The information in this post is researched from official ASX...

The information in this post is researched from official ASX information, is relevant to the thread and includes links to the information contained in websites of repute.
https://www.marketindex.com.au/asx/nmt
https://hotcopper.com.au/threads/ann-change-of-directors-interest-notice-x-3.6823648/#post-62325865

Gccc12, that is NOT CORRECT, YOU are wrong again

Les Guthrie had the option to buy shares in the institutional/ Sophisticated placement as a NON HOLDER.

By doing this he would have qualified for the full allocation of options on offer as well.
Les was in the management team where they collectively decided how to raise the capital and in what proportions.
What $ allocation was institutional and what $ allocation was retail.

The other directors bought shares as a collective agreement, knowing full well the optics of not doing so. SEE BELOW.

The directors made a big deal of saying that Each of the directors of Australian Mines has committed to take up their entitlement
LES was entitled under the terms of this capital raise to use the institutional route and no one would have argued about that.
((Each of the directors of Australian Mines) is a collective term for all AUZ directors)
That includes LES, WHO DID NOT PARTICIPATE

Les knew that he could participate in the institutional raise to show solidarity with other directors and shareholders at the time of CR design.
Les chose not to participate, Instead Les chose to participate in the NMT capital raise. (I would have done the same, by the way)

The take away message shows that a director on $1600.00 per day chose not to participate in AUZ but did participate in NMT.
The optics in my opinion show that LES felt there was better value in NMT because that is where he put his money.
This information is in my opinion and the source materials are public information.

Just to remind you of the facts.



Just to remind you who is a director


Just to substantiate my research into NMT with a date