RCF were just sitting and watching our shareprice trickle down (would love to see broker data for a Month or two prior to the announcement) and were probably just waiting for the bottom before releasing their 'premium' when VWAP was at it's lowest.
I think it got to about 26c (on the back of zero news for nearly a year mind you, probably a big part DUE to pending merger equalling radio silence, and nothing needing to get finshed so it COULD be released), then a lot of EPA being due talk was growing, some buying over a week or two saw the price back to 30c, and it was maybe one or two days after TMT got a shout out in one of the major newspapers as a 'Buy' due to the likelyhood of some big announcements to drop, RCF knew this was likely the bottom of the downtrend, and now it's time to release the offer at TMT's lowest VWAP point (at a premium to it of course).
I can't remember if that news tip mentioned EPA or maybe just an 'announcement', maybe they had gotten wind of the merger and figured the offer would be at a traditional premium, or that the prospect of this great new company would bring in a lot of new buyers.
Point i'm making is it is an extremely lowball offer made at the most opportunistic time, and everyone can see it.
This is not PLS buying out Altura or whatever Sabine keeps referencing as a valid comparison/lesson, TMT was not bleeding cash and up to their eyeballs in debt that an unfair lowball offer should be considered reasonable because it saves us from bankruptcy. We had cash to keep going past EPA approval, completing our bankable financial model, and then with a project ready to go, maybe financing talks could have gone a little more seriously, maybe V price improving changes the talks itself. Ian speaks of not receiving a queue of lending offers despite sounding out the potential, but was that even realistic in this economy, at this point in the V price and without full approvals or a finalized financial model? I don't personally find that a valid reason to completely throw in the towel at this exact point in time.
UNLESS, maybe there was a genuinally premium offer on the table that gives SOMETHING or a reward back to shareholders right now, and that also offered them the possibility of more opportunity in future.
But instead we received this 'lifeline' offer as if we are on the ropes with zero prospects, and as for future opportunity, we get a minimum 1 to 2 year setback in timelime, and a (possible but probably likely) higher chance of getting funding when the day comes... That is not a good enough or even 'reasonable' enough incentive to accept an utterly unfair and extremely lowball offer.
RCF and AVL thought a campaign of scare tactics or simply throwing their 'yes' weight around early would make up for bending TMT shareholders over on their share offer. Like I said before Ian should have fought for much better terms, but I get he's in a tough spot (I imagine if it was AVL alone or an outsider Ian would have spat on the offer, but RCF and their 19% makes all the difference) and maybe he hoped TMT shareholders could just look to the future and not be focused on being bent over now (that perspective is much easier when you are not one of ones being bent over), but as he was in a tough spot, we can acknowledge for him that this deal sux, we don't need it, it's unfair, and we demand something better. Simple IMO.
Expand
