"It is exactly this sort of comment that sees me still posting here:"
Self serving sentence. However, I don't believe that is why you post. But I don't care what motivates your incessant posting. However, this post is as flawed as many of your previous posts and I think other posters can make their own assessment as to the facts.
At least I can demonstrate why your argument is seriously flawed.
"
In no reality can this be classed as "not critical" and just "lax management", and in my opinion, given your purported expertise and standing with other holders, you should not be making such comments when they are clearly incorrect."
Oh please - you should make some sort of an effort at least. '
In no reality' - seriously? Actually, my point stands - it is not critical. It is simply and unarguably - demonstrably
not critical. The facts establish that position.
"
you should not be making such comments when they are clearly incorrect."
You have failed to demonstrate where I have been incorrect - yet again. If, you had made a coherent and logical argument and established an error in my 'not critical' assessment, then I would withdraw my comment. However, you have not managed to do so.
Strikingly, your argument falls at the very first test. Did you notice this part of the sentence from the announcement, "
depending on the relevant conversion price"? An event is '
dependent' on another unknown variable and you say I am making "clearly incorrect comments! What? That is what I referred to in my earlier post by, "reading in its entirety". You have not done that.
That is the first variable in the equation (and it is fairly significant one). Although, as usual, you skip right past a fact that will have significant bearing on the outcome. And you go on to draw conclusions that cannot be supported by the known facts.
Notwithstanding your desire to 'tag' me - the fact is that the announcement today was not pointing to a critical event for the company. It is not ideal - agreed. However,
it is not critical. The announcement highlighted facts and noted possible remedies. That is all it did.
It might become problematic
if and when they can not convert the notes. However, should we not wait for the EGM as a first step? Or, do you expect that all holders should now writhe around in concern based on your fictitious concoctions?
It seems that there are always logical flaws in your posts.
I cite the following to
substantiate my point regarding these flaws in this post.
"
The Company is in discussions with the ASX in relation to this matter." (my emphasis added)"
In discussions with the ASX - that's it? And you even had to bold this simple fact? Why?
Please read the
explanatory note at the beginning of Chapter 7 of the ASX listing rules - it encourages companies to
discuss these matters with the ASX - that's exactly what TV2U are doing - even you had the good sense to quote that line! You should have read the first page of chapter 7 - it might have saved you some time.
http://www.asx.com.au/documents/rules/Chapter07.pdf
And the further this mess spreads.
"
it now rests solely with the ASX to determine whether they will provide TV2 with relief from their obligations under 7.1 If the ASX does not grant relief then the company has stated:
Here is yet another example - you cite the sentence above and also use that as a basis for suggesting that my assessment of 'not critical' is somehow flawed. The ASX
do not provide relief. They simply establish the company's position (by using a mathematical formula) under listing rule 7.1 - provide relief - really? I am not convinced that you appreciate what, providing relief means.
The issue with the CN's will, in all likelihood, be resolved at the EGM. An assessment of the company's obligations under listing rule 7.1 will be established by reference to the ASX listing rules. That is a future event - we are not entitled to draw conclusions based on the relevance of an unknown variable (conversion price) that will shape the form of a future event.
Listing rule 7.1 rules
cannot be applied arbitrarily. It is a matter of the application of a mathematical formula. The ASX will apply the well established formula under listing rule 7.1 - they have no choice.
"
If the company is not able to convert the initial convertible notes due to errors in calculations, what confidence does this give to the other party? This company is running on fumes at the moment and the petrol station they were planning on using to drop a quick $20 in the tank just turned its lights out and closed for the night as they were approaching. Hopefully they have enough fuel to get to the SOL one further up the road."
And this is how you conclude your paltry offering. A paragraph that starts with "if" Iand it is a very big if at this stage) but yet arrives at a conclusion. Tortured metaphors - running on fumes, petrol stations, lights out etc. It is very difficult to take this post seriously when one is faced with this as the concluding paragraph.
And yet I am the one who you claim to be "clearly incorrect"? Fair go!
