I do have some time constraints so will be sporadic with posting. But let me answer this now:
You:
“So on what basis do you say that? Where exactly do you see me indicating such a misunderstanding?”
You from a prior post:
“Unstated but implied (I say this for your benefit) a contract is a contract is a contract. Get the terms of it right and its enforceable (that's the point of a contract) and it makes for a good deal - don't and it isn't…If the contract (the one I'm showing from an ASX announcement over three years ago) is worldwide and can be exercised because its well constructed there is no urgency - its only if it isn't that there is”
The option creates the urgency. They have expiration dates. This creates a decision for Killian/the board: to exercise it or not. I don’t think you have weighted this as highly as it should. Does anyone know the expiration date? No. Does anyone know the cap for royalties? No. Are these types of contracts routinely shared by boards of publicly listed companies? Also no.
At some point you have to realise that your argument is also relying on a vagaries of a contract you are not privy to. The crux of the argument comes down to whether you think spending $230k/900k shares is worth it at this juncture. I would say yes (because I had in my mind a figure significantly higher than that). You say no. That’s fine. I’m not going to tell you how I came to my figure as that’s my IP.
I also want to put on the record that I have not spoken to Killian about this at all and furthermore I don’t have any access to information that has not already been made publicly available. Just to put this weird idea that there are dual classes of shareholders to bed.
