MTR supporters indicate that they are 'direct investors' and the...

MTR supporters indicate that they are 'direct investors' and the MTR board composition makes sense.. a bunch of ex-investment bankers and one mining veteran - on paper they should have the capability and depth to evaluate mining investments.

MTR has stated that they can see value in Chatree mine and they will conduct the negotiations with the Thai government better and have a Thai connections to expedite the mine restart.

But if MTR are so in love with Chatree why not initiate a Take-over or Trade sale - surely that would extract more value than going into the trouble of initiating a board spill.

Why would direct investment company take on the risk of controlling a board and operating when they have show no appetite in the past to operate mines... perhaps a new strategic direction? I think not. Why take a sudden change in direction... Investor in MTR would be wondering why I am investing a company that were 'previously direct investors' now there are in the business of board spills and operating mines.. Why the sudden change of 'risk appetite' ? Sounds a little reckless to me?

So if you a company not in the business of operating mines and have not communicated to your shareholders nor have you taken any strategic reviews .... and why would have you chose to take the risk of a board spill? What is in it for MTR and their investors?

These are questions are relevant and MTR supporters have conveniently avoided. Well we already know the answer their agenda is simple... they failed to monetize their Thai Zinc assets (IPO) and trying to interfere with KCN's so they can expedite approval of their zinc asset and hence de-risk those assets.

If MTR are successful with their board spill where does that leave KCN shareholders?
- TAFTA claim jettisoned,
- RI claim jeopardized
- no cash or interest to develop the Chilean asset
- and a bunch of amateurs running the company.