Originally posted by EWexplorer
That's not a fair summary … let's face it the CR was a "dogs breakfast" with undefined price, complex formula, and then the vague clause about the top up facility.
Be different if everything for WKT was plain sailing and the SP had run after the ML.
Basically the CR is now a big VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE IN the board, specifically TB.
It is a fair summary, although I do agree that the board could have done a much better job of explaining the structure, what its overall funding requirement was and how the 2 components worked together. This shortcoming is the reason I spent so much time stressing that the full amount could be raised under the SPP and that the board should let that happen and not resort to the top up facility if SH support was sufficient. For that I was often accused of being a lackey for Patterson's when the complete opposite is true (and quite frankly totally obvious).
The sheer lack of understanding on this board as to why the issue was partly underwritten almost takes my breath away. Same with the price setting mechanism, which is not uncommon, particularly in this sector. The price setting mechanism and the restriction on selling (a great idea) meant that the SP had a better chance of holding up and in this market trading around 0.11 down from 0.145 is not bad, no matter how much we may wish it held up better. In this space a capital raise virtually always results in a SP fall. Knowing the issue was at least partly underwritten with the top up facility as a backup actually gave me some confidence this was the final issue prior to putting the project financing in place, which made me more inclined to take it up in full, and not be diluted, or at least not much, which I did. Criticizing it was a shot in the foot!
All the talk about timed news releases to pump and then dump also simply created fear and is based on nothing but hollow conspiracy theories, most of which seem rather self contradictory or at least not well thought out. Another shot in the foot!
There is an issue with director and management remuneration, but it is industry wide, nation wide and global, so carrying on about it here and now was simply detrimental and should have been left until the meeting. A third shot in the foot!
