Ann: TMT Investor Presentation December 2023 - Scheme Webinar, page-94

You have a better opinion of Prentice than I my friend.


It was Mark G from Cumulus who tipped TMT as a buy on a Sunday in 2 Victorian newspapers.

TMT announced the trading halt and merge the very next day.

I'd imagine a wealth fund manager who had just tipped TMT as a buy, and no doubt informed Prentice of his intention, was absolutely livid to be made a fool of the very next morning.

You talk as if IP is a hostage in this.

I can give you a couple of examples in the last 12 months where he has absolutely shat on shareholders.



There is absolutely no doubt in my mind, that IP has been saying one thing and doing another for 12 months.


I'd invite you to download and listen to the webinars and podcasts in the last 12 months, and find even one mention of a takeover or SOA or even a hint of not going it alone.

You won't.

A lackey of the moneymen doing their bidding for a last payday.

I'm astounded that a single person thinks IP has a shred of integrity remaining after all this.

If TMT want to call me again, and ask me to remove a post, they will get the same answer.

I'm not suggesting for a second this will happen, but a loss of 15 mil on one side will surely be more than made up for with grants etc contributing some $$ towards CAPEX that RCF (for example) would otherwise have to fund on the other.

RCF could simply say, we back company A as company B has shown 'over the last 18 months' an inability (or whatever) to advance the project and we withdraw our support.

I cannot see any reputational damage to RCF in this hypothetical situation?

And lets be honest, if one company went to the wall, the takeover of the tenements would be a pittance surely?


Look this is all a 'what if scenario' but I'm sure the question must have been asked by someone?

It's not like either side aren't talking to each other surely?

If the takeover is to be done, then AVL need find out how, and the only way to do that must be to find out what some shareholders require to turn the No into a YES to get it done.

That's basic logic.

Now wether that's happened yet, it's not my place to say, but again, common sense dictates that these conversations need to happen at some point - yes?

Nothing will get sorted one way or another until AVL / RCF stop pretending they have the numbers.

They don't - that's no secret, as 17% have declared, and if anyone cares to read back all the threads in the last 30 days, it's easy to find another 2 or 3 % of shareholders who have said on here that they are not involved with any group or declared to market, but will be voting NO.

That's 19 - 20% who have publicly stated their NO vote.

That's enough.

All parties involved know this, so continuing on with pumping up this 12:1 SOA is pointless.