I was at the meeting and I am pretty sure the reason they pulled...

I was at the meeting and I am pretty sure the reason they pulled resolution 5 was because they didn't have the votes.

They will have to get some money from elsewhere if they really need it but it was always questionable in my mind what they needed the money for in the first place. The explanitory note certainly didn't give any clarrity.
For Penumbra they can now draw from ABSA. As some of you had expected there were conditions with the ABSA loan that said they had to do the upfront spend before drawing down. Penumbra can be funded by debt now so they don't need funds for that unless they have a major cost blow out and given the stage of development (first coal Oct/Nov) they should have pretty good handle on that.

The 2 operating mines are supposed to be cash flow positive and with Penumbra now able to draw on debt what was the $10m for?? exploration? the rest of Marshalla??

Given that they can't get the $10m now I think they will have to curtail anything not associated with Penumbra, Vlak or Fereria but that was not clearly explaind.

Now that the initial Botswana drilling results are out and given the share price they should be curtailing anything not already committed to preserve cash but I got the impression they cared more about growth than preserving shareholder value.

The 15M working captial fund form ABSA is not there anymore. Some rubbish excuse about balance of equity with debt within CCC but I think ABSA pulled it (I would if I was them given the market cap).

They are looking at the sale of other asssets and buyins but it is all very vague and I don't have confidence in anything they are telling us anyway. De Witt can't possibly be funded given the current state of the company (so don't hold your breath on any announcement on De Witt starting) so CCC focus should be on getting Penumbra producing.

Peter got extremely pissed off at being questioned about where the money went from the Socius raising and the SIOC injection. Inspite of resolution 5 being up for vaote he could not see the relevance of the question in the meeting. It is obvious to me they don't think shareholders should be questioning this level of detail. The annual report may give better detail but I find they usually don't, big number against very short discriptions.

They say that dilution is their last resort but Resolution 5 and history tells me otherwise. The fact that they hung Resolution 5 over the only recent bit of good news we had coming(Botswana) shows a disregard for the share price. Iam almost certain that Resolution 5 didn't have full support of the board so don't hang them all for this.

The money raised from the SOCIUS raising was supposed to pay off all of the remaining Marshala stake but instead only half was used for that (hence Marshala is only 86% ours) and the rest was used elsewhere. Disappointing that the money wasn't used for its stated purpose (Marshalla) and had shareholder known how it was going to be used would they have voted for the raising??

Also disappointed that very few, if any of you, showed up. A lot of angry people here, a lot of venting (understandably) but the meetings are your only chance to really apply the pressure and hold the board accountable. Please make the effort to attend the AGM. All the side conversations that go on will be a lot more informative than the AGM itself and those side conversations are the real gems not the meeting itself.