I was referring to the fact that they called the Glencore deal a...

I was referring to the fact that they called the Glencore deal a “binding agreement” (several times), when in reality it had not been completed and was subject to Glencore’s “absolute discretion”. There may have been an aspect to it that was binding, but overall it was misleading to write that headline. If it was really binding, Galan would have been able to use it to secure funding, but five months later they are scraping the bottom of the barrel with this ATM.

Likewise the export licence announcement looked good on first reading, but not on the second. Why announce it as a “commercial agreement” rather than the MoU that it really is? There are a number of hidden aspects to the announcement. How much are the “advanced payments” and what are the terms of the converter JV? Is there anything else they have left out? GLN is one of those companies where I now approach announcements with suspicion.

I am just baffled as to why they keep building these ponds when they don’t have any money. The reality is that this company has been in a financial crisis since about February, and until they resolve it properly, the share price will remain under pressure.

The interesting aspect to this company, however, is whether it will attract a bid. It could really do with one.