Thanks Pebbles for your comments on my post. They are...

Thanks Pebbles for your comments on my post. They are appreciated.
We are in agreement with regards your second last paragraph as for financing and the need to minimize dilution, and the leveraging we can use to raise capital because of the value in Federation. Balancing the ship is important here because obviously a loss making entity in the interim between finance and product outflow is less attractive to potential lenders, than a profit making entity. My concern as voiced in my first paragraph surrounds available cash to expedite mine development, pay costs associated with approvals etc and perhaps modify existing mills. I don't feel sufficiently informed as yet to see what exactly is required and where we are headed. So any immediate funds required to get to the 'product outflow' stage is difficult to gauge and this obviously relates to the financing requirements. My concern over a positive December performance v the total quarter was viewed with the equity raising in mind, with obviously a good performance over a month not being viewed as favourably as sustained profitability throughout the quarter. Consequently, I don't see that we are in the strongest of positions, hence the depressed share price. That's not a good look for the Board.
I also agree with your final paragraph based on the net tangible asset backing of 24cps. Sadly the 10-11c current price reflects in my opinion the immediate past financial performance, management performance (including that of the board) which for two years has been embarrassing and costly, and the wait for Federation. If the ducks line up for Federation and timeframes are announced and delivered on, we could reasonably be expected to see the SP appreciate towards the 24c figure. Once Federation begins delivering 24c should look cheap. However, having watched our SP get decimated over the last two years from around 64c, waiting three years to see it get back to even 24c doesn't go down well.
You do mention the measures the company has taken to reduce costs and also that there is still fat in the system. I agree with both. The examples I gave were mostly specific to management and board including their remuneration, head office expenses. etc I wanted to see them do something tangible to acknowledge their shortcomings. The shift in head office was to connect better with the operations and with the people on the ground, and again reduce the costs of leases in Brisbane, travel costs etc. Brisbane seems too far removed especially when things go awry as they apparently had been for too long. It took two weeks after Clifford's resignation to get better performance. Why did it take so long to realize things needed addressing? We had an AISC at Hera of $6000/oz because we were trucking ore to surface at a huge cost. Why was this allowed to happen? Where is the accountability?
Posters have also commented in the past that this Board, under the Constitution, has no requirement to own shares. So without having skin in the game, their empathy with the plight of shareholders is questionable despite what they say. The question here surrounds governance and is an issue for an AGM. Likewise I believe incentive shares for compartmentalized performance is a nonsense. If I'm correct Clifford walked with incentive shares while at the same time the MC declined from around $550 million to $150 million. This is an issue for the AGM and the Remuneration report, but I believe a Board that has the best interest of shareholders at heart, should see how unjust this is, and make the necessary changes for the future. This would entail linking any future incentive plans to overall company performance in tandem with specific criteria such as safety etc. for which satisfactory performance is required and justly rewarded.