Share
6,391 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 403
clock Created with Sketch. 24/08/22
10:36
Share
Originally posted by LM77
↑
Did I hear correctly that JE said he has been involved in the project since 2011? Sorry I can’t bear to listen to that drivel again to confirm. Both videos were a sad, poor attempt to cling onto power providing no clear explanations for grievances that shareholders have had for many years now. The way I see it, under new leadership from GW there is a risk in the project suffering some delays as he finds his feet but I measure that risk against the continued bumbling along of the current leadership with their mistakes and missed timelines. I also measure that risk against what do I think of GW’s ability to reinvigorate the team and company and add value to the share price in the lead up to raising equity, and, I might add, the ability to raise equity without requiring the massive discounts PB needs to offer time after time. Even if you consider a scenario where both sides of this vote manage to get the project through a successful FID, at that point, who do you think the share price would be higher under, GW or PB? This has been a huge part in why I voted for GW because I have faith in his ability to be able to drive the share price higher therefore delivering to us far more value long term. To get any decent returns it is critical that the share price be much higher when the equity is raised. For the stage we are at we should be at least double, if not triple the current share price, so how do you measure PB on that performance metric over what has been a long innings. To continue the cricket analogy it’s a very poor strike rate and time the umpire raised his finger.
Expand
My question would be can the new "team" raise the required amount of debt. IMO it'd be no good having a high SP if we end up having to give half the company away as equity.
Last edited by
noodly :
24/08/22
(20min delay)