Ann: Trading Halt, page-37

So the shares they are issued don't have a value? Doesn't dilute holders as a result?

The overall costs to the company for wages hasn't reduced, has it? Less cash, but still a drain on mxc value and will show as much in end of year reports. Just as cancelling the 100m performance shares last yr added $6m to the balance sheet and hid their real losses. So come end of year, the overall benefits received by the board will be as high if not higher than last year. Add in 'related party transactions' and they will have had a bumper year. All smiles, even after a 'pay reduction'.

I keep piping on about Malta as they keep listiing it as a key plan for mxc but seem to have excluded it from calculations when it coles to required funds and how long money will see them through. They have no clear path to funding it but are pushing it as a key part of their core business. Personally I think suggesting they have enough money to see them through when they are just simply excluding Malta from their cash requirements and calculations is misleading. Whether it is LSE or elsewhere there needs to be a significant CR or cash injection and further dilution does there not?

Brett has quite clearly tried to paint a different picture and you seem happy to assist?