Ann: Notice of General Meeting/Proxy Form , page-25

1851 I agree with much of your post and gave you a TU

However others must not agree with your reasoning as they have marked you down.

It is worth repeating some of what you wrote as this does co-incide with Darryl's words to me on the many occasions that I have rung him

"I asked him why shareholders were left in the dark regarding the negotiations with RMS etc. He said he couldn't make any statement to the market without prejudicing the the deals he was discussing. A 'deal half done' announcement wasn't on obviously. This is a valid point I think.

He also added that although the results from Barlee were a bit disappointing, a review was showing some new potential and he didn't want to downgrade Barlee value during the negotiations.

He mentionion Africa, and as another poster on here noted, he thinks it's interesting, if it can be purchased at the right price. He said he had actually walked the ground with his geologist.

I asked him what was so good about the Barlee deal. In summary he said (1) a good price for gold in the ground, (2) good royalty, (3) low risk, (4) no large capital raising, (5) no share dilution' , and (6) return to shareholders on royalties."

I have learnt the hard way the following:

It is sometimes much easier to believe the words of newcomers as I have not had the experience of their practise, and it is also human nature to want to believe in a story that at the time sounds so good, that is untill the penny drops.

But usually by then it is too late.

Good analogy with the KRudd v Howard story and how that unfolded, I'll met my leftie that many, many people wouldn't vote that way again.