Ann: Trading Halt, page-108

One could argue that shareholders that bought in post announcement of being fully funded via a debt facility have been mislead and may not have bought in if they knew it was going to be fully funded via equity.

further the dilution of raising $100m via scrip significantly lowers the potential takeover premium and may be receiving a portion of what they may have received it they stayed with a debt facility (I would say many people buy west African gold plays for takeover upside as aussie market generally discounts the asset).

that aside I imagine most people are just annoyed as it seems like a back peddling moment. you're pretty much saying that either way they're fully funded so it doesn't matter, but it does. i don't remember the MD discussing even the notion of possibility of this being fully funded via equity at any conferences or presentations. THATS why people would be annoyed. and then the skeptics will look beyond face value and ask the questions why did they opt out? are they thinking they can't meet production guidance and don't want to be underwater with repayments? Do they think the assets repayment period won't be as what they've publicly said?

i don't necessarily endorse these views completely but that's why people are irritated - it's not a matter of being fully funded either way, it's the way it has been done and why it's been done and the implications of equity only funding.