Well Ian did say something to the effect (I think) that both companies were doing the funding rounds?
But he might have been referring only to NAIF and the other government agencies?
So yes … For me the whole point of a bankable feasibility study is that it gives funders confidence to proceed, and I think - on keenly anticipated studies at least there’s often a queue awaiting this moment
(A’sort of’ example of ‘queues’ is at PLS, which had been very much in the doldrums when RCF and Australian Super decided to fund it to buy Altura and which , even afterwards, remained around 30c (??) level;
But one day a bank announced it was coming on board, and I remember speaking to a banking man from somewhere else on the day… He predicted an immediate rush by other banks to share the loan (or sub contract bits of it ?) something like that anyway. I’d never heard of that kind of stuff but apparently when something gets marked with a star ‘everyone*) starts watching. {*Funders at least}.)
Anyway Rhys I see you’ve changed your ‘trust the process’ signature to add a jibe at RCF.
Maybe the jibe is uncalled for?
I think RCF interest marks things ‘with a star’.
In retrospect I’d say all the local funders first sat up and took notice when Australian Super and RCF got behind PLS.
Lithium was still in the doldrums but they were watching anyway.
But it was only when the first of their ‘flock’ ran for the entry gate that the others wanted to jump in too.
RCF is genuinely a name to be reckoned with … and I’m talking Rothschild, Australian Super, Mineral Resources and other companies with which it easily networks.
The fact that it not only supported the merger but actually put $15m in to AVL was a gesture that spoke to a much wider audience than shareholders in either of these companies!
Ans so I DO believe Ian (
to a convinced degree) when he says funding will likely be easier for a merged entity.
And I do think that no matter what the proposed ratio for this merge had been there would have been kickback to it from long term AVL haters here.
I also think 12 shares in that refurbished company for one TMT share may not be fair, but I agree that it is
reasonable, and also agree with the expert that the SOA is in the
best interests of holders here.I also agree with you that there may be information that is unrevealed to ordinary folk, but I also think that perhaps such info is better left unrevealed - not so as to bamboozle shareholders, but to preserve integrity.
cheers
