Your claim that the announcement was poorly written is curious. You don't attribute anything to either the fact it should not have been poorly written to begin with, or that it was indeed written as intended. If it is was merely poorly written as you claim, who wrote it poorly? Who proofread the poorly written announcement? How could the board approve that pathetic thing of an announcement??? Vile stuff!
You also ignore that there is a clear conflict between what was written in the April DFS and the announcement? Why did the author/s not include an explanation for the deterioration in position between then and now? Do you consider the omission of explanation to be also down to a poorly written announcement, or do you consider the author/s weighed the explanation/s inclusion versus the explanation/s exclusion? Do you think the board would have been favoured or harmed by an explanation?
You state that financier/s may have considered the amount of offtake, and thus adjusted down the amount they would be willing to finance. Isn't that itself a cause for concern??? Are you also not trouble by the resultant drop in expected sales and that impact on the viability of the company?
The announcement surely required serious reflection before filing with the ASX. The reconstruction that is required at tomorrow's webinar can't be completed by just by JM, the board must front the market too given they authorised it. It's hard to think kindly of the board; will JM distance himself from the announcement and the board approvers, or is he as responsible as the board given he is the managing director of the company?
ADN Price at posting:
6.1¢ Sentiment: Hold Disclosure: Not Held
(20min delay)