 'new' AVL (I appreciate your contributions Sabine, I don't have to 100% agree but at least you offer logic, analysis and back up your arguements which has a lot of value), but for me it's hard to look past that AVL still sit on the same ore body, same EPA submissions, same processing flowsheet, same BFS that was poor and un-economical, even if you let them have the titanium credits and cheap diesel. Graham so far in interviews, to me at least, seems to be towing the same line as Vince. 'We have a world class resource, great team, and we're now just fininishing up permitting, offtake and funding and we'll be the world's next vanadium mine'.
For me it's not one of those cases where AVL was simply mismanaged and a new team can come in and make a few changes to get this thing over the top.. Graham hasn't shown much to differentiate himself from Vince yet in my eyes.
In some ways I feel he leans even more on the 'spin' than Vince. You knew where Vince was coming from, what he was passionate about, and what he believed he could achieve.
If you didn't buy into AVL under Vince, I haven't felt much difference under Graham yet to be honest.
So,,, if we take Blythe's assessment, it really just leaves two major questions. One that as a TMT holder, I feel I am owed an answer to, and one question that RCF are never going to answer.
A) With TMT's assets and progress, what is the genuine motivation to merge with AVL?
I want every single point of Ian's thinking. He has sold us out, that is plain. Tell us the real reasons why. If a merger fixes everything, then there should be no reason to hide whatever issues a merger is supposed to fix. I don't want to hear the generic positives of a merger that you could learn in grade 1 economics, I want to hear exactly why a decision was made to abandon TMT, and secondly, why is a merger with AVL the best option of how TMT's resource should be handled going forward?
(I mean, the answer could range anywhere from the simple mundane: Ian having rejections at every turn from financiers 'unless a merger was made' and the decision was logical,,, to a simple RCF gun to his head, "we want this whole resource for our own reasons, and we have the power to kill you by pulling our $15mil on market and leaving your company in the toilet, so back this play or we'll end you)
B) What in the world was RCF's thinking when buying AVL's BFS?
I hope with Troy gathering up shareholders (I missed being on the call or group but am I silent supporter of a no vote), we might at least get some answers.
So far management have announced maybe 30% support, i'm sure they have more, but the remainder are expecting more cards to be shown at least before getting behind this.
Don't think I never had critism of TMT or did not apply critical analysis to them. I don't think there was anything perfect here, but that doesn't change that there is a lot not making sense with this.
Expand
